I have been a sedevacantist for 10 years. Only recently have I begun to wonder how easterners felt about this belief. I attend a Society of St. Pius V Mass (Latin) that holds true to the practices and teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II and I believe that because of the Heretical (I know some of you may bite my head off) actions of JPII that he cannot be a true Pope. I do believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, but do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy.

What I am wondering about is if there are any Eastern Rites who believe the same about JPII and I would like to know how much the Eastern Rite Mass has changed after the 60's?

If there is any who are familiar with this topic I am looking forward to your reply.
Thank you,

[This is a not great way for one Latin to welcome another Latin to this Forum

BUT I think that maybe you could be a wee bittie more diplomatic in your use of language.

The use of heretical is not really appreciated here

Pope John Paul II is the Bishop of Rome and was undoubtedly validly elected. If some of his actions were heretical (Assisi,Prayer for Islam co-celebrating with pro-abortion Lutheran priestesses) the only body competent to make that determination would be an ecumenical council or a successor Pope. We can not judge. I would not defend a good number of his actions nor more than I would defend Pope Alexander VI. But both were valid popes. We should pray for him everyday. He is a deeply prayerful and sincere man who errors on non ex-cathedra matters such as given a cushy post to Cardinal Law in Rome. David dabbling with Bethsheba did not make him invaild.

It is actually Vatican II that has to a great extent paved the way for us Eastern Catholics to return to our authentic liturgical, spiritual and theological heritage.

We are officially in communion with the current Pontiff, John Paul II, and acknowledge him as Pope of Rome.

I won't bite your head off, and I am not offended. I think I understand what you are saying. I think you mean the post-council craziness and liturgical abuses that have occurred in many areas of the West. As a Byzantine Catholic, I also hold that the Pope can not officially teach error when he speaks as successor of St. Peter on matters of faith and morals. But he can be totally wrong on anything else. One thing I think bears mentioning. Popes can hold erroneous, even heretical, views. I am not saying this pope does, but such can happen. Holding that office, or any other office in the Church, does not elevate the office-holder to sainthood. I meet Catholics everyday who have what I call a bad case of pope-olotry in that they wish to elevate the pope to semi-divine status. That's crazy! Popes are human beings and they can possess all the flaws the rest of us have. Sometimes we get popes who lead us to saintliness - sometimes we don't. Keep the Papacy in perspective.

In the Byzantine Catholic Churches, the Divine Liturgy has become more Eastern. After Vatican II, many of the Latinizations in the U.S. started disappearing. It seems we are being encouraged to return to our Eastern traditions and practices. So any changes after Vatican II have been good for us.

Much of Vatican II benefitted 20 of 21 rites. I do believe it harmed the Roman Rite.

It's much harder to keep perspective when there's no other Pope, in personal experience, to compare John Paul II to. (Or so I, as an under-25 Catholic, imagine.)

SEDE,

Welcome to the Byzantine Catholic Forum. I sympathize (and really don't have a problem with) the SSPX. However, I do disagree with Sedevacantism's stand that John Paul II is not a legit Pope (although many of his actions are deplorable). May I ask why you attend an SSPX Mass if you are Sedevacantist? You must know that the SSPX considers John Paul II a valid Pope.

I'm sure there are some Eastern Catholics, either individuals or communities, that are somehow connected to either the SSPX or Sedevacantism. In fact, I believe there was an article posted on the Forum some time ago about a Ukie Orthodox bishop entering/converting into either the SSPX or a Sedevacantist group.

Basically, though, Vatican II was much more of a help than a hinderance to Eastern Catholicism. Its effect on Latin Catholicism is, in my eyes as well as the eyes of countless others, a completely different story.

Dominus Vobiscum, Frater.

Logos Teen

Dear SEDE,

welcome to the forum. It appears that you have offended the Latin Lass of Loch Lomond. By what standard do you deem the Pope's actions heretical? One may question the prudential judgement or actions of the Pope, but one would hardly judge him a heretic. As moderator, I ask that you refrain from judging any one a heretic, when the competent authority has not done so. Please enjoy your time here while learning about the Apostolic Churches of the East

Teen,

SEDE is affiliated with the sedevacantist SSPV, not be confused with the Lefebvrist SSPX, which is not sedevacantist, and professes "filial devotion and loyalty" to John Paul II, Pope of Rome. There's a world of difference between the two groups as is inferred by the patrons of these respective societies.

We do not have authority to judge anyone a heretic.
But we could speculate upon the reaction of Pius X and Leo XIII based on their writings and those before him.
Where the current message is muddled and misses the clarity of the past, nothing compels us to abandon the previous clarity.
No one promised the road would be easy to see.
Our Lady of LaSallette blessed with a warning.
The Church remains the Church.
We were chosen to live in this age.
Rise to the challenge
Christos Anesti

Thank you for your replies.

It was not my intention to argue any of the proofs for my position or to convince any of you to join in them. I simply wanted to know how you felt about it and now I have an idea.
It has taken me a long time to understand the complications of the sede vacante position and I don't expect to be able to prove them in a few board posts. If however you are truly interested (for any reason) you should research why some Catholics hold this belief. You may start with this site http://www.stthomasaquinas.net
And then keep going...
If then anyone wants to try and refute it, have at it. I'm always interested.
As far as the use of the word "heretical" I didn't know that it was such a filthy word. I'll try not to use it the next time someone tells me that Our Lady wasn't a virgin. (Not)
Sometimes you just have to call it like it is and not worry about whose feelings you hurt!

St. Thomas Aquinas doubted the Immaculate Conception and Duns Scotus was proven correct. Does that make him invalid? Of course not!


The Novus Ordo is valid, but I avoid it whenever possible. Christ is still present through all the utter ugliness and trite people centered liturgy rather than God-centered worship. He did not leave a billion Catholics orphans.

Latin traditionalists in some quarters have nothing good to say about the churches of the East, Catholic or Orthodox.

They read Ludvig Ott and anathematize us. There are examples of this all over the internet.

But they hope we sympathise with their problems "over there".

Well, I don't.

My only disappointment is that we needed permission from Rome to push the Eastern churches back toward their roots. The bishops should have been able to do so without directives.

As for Sede vacante-ism, it has no basis in reality. To me it's a bunch of Latin Ultra-Montanists that can't figure out what went wrong.

Again, no sympathy from me.

Michael, that sinner

They are Ultramontanists and many have my sympathy. They know what went wrong; the Jesuits and Dominicans of the Nineteenth Century were outhustled by the bishops of Napoleon III, Garibaldi, Simon Bolivar and the Americanist heresy. Karl Barth, the theologian who replaced Thomas Aquinas in Vatican II wrote literally hundreds of letters to a female agent of North Korea in time better spent saying the rosary for the gift of heroic chastity. Pope Paul VI stated "The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary."

The new and improved catechism has a view of religious liberty that would make any freemason cheer in glee. Lefebvre,as a Frenchmen understood the nature of the bishops post-French Revolution and was in fact ordained by a freemason. Sede-vacants are in serious error, but Lefebvre was correct in his central insight on the 180 degree flip-flop on religious liberty. He objected more on this point than the Novus Ordo.

Vendee martyrs, Pray for us.

Personally, I have little sympathy for sedevacantists. They have left the Church (contrary to what they want to believe) and formed their own Church. Once you separate from a legitimately elected Pope, how are you different from any heretic or schismatic in the past?

I do have sympathy, however, for those who have struggled with the changes that occurred after Vatican II. It is hard to make such major changes to something so dear and important to people. It is human nature to be strongly attached to the outward form of something and begin to confuse it with the substance of the matter.

Personally I think that Vatican II and many of the changes associated with it have been a marvelous gift to the Church - all rites and Churches within her. I personally love the Novus Ordo Mass, when properly done - I find it very spiritually enriching. I also think it is because of Vatican II that the Roman Church has begun the process of fully recognizing the Eastern Catholic Churches (as well as the much-needed process of trying to reunite with the Orthodox Churches).

It always takes time for a Council's impact to work its way through the Church. The first 20-30 years were very difficult, and much harm was done. But this is due to those who tried to hijack the Council, not the Council itself. Those people are dying off, though, and I think that the Church is in a much better position to evangelize the world today than they would have been if the Council had not happened. Personally, I have no desire to go back to a time of endless anathemas and condemnations of anything outside of strict Latin theology. I also have no desire to return to a time when Pope=Church.

Regarding sedevacantists, I've always wondered, when two popes disagree, how do you determine which one was legitimate and which was not? Maybe it's John Paul II that is legitimate and Pius XI that was not? Who is the infallible determiner of which Pope is legit?

(BTW, for those who don't know me, I'm a Catholic convert who fully believes in the infallibility of the Church, as well as the infallibility of the Pope. But unlike some traditionalists, I don't think everything that comes out of the mouth of any Pope before John XXIII was infallible. A brief study of history shows the error of this view).

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out the Church is undermined when we now pray for what was specifically proscribed in PiusIX's Syllabus of Errors. Popes take an oath not to change or contradict those before them upon coronation.

When two seem to disagree, I would not follow the new in light of the oath of Papal Office. In Medieval canon law, the earlier view always took precedence.

Well, I'm not even close to a rocket scientist, so perhaps it's hard for me to understand.

Is PiusIX's Syllabus of Errors infallible and binding for all time? Are we bound to accept every papal statement, regardless of it's content and original application?

I have no problem contradicting a former papal statement if the current Pope contradicts it, as long as it is not on the level of unchanging dogma (such as the Trinity or the Assumption of Mary). I don't think the Syllabus falls under this category.
Note I don't think we should just throw out old practices either; much prayer and thought must be attached to any change, but I think this is the case with this Pope.

One example I heard from a sedevacantist was that the Pope promulgated the new Code of Canon Law which allows for Orthodox to receive communion under certain circumstances. Since this contradicts the 1917 Code, this Pope is a heretic and therefore not legitimate (and he had other reasons, of course). This reasoning is a joke, and reduces the Catholic Faith from an infinite, living mystery to a dead list of previous statements. There is no reason the Church cannot revise the practice of our Faith, in keeping with it's unchanging components. And I've yet to see an example by sedevacantists and hard-core traditionalists that was not just disciplines implemented for a certain time and place. Just because the Church feels today that a previous discipline or practice from the past is no longer valid does not make them heretical.

But this does not mean that we cannot disagree with the prudence of making certain changes. Personally, I think most of them have been good ideas, but if someone disagrees, that is fine. It is when we cross the line to calling the Pope a heretic, or calling his actions heretical that I think we put ourselves in a dangerous position. We are to give our spiritual leaders, most especially our bishop and the Pope, an "obedience of faith", even when we disagree with them.

Dear SEDE,

Sorry, my brother in Christ and Mary.

I don't remember the Holy Spirit leaving the church of Christ. Our Lord promised that He would never leave us. He entrusted to the apostles and their sucessors, Peter being the head, full authority over the Church.

By their fruits you will know them. Pope JPII
shows the fruit of a disciple of Christ. I pledge my obedience to John Paul II, successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

God bless you,

Paul

Thank you, Father Deacon. I misread SEDE's original post and mistook the "V" for an "X." Two very different animals.

Coalesco,

Don't knock Ott! The East just charms the pants right off of me, and I'm a traditional Latin who reads Ott. The two are not mutually incompatible.

Logos Teen

Pope Honorius
Pope Liberius
Popes can be wrong if not teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals.
If the current occupant contradicts 200 predecessors, call me crazy, I dont go with the new guy on that particular quite fallible issue.
They say the previous popes were products of their age.
mirrors anyone?
Yeah, products of a Christian Age, not a secular one.

I thought you might be interested in this since Liberius was brought up.

Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius, which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits), but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility, nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future, but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to), he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.

For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

more on this at: www.stthomasaquinas.net

There is a group that is currently causing problems in Ukraine who have placed themselves under schismatic bishops who are promopting old style uniatisms. Recently the Cardinal Husar informed the Catholic world he had excommunicated a priest who had placed himself under a bishop outside the church. The Society of St Josaphat is now doing to the Byzantine Church in Ukraine what the Society of St Pius X did to the Latin Church.

Very interesting topic.

This is about the Ukrainian bishops who have recently declared the See of Peter vacant. Does anyone have any followup on this? You may email me at stphilomenahelp@yahoo,com if you wish. God bless you.

Paul,

Welcome to the forum. Quite honestly, the topic is the subject of a 7 year old thread - and not of particular interest here, as sedevacantism is, generally, not of much concern to the East. We have a lot of issues that plague us, but it's not generally among them.

Even the Ukrainian 'bishops' of whom Paul spoke aren't really sedevacantists. Classically, they fall into the category of being vagante episcopi. You can find other threads regarding them here on the site


This one includes some links to others, here and elsewhere.

Many years,

Neil

The only vacant sede that matters to me is the sede of the Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh; and I'm not even remotely what you might call "worked-up" about it {{{yawn}}}}

Paul,

Someone has brought to my attention that some folks are under the misconception that the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church - another among the many 'independent' Ukrainian "Orthodox' and 'Catholic' 'churches' - is sedevacantist.

In fact, it isn't - which is about the only good thing one can say about it. Otherwise, it's just best described as strange.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks for the input regarding the Ukranian Bishops who have declared the Chair of St. Peter vacant.

Paul,

I think you misread my last post. There are NO Ukrainian bishops, Catholic or otherwise - not even those whose episcopal status is questionable at best and blatantly invalid at worst - who have declared that they deem the papacy to be vacant.

Many years,

Neil

Hello again. I'ts been a while since I last checked this topic. I am still interested, and I hope to read more on this matter as time passes. God bless you. Paul.

All anyone needs to know about sedevacantism is that it's as nutty as a fruitcake.

I clicked on that strange (to be polite) website and found this: "An appeal for resignation of ex-Pope Benedict XVI" http://uogcc.org.ua/en/actual/article/?article=5532 so I guess they have moved over to the 'dark side' and are now sedevacantists?

Originally Posted By: DMD

I clicked on that strange (to be polite) website and found this: "An appeal for resignation of ex-Pope Benedict XVI" http://uogcc.org.ua/en/actual/article/?article=5532 so I guess they have moved over to the 'dark side' and are now sedevacantists?

Ah, David, thank you for bringing that to our attention And, yes, so it would seem.

Knowing that the 'Patriarchate' has the matter well in hand, I can now sleep peacefully. (And to think that we once considered the Transalpine Redemptorists and the Society of St Josaphat to be the ultimate fringe groups to have derived from the Eastern Catholic sector.)

With all due respect to my Ukrainian brethren, Catholic and Orthodox, I find myself thinking back to a comment that I made here several years back. There is no question as to the devotion of the Ukrainian ECs and EOs, who truly suffered greatly for decades and yet continue faithful and observant members of their respective Churches, but the sheer number of Ukrainians who are compelled to erect 'their own' Church, Patriarchate. Metropolia, etc, is amazing.

Many years,

Neil

What's nutty is what happened at Vatican II. It taught things which the church had forbidden, establishing a new church. It's unclear if there is a pope, but there have been periods of sede vacante before and there's no teaching on their maximum length.

In 1861, Cardinal Henry Manning wrote: "The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ... Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."

At la Salette, our Lady spoke of a church in eclipse. She is now, which explains a lot.

Your observation about my Ukrainian friends reminds me of an old dinner 'joke' the late Bishop John (Martin) would tell many years ago.

It seems that there was a Carpatho-Russian boy named George who dreamed of being a sailor, even though his village was far from the sea. As time went by he came to America and joined the Navy. During the war his ship was sunk in the Pacific and he was the sole survivor. He was guided to a deserted island where he dedicated his life to St. Nicholas, the protector of sailors and he lived like a modern day Robinson Crusoe.

Many years after the war a Navy ship saw smoke from his fire and they came to rescue him. The sailors who came ashore were amazed to see the beautiful tropical home he built along with a fantastic chapel. However, they were surprised to see three abandoned, decrepit structures which clearly were churches at one time.

"I thought you said you were alone on the island," said the sailor to George. "Why are there three abandoned churches?"

"That's simple," said George. "I went to them before the fights broke out."

I am following all of this with sincere interest. I thank you all.

Paul,

While there are any number of folk here who are conflicted from time to time in never being sure of exactly how they should, would, or want to understand the papacy or how they'd prefer that the papacy understand itself, we none of us - Catholic or Orthodox - are unclear on whether there is a pope. So, let's make this clear from the outset - this is an Eastern Christian forum.

While we enjoy or cringe (depending on the particulars) the occasional reports of the antics engaged in by episcopi vagante, we are not particularly interested in the doings of those who cannot deal with reality - be they conclavists, mysticalists, or just outright sedes.

To us, when one speaks the term sede vacante, we're most apt to think sadly on our Ruthenian and Carpatho-Rusyn brethren, deprived of primatial hierarchs by the repose in Our Lord of Metropolitans Basil and Nicholas, both of blessed memory.

If you want to promote the belief that there is no sitting pope or that there has not been one for however many decades past that you so convinced yourself, I heartily recommend a visit to any of the hardcore trad sites, where the topic might be greeted and appreciated as news of the day.

It's unlikely to catch on here as a recurring or even one-off theme, likely being shelved until we do our next annual census of folk whose laz-y-boy recliners double as cathedras and whose neighbors turn green with the hope that they can someday afford such liturgical accoutrements to spice up their garage.

Many years,

Neil

Hi, Irish Melkite. I confess I'd not heard of that use of "sedevacantism". I'm not sure if Sielos was talking about that or about the SVism which concerns the Roman see.

Paul,

In describing it as 'nutty as a fruitcake' (an assessment that I might have phrased differently, but one with which I can't seriously disagree). my brother, sielos, was speaking of 'sedevacantism' as it is traditionally used by sedes - those who erroneously assert that the See of Rome is vacant by reason of the current and one or more prior popes not holding office validly.

The term 'sede vacante' is, literally, the 'Seat is vacant' - and refers to the interregnum between the death, resignation, or deposition of a hierarch and the election or appointment of a successor hierarch. It is most commonly heard with regard to the period subsequent to the death of a pope and the election of his successor, during which time the postage stamps issued by the State of the City of Vatican City have, historically, been overprinted with those words.

Although the context is less commonly used in common parlance, it similarly describes any other episcopal interregnum, such as is presently the case in both the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the US, the Sees last headed by the two beloved Metropolitans of blessed memory to whom I referred.

Many years,

Neil

Many thanks, Neil.

"Sede vacante" can also be rendered as "the see being unoccupied". I think it's an ablative absolute and describes a continuing situation. It's thus grammatically verbal while semantically adjectival. I assume that that situation describes what's happening in those dioceses you describe.

"Sedevacantism", a noun and the stated subject of this thread, is, indeed, generally used to describe the movement of people who hold the position that Rome has been deprived of a bishop, at least a visible one.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can describe the dioceses you mentioned as being sede vacante without being a sedevacantist. Above, I tried to explain why the latter position is based on fact - particularly the way that Rome has changed its teaching.

I appreciate this is an eastern forum, but I'd suggest that the matter is of relevance to all Christians, including those who call themselves eastern or Byzantine Catholics and/or uniates. The holy Ghost wouldn't change his mind.