Catholic Candle note:  The article below refers to Rome’s betrayal of the Catholic Faith.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that Pope Francis’ betrayal somehow means that he is not the pope.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope). 

We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

➢  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html  

or

➢  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when he is bad:

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

However, even while recognizing the pope’s authority and our duty to obey him when we are able, we know we must resist the evil he says and does.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

 

VC II Set Up a Distinction of Compromises

Without a Difference

Starting in 1965, most Catholics compromised their Faith and followed liberal leaders into what became the conciliar church.

In 2015, most Traditional Catholics compromised their Faith by following liberal leaders into a changed SSPX which accepted increasing liberalness.

After the Second Vatican Council, when the conciliar church of the ‘60s and ‘70s set out to destroy the traditional Catholic Church, they depended on the love and trust of most Catholics for their cardinals, bishops, and priests, plus the average layman’s love for his Church, plus their assumption that Church leaders neither would nor ever could do anything contrary to the welfare of Christ’s Church.  After all, the bishops confirmed them, and the priests baptized, instructed, and confessed them with a father-like affection. Why wouldn’t they accept and believe their pastor of many years?  And besides, everyone else went along (i.e., to get along). 

In addition to that, they were told repeatedly that the Catholic Church is old and slow and needs to keep up with the ever-changing world.  Their pastor said change is good and necessary to improve church attendance (and revenue), and that it was also necessary to be “open to the world”.  Moreover, (the pastor added) the Church has to be more like the world, more accepting of humanism, and more open to compromise, in order to be with the world.

So, what did nearly all low-information “Sunday” Catholics do?  They accepted wholeheartedly the conciliar church because their Faith became more fun with clown masses, no more confession “box”, etc.  There was group reconciliation with our fellow man, etc.  And besides, everyone goes to heaven now.

A billion or so Catholics went along with the changes, placing their salvation in ever-greater danger.  They went along to get along.  They tried to avoid losing friends or family by not objecting to what was happening to their Church and by not fighting against the changes listed below.

➢  The “elimination” of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and its replacement with a non-Catholic service designed with the help of six Protestant ministers under the direction of a notorious Mason.

➢  The “elimination” of the Holy Sacrament of Penance and its replacement with “reconciliation” with your fellow man.

➢  The “elimination” of the truth that there is No-Salvation-Outside-the-Catholic-Church, and promotion of Religious Liberty for error.

➢  The “elimination” of the need for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by promoting Universal Salvation (i.e., everyone goes to heaven)

➢  The “elimination” of the Sacrament of Confirmation (no need now with universal salvation).   There is no need in the conciliar church to fight for Christ the King.  There is only the “entrance into the [so-called] adult christian community.”

➢  The “elimination” of the primacy of the pope in favor of a democracy of bishops and cardinals, as well as the parish and diocesan councils.

➢  The rejection of the one true Church founded by Christ, in favor of a pan-religious aggregate of hundreds of protestant and other “churches” with “various degrees of communion” (as VCII and the conciliar church likes to say).

➢  The acceptance of easy (so-called) annulments which function as divorce on demand.

Archbishop Lefebvre fought hard against the errors of Vatican II and set up an uncompromising Traditional Catholic Society (i.e., SSPX) to help followers to fight against the evils of VC II that have deprived most Catholics of the usual sources of sanctifying grace which are so essential for salvation. 

The Society remained an uncompromising traditional Catholic haven throughout the world until the death of the Archbishop.  The new leaders of the Society were not opposed to compromise.  They were most interested in being in a “partnership” with the anti-Catholic conciliar church.  They wanted to be accepted by them and wield some influence in Rome, with the false dream of converting them.

In reality, Rome won’t convert until the pope and the bishops of the world consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

With the increasing liberalism in the SSPX, there is less and less difference between the positions of that group and the liberalism which has been promoted by the conciliar church for decades.

The following is a list of conciliar liberalism, showing that the distinction between the mainstream conciliar church and the “new” SSPX increasingly is a “distinction without a difference”.  The now-liberal SSPX and its compromised followers must now accept/condone: 

❖  That the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[2]  The truth is that the scope of religious liberty which Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[3]

❖  That there are no errors in the important Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[4]  The truth is that there are hundreds of liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium.[5] 

 

❖  That Vatican II does good, because the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e., deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[6]  The truth is that Vatican II does not do good.

 

❖  That there are degrees of being in communion with the Catholic Church.[7]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind.  Id.

 

❖  That Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[8]  The truth is that this is a vile, thoroughly-conciliar document.

❖  That Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in it.[9] 

 

❖  That the Jews did not commit Deicide.  The truth is that, because Jesus Christ is God, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  The “new” SSPX[10] joins Vatican II contradicting the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[11] 

 

❖  That by making a practical agreement with Rome, the “new” SSPX “will return to the Church”.[12]  The truth is that Traditional Catholics are in the Church and have no need to “return”.

The SSPX wants you to believe there can be necessary and good compromises to be made. That can never happen.  All compromises are bad when they are about the traditional Catholic Faith or morals.  The first compromise leads to the next one and a person becomes willing to accept progressively larger compromises. 

The distinction between 1960 and 2015 is merely a difference in time.  Both groups – not only the then-soon-to-be Novus Ordo Catholics of the 1960s but also the increasingly liberal SSPX followers of 2015 – had (have) to accept the evil changes of VC II.  But between the two groups, there is little actual difference.  Through these compromises, both groups increasingly jeopardize their salvation.