Sedevacantists and Web Design

I recently came across what I would call a sedevacantist website, but maybe that isn't the most accurate term. As best I can tell, this website details the great conspiracy many years ago to hide the truly elected pope and replace him with an antipope.

The site is called The Pope in Red and while I do enjoy the conspiracy theory types, I was most struck by the terrible design of the site. The page is littered with text and pictures and it is difficult to understand what is actually being alleged without some digging and conjecture.

So I was amused to come across a second site a few days later which boasted a similar bad webdesign by another sedevacantist type. For a few minutes I thought I had stumbled upon some great correlation: RC conspiratists have very poor web design skills. What could be the connection?

But lo and behold when I checked the bottom of the site I noticed the two sites were from the same group/author. In fact, the logo for the sites all link back to this site which offers a few more websites to peruse. My favorite part is this page. Not only does this person believe freemasons overtook the papacy, but they also were involved with 9/11.

Of course, anyone who buys into any of the 9/11 conspiracies is a kook in my opinion, but the freemason stuff isn't as out there as some might think. When I went to see Gerry Matatics he also believed that freemasons had infiltrated the Vatican yet I wouldn't consider Gerry a kook. Wrong, but not a kook.

But it's all entertaining in my book.

Follow the Pope

On a previous post bkaycee asked,

Is the rejection of the current pope, by sedavacantist, the only major difference between them and Catholics "in good standing"?

I am certainly no expert on sedevacantism, but I would say there is more to sedevacantism than rejection of the current pope, but the other issues are sorta interwoven. Sedevacantists do not accept the last four/five popes as true popes (considering them heretics) and reject the Vatican II Council, considering many of the Vatican II teachings to be inconsistent with historical Catholic theology.

As a summary point from The Aquinas Site states:

"'Vatican II' and its 'popes' have taught, adhered to, acted in accordance with, or failed to condemn a plethora of heresies, including religious liberty, universal salvation, the efficacy of non-Catholics sects for salvation, the blasphemy that Jews & Muslims worship the One True God, the evolution of dogma, etc. They have also destroyed the faith of tens of millions, and Karol Wojtyla ('John Paul II') describes this whole process as a 'new Pentecost. In other words, he thinks it is good, and wants the Holy Ghost to take the blame ('credit')."

Wikipedia lists sedevacantism as a subset of Traditionalist Catholics but sometimes it is difficult to know where to draw the line amongst the groups. The various Traditionalists have differing "sticking points", but an opposition to the "Novus Ordo" seems to be a common thread. Some Traditionalist Catholics are in communion with Rome, some are not, although the status of the relationship with Rome can be unclear making it difficult to ascertain who is or isn't in "good standing".

Case in point, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) claims to not be schismatic, yet a recent article outlines a reconciliation attempt by the Vatican with SSPX. Interestingly, the conditions of the reconciliation focus primarily around allegiance to the Pope:

"Vatican sources confirmed that the reconciliation proposal included the possibility of establishing a "personal prelature" or a similar canonical structure for the society, which would allow the society a certain autonomy...The conditions laid out by the Vatican were:

-- A commitment to a response that is proportionate to the generosity of the pope.

-- A commitment to avoid any public intervention that does not respect the person of the pope and that could "be negative for ecclesial charity."

-- A commitment to avoid "the pretext of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father" and to not present the society in opposition to the church.

-- A commitment to demonstrate the will to act honestly in full ecclesial communion and in respect of the pope's authority.

-- A commitment to respect the date, fixed for the end of June, to respond positively. This deadline is described as a "necessary condition" for the preparation for a reconciliation."

I have often thought that Rome is willing to allow a fair amount of disunity in thought as long as an outward unity to authority is maintained. This article seems consistent with that idea. It seems unlikely, though, that there will be any reconciliation with the sedevacantist subset of Traditionalists anytime soon.

And since we are on the subject, I came across an online version of The Ottaviani Intervention, a book that deals with the Novus Ordo issue and was recommended by Gerry Matatics when I heard him speak.

ADDED 6/29/2008: Gerry Matatics was on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio show in April discussing sedevacantism. The MP3 is available for download.

Sedevacantism Debate

In prior discussions here on Gerry Matatics, some of us have expressed a wish for a debate between Gerry and a popular Catholic apologist (Hahn, Akin, Madrid, etc.). Well, such a debate has still not materialized, but I did come across a debate between another Sedevacantist (John Lane of The Aquinas Site) and Robert Sungenis.

The MP3 files of the debate can be found here

A video series of the debate is also available on YouTube

Catholic vs Catholic

I found this quote amusing.

This is a traditionalist/sedevacantist Roman Catholic writing about original sin and calling Karl Keating a Pelagian. I will say, this particular website provides a good deal of documentation to support the claim that modern-day Roman Catholics diverge from historical Roman Catholicism.

"Present-day Pelagian rationalists, who reject the doctrine of the transmission of guilt from Adam, like to say that as a consequence of Adam’s sin people are merely deprived of supernatural benefits to which they have no claim: they are not guilty and they are not being punished for that guilt. According to them, man was simply reduced to his natural state after Adam sinned. The Pelagian Karl Keating of “Catholic Answers” well summed up the contemporary Pelagian position with the following claim.

“Adam and Eve committed the original sin--called ‘original’ because it occurred at the origin of the human race. They incurred guilt for that sin. Their offspring – including us – did not. What we have been saddled with is not the guilt of their sin but the consequences of their sin. They forfeited the preternatural gifts God had given them, and that forfeiture has extended through all the generations. But the guilt of that first sin was theirs alone.” (E-letter of February 10, 2004)

We shall now see the texts of the councils of Carthage XVI, Lyons II, Florence and Trent in which the Catholic doctrine of original sin was defined..." Source

(Update: a commenter has alerted me to the fact that the website linked to above contains some anti-semitic material and perhaps other inappropriate material. I certainly don't endorse that type of viewpoint nor do I agree with the non-offensive sedevacantist theology, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are a subset of Roman Catholics who believe the current RCC has drifted from historical Roman Catholicism and can provide a fair amount of documentation to back up their claims.)