Jt: Why don't we let the Holy Father Benedict XVI, speak for himself, concerning the New Mass. A 1999 letter by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
on the reform of the Liturgy Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's, publishedan exchange of letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the
reform of the sacred liturgy. (Natasja Hoven, who works with the Swedish Catholic website Katolsk Observator,
made the following translation of these very important letters.)

Letter from Fr. Matias Auge to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Rome, 16 November 1998
Most Reverend Eminence,
I beg you to excuse me for venturing to write this letter. I do it in humble simplicity and also with great sincerity. I am a professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant' Anselmo and at the Theological Faculty of the Pontifical Lateran as well as Consultant of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I have read the conference that you
gave some time ago on the occasion of the "Ten Years After the Motu Proprio 'Ecclesia Dei'" ("Dix ans du Motu Proprio 'Ecclesia Dei'"). I must confess that its content left me deeply perplexed. In particular I was struck by the response you gave to the objections made by those who do not approve of "the attachment to the old liturgy". It is on this that

I would like to pause a little in this letter to you. The accusation of disobedience to Vatican II is fended off by saying that the Council did
not itself reform the liturgical books but only ordered that they may be revised. This is true enough, and the affirmation cannot be contradicted. However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that not even the Council of Trent reformed the liturgical books, as they only occupied themselves with the very general principles. To execute the reform as
such, the Council asked the Pope to do it, and Pius V and his successors implemented it in a most loyal way. Therefore, I cannot understand how the principles of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass, presented in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 47- 58 (thus not only in nos. 34-36 as cited by Your Eminence), may be in harmony with
the re-instatement of the so-called Tridentine Mass. If on the other hand we consider the affirmation of Cardinal Newman mentioned by you, namely that the Church has never abolished or prohibited "orthodox liturgical forms", then I ask myself if, for instance, the admirable changes introduced by Pius X in the Roman Psalter (Breviary CAP) and by Pius XII in the (ceremonies for) Holy Week have abolished the old Tridentine orders or not. The above mentioned principle could make some people think for example, in Spain that it is permitted to celebrate the old
Spanish rite the Visigothic, (which is) orthodox, and return it to its place after Vatican II. To say that the Tridentine Rite is something different from the rite of Vatican II does not seem accurate to me: I would say that it is contrary to the notion of what is meant here by rite. Therefore the Tridentine Rite and the present one are one and the same rite: the Roman Rite, in two different phases of its history. The second objection was that the return to the old liturgy is likely to break the unity of
the Church. This objection is met by you in distinguishing between the theological and the practical side of the problem. I can share many of the considerations made by you in this respect, except some that are not historically sustainable, as for instance the claim that until the Council of Trent there existed Mozarabic Rites (of Toledo and other places),
which were then suppressed by the same. The Mozarabic Rite was in fact suppressed already by Gregory VII, with the exclusion of Toledo, where it still remains in force. The Ambrosian Rite, on the other hand, has never been suppressed. Thus I cannot understand why it has been forgotten what Paul VI says in the Apostolic Constitution of April 3,1969, with which he promulgated the new Missal, namely: "We are confident that this Missal will be received by the faithful as a means of testifying to and confirming the unity of all, and that through it, in a great variety of
languages, to our heavenly Father will rise one sole and identical prayer." Paul VI desired that the new Missal should be an expression of unity for the Church. He then adds in conclusion: "What we have here established and ordained, we wish to remain valid and effective now and in the future, despite what may be contrary to it in the Constitutions and the Apostolic Decrees of our predecessors, as well as other
provisions also worthy of mention and exception."

I know the subtle distinctions made by some persons who are legal specialists or considered as such. I believe, however, that these are mere "subtleties" not meriting much attention. One could cite several documents that clearly show the intention of Paul VI in this respect. I can only remember the letter of October 11, 1975, which Cardinal J.
Villot wrote to Monsignor Coffy, president of the French Episcopal Commission for Liturgy and the Sacraments (Secretariat of State, no. 287608), in which he said, inter alia: "By the Constitution Missale Romanum, the Pope prescribes, as you know, that the new Missal should replace the old one, notwithstanding the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of his predecessors, which consequently includes all
the dispositions made in the Constitution Quo primum and which would have permitted the preservation of the old Missal [...] In short, as mentioned in the Constitution Missale Romanum, it is to the new Roman Missal and nowhere else that the Catholics of the Roman rite should look for the signs and the instrument of the mutual unity of all ... ."
Your Eminence, please let me say, that being a professor of liturgy, I find myself in the position of teaching facts that seem to me different from those expressed by you in above mentioned conference. And I believe that I have to continue on this road of obedience to the Pontifical Magisterium. I also lament the excesses with which some people after
the Council have celebrated and still celebrate the reformed liturgy. But I cannot understand why some eminent Cardinals, not only yourself, think it opportune to call into question a reform approved, after all, by Pope Paul VI and to open the doors more and more to the use of the old Missal of Pius V. With humility, but also with apostolic frankness, I feel the need to state my opposition to such an outlook. I prefer to say openly
that which many liturgists and non-liturgists, feeling themselves to be obedient sons of the Church, say to each other in the corridors of Roman universities. Your most devoted [servant] in Christ,
Matias Augé, CMF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to Matias Auge
February 18, 1999
Reverend Father
P. Prof. Matias Augé, CMF
Istituto "Claretianum"
L.go Lorenzo Mossa, 4
00165 Rome
Reverend Father,

I have attentively read your letter of November 16, in which you express some criticism in respect to the conference I held on October 24, 1998, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei."
I understand that you do not share my opinions on the liturgical reform, the way it has been implemented, and the crisis deriving from some of the tendencies hidden in it, such as desacralization.
However, it seems to me that your criticism does not take into consideration two points: The first one being that the Pope John Paul II, with the indult of 1984, under certain conditions, granted the use of the liturgy preceding the Pauline reform; thereafter the same Pope in 1988 published the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", manifesting his wish to
please the faithful who are attached to certain forms of the earlier Latin liturgy; and furthermore he asks the bishops "by a wide and generous application" to allow the use of the liturgical books of 1962.
The second one is that a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.
Thus, these two points, namely the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and his pastoral and respectful concern for the traditionalist faithful, that must be taken into consideration. I, therefore, take the liberty to add some answers to your criticism of my speech.
1. Regarding the Council of Trent, I have never said that it should have reformed the liturgical books; on the contrary, I have always emphasized that the post-Tridentine reform, situating itself in the continuity of liturgical history, did not wish to abolish the other Latin orthodox liturgies (which existed for more than 200 years); neither did it wish
to impose liturgical uniformity. When I said that even the faithful who use the indult of 1984 must follow the decrees of the Council, I wanted to show that the fundamental decisions of Vatican II are the meeting point of all liturgical trends and are therefore also the bridge for reconciliation in the area of liturgy. The audience present actually understood my
words as an invitation to an opening to the Council, to the liturgical reform. I believe that those who defend the necessity and the value of the reform should be completely in agreement with this way of bringing Traditionalists closer to theCouncil.

2. The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy. However, it is true that a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.
3. I do not wish to enter into all the details of your letter, even if I would have no difficulties meeting your various criticisms against my arguments. However, I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for
instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called "creative" applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation,
the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is in my experience an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the "traditionalists" to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split
between the two Missals. However, I thank you for your courage in addressing this subject, which has given me the occasion in an open and frank way to discuss a reality which is dear to both our hearts.
With sentiments of gratitude for the work you perform in the education of future priests, I
salute you,
Yours in Christ
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger

The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. And while during an interregnum the church is "Popeless," for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is ten times greater than that one. Thus the visibility of the Church, embodied in the person of the Roman Pontiff is non-extant. In this awful scenario, the only true Church is constituted of individual priests and bishops in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, and none of whom report to anyone higher than themselves as authorities. This is not a visible Church; it is a Protestant Church. [Brother Andre Marie M.I.C.M]
While this author has more than a few problems with the flawed theology of Saint Benedict's Center, the above statement by the SBC's Brother Andre Marie is on the money. The necessity of the Roman pontiff was noted by Vatican II in the Dogmatic ConstitutionLumen Gentiumwhich declared that:
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.(30) [1]
Footnote 30 of the Dogmatic Constitution notes that this teaching was a reaffirmation of an earlier teaching from Vatican I:
30. Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.) [2]
Therefore, both Vatican Councils taught the perminence and the source of unity of the Church and its visible foundation depended on theperpetualexistence of the Roman Pontiff. Now it is true that the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' take the position that there is a valid pope today in Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) regardless of what they personally think about him. However, not all 'traditionalists' take this stance. A more consistent strand of 'traditionalists' styling themselves as "sedevacantists" hold a minority position in the movement but one that is nonetheless necessary to address since this is the logical outgrowth of 'traditionalist' philosophy. (Much as agnosticism is the natural outgrowth of religious skepticism in general.) Therefore, this essay will be devoted to refuting theheresyof sedevacantism.
To address the sedevacantists claim (that the See of Peter is vacant), we will start by reflecting upon what Our Lord did in his time when amongst the wicked leaders of Israel. This is not a claim that the popes since John XXIII have been wicked of course. But let us grant the sedevacantist their premise briefly to therefore refute their foolishness. Let us look at how Our Lord handled Himself in the days of the Pharisees. Now Our Lord theologically was of the Pharisaic movement himself - being of the more conservative school of Hillel. (As was the Apostle Paul.) When speaking of the authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees shortly before issuing scathing rebukes against them, consider how He approach the authority that they claimed to wield. According to the Douay-Rheims Bible, He commanded obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees when they are seated on Moses' Seat (Matt. 23:1-3). Since he castigated them for personal failing and for following their own traditions in numerous places of the New Testament (see Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13), it is strange that He did not claim that through their errors that they had "forfeited" their positions of authority to teach. But maybe the sedevacantists do not use a translation mirroring the Douay-Rheims Bible. Perhaps in the "Holy Bible: Revised Sedevacantist Version" Jesus addressed the problem in the following manner:
Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; unless you think they are teaching erroneously upon which ye may depose them for their seat is thus vacanted. 4 (Upon such a vacancy you must adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees of "the Eternal Sanhedren" which you should have no problem determining for yourselves even if your level of theological knowledge be no more than that of a small child's.) [3]
Yes the actions of Our Lord at the time must have been endorsing a deposing of the High Priest and declaring the Seat of Moses vacant. There is a lesson here that needs to be taken into account and it is this: if Jesus did not usurp the lawful authority of the very high priest who had Him put to death (Matt. 26:57-64), if He counselled the Jews to obey the teaching of the Scribes and the Pharisees, then the reader needs to ask how these sedevacantists get off thinking that they can disobey Church authority and be in like with the teachings of Christ. How can they "hear the Church" or "if they refuse to heed the Church be treated as the heathen and the publican" if the individual can decide when and under what conditions they will be faithful??? The answer is they cannot but instead the same error of private judgment that so ensnared the Jansenists and the Protestants - and even the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' - is magnified in the case of the sedevacantist. And it is magnified to the point that what is a defacto heresy for others constitutes actual heresy objectively speaking for the sedevacantist. Let us start from Chapter I in the Dogmatic ConstitutionPastor Aeternuswhich to the knowledge of this author is from a Council that even the sedevacantists recognize as a valid Ecumenical synod.
In Pastor Aeternus, the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ promulgated at Vatican I, we are taught about the indefectibility and perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church. These two principles are intertwined in a Dogmatic Constitution of a General Council for a reason. Note carefully the context please:
Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.
The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment,the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. [4]
The perpetual principle of the Roman Pontiff is tied into the visible foundation of the Church. Likewise the canon following the first chapter which solemnly reaffirms the following:
Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema. [5]
Chapter I and its accompanying canon declare that the Pope is the visible head of a visible Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. This last phrase forms the basis of the attribute of indefectibility that the Church possesses - an indefectibility that sedevacantism denies by logical extension. This means that the Church as a visible organization will stay a visible organization to the end of time. Consequently, she will have a visible head of the Church leading her to the end of time. This is a defined doctrine of the faith which is denied by sedevacantist theology. Therefore, they are by this reason heretics unless they cease being contumacious in their denial of the above doctrine both de facto as well as de jure. But that would mean ceasing to be a sedevacantist of course.
Chapter II of Pastor Aeternus is about the perpetual primacy and succession of the See of Peter. Here is the text of additional points fatal to the sedevacantist position:
That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvationand permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock,will stand firm until the end of time
{See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}.For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}.
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}.
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:let him be anathema.[6]
To culpably deny this solemn recapitulation of Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution is to espouse formal heresy. Vatican I said so; ergo, the sedevacantist must either repudiate Vatican I or selectively choose which parts they will accept. Either choice sets them outside the Catholic Church since the visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists deny this explicitly in claiming that the Papacy has, de facto disappeared for 25 years, 45 years, or whatever arbitrary period they choose. Therefore, to be a sedevacantist is to renounce the Catholic faith. Quid pro quo.
There have been four elections to the Chair of Peter since 1958 which have been accepted both by the Catholic Church as well as the world at large. Sedevacantists declare them to be invalid elections. This author asks them then to point out who has held the papal chair since 1958 if not for Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla. To be a Catholic one must affirm the permanence of the primacy of the Roman pontiff: a prerogative impossible to do under the sedevacantist theology. Since the sedevacantist seems to consider themselves and their allies as competent judges of what is and is not orthodox we must ask them this question:whohas the responsibility of saying that the pope's election was doubtful??? As there has been no answer definitively set forth by the Church, no one is obligated to believe that an election is invalid simply because a little sliver of theologically inept dissidents feel as if somehow they have been vested with supreme theological acuity to see what the Magisterium of the Church supposedly does not see. The reality is, the only way that Vatican II or the post Pius XII popes can be shown to have "erred" is a process that Protestant apologists use consistently with popes and Councils of the pre-Pius XII period.
It is just as easy to prove that Constance "contradicted" Vatican I or that Trent "contradicted Florence" as it is to prove that Vatican II contradicted any doctrine of previous popes. Anyone can prooftext. Yet proof-texting without taking into account the sitz im leben of a document is to play the role of a self-anointed Protestant pope. And self-styled 'traditionalists' practice the very private judgment that Fr. Luther used at the Diet of Worms and that the Jansenists used in opposing themselves to the "Humanist influenced" Council of Trent. Yes, just as Vatican II has been labeled by so-called 'traditionalists' as "Modernist-influenced", so too was Trent labeled as "Humanist-influenced" by the Jansenists. They were the originators of the idea that they could determine when the Pope was infallible and (if they declared he was not), they sought to justify ignoring his authority and decrees. A sedevacantist is no less a heretic than Calvin and company if they stubbornly persist in promulgating the sedevacantist lie in the face of at least 2 solemn de fide declarations of the Church.
The sedevacantist may claim that the four popes elected since Pius XII were (and are) invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. (The lie about Pope John XXIII being a freemason comes to mind.) But for argument's sake, let us concede the argument that Papa John was a freemason. First of all, by the very Apostolic ConstititionVacante Sede Apostolisissued by Pope Pius XII in 1945 it was made quite clear that even freemasons would be eligible for election not only to the College of Cardinals but also in the conclave they could be validly elected as pope:
None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor. [7]

"Active" in this context would seem to mean that such a Cardinal can vote in the election, while "passive" would seem to mean that he himself can be elected. This type of provision has been substantially the same in all papal conclave legislation for the past few centuries. And by all accounts it would be unavoidable that the governing Constitution of the 1958 Conclave - even if Papa John was a freemason - would have allowed him to be a validly elected pope. And in such a circumstance, he would have full authority and jurisdiction as any other pope. He would not govern licitly of course; however he would govern validly. And as a validly elected pope, he would have the authority not only in disciplinary and governmental faculties (such as the appointing of Cardinals such as Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan) but ratifying as binding magisterial teaching on the Church. With regards to Pope John XXIII it is not as much him that the sedevacantists seek to deny but the binding authority of the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (Solemnly promulgated by John XXIII's successor Pope Paul VI.) This is what sedevacantists seek to deny with their claims of a "vacant seat" in Rome. If they spent more time taking a fully orbed understanding of the Catholic faith (and not limiting themselves to the overly-juridical Western Aristotelian tradition common to the second millennium) they might see the Eastern mysticism that permeated many parts of Vatican II. (This is most notably in the Dogmatic Constitutions Lumen Gentium/Dei Verbum, and the Constitutions Sacrosanctum Concilium/Gaudium et Spes.) This writer has covered elsewhere the amateur manner in which self-styled 'traditionalists' read and properly comprehend magisterial documents. The logical extension of the dogmas on perpetual primacy of the Apostolic See were outlined in the following manner by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his theology manualFundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others.The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it(Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17). [8]

It is impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not to be a heretic. Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy for all time according to Vatican I. Where are they??? If Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla are not the valid successors than the sedevacantist has just conceded that Christ Jesus was a liar and that Vatican I erred. The Fathers and Scholastics and post-Scholastics would have condemned as heretical or at least savouring of heresy someone who dared to controvert the decrees of a General Council as self-styled 'traditionalists' so often do.
Even the earliest of Fathers in the era of the General Councils declared that controverting a General Council was a crime (the very word used by St. Athanasius the Great). Thus, though Vatican II stands controverted by the self-styled 'traditionalist' who rejects its teachings, due to the lack of promulgated dogmas of faith, a charge of heresy cannot be levied for this except indirectly. (Since denying the authority of the Second Vatican Council is to reject the indefectibility of the universal church.) Thus while rejecting Vatican II can be at most schismatic and proximate to heresy, denying the dogmas outlined above which were taught by the First Vatican Council is perfect grounds for a censure of heresy. That is really all that is needed to refute sedevacantism as a viable alternative. For as (i) Vatican I defined as divinely revealed not only the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (ii) his perpetual necessity by Divine design, there is no ground left that is solid for the sedevacantist to stand on. So (iii) there is no need to entertain this sedevacantist heretical foolishness any longer.
The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Bibliography:
[1] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23 (November 21, 1964)
[2] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23, footnote 30 (November 21, 1964)
[3] Matthew 23:1-4 (Revised Sedevacantist Version). Credit for the concept goes to Gary Hoge who developed this theme into a "Holy Bible: Revised Protestant Version" parody back in 1999.
[4] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[5] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[6] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §2 (July 18, 1870)
[7] Pope Pius XII: Apostolic Constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolis" §34 (December 8, 1945)
[8] Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 282 (c. 1960)
Additional Notes:
The citations from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" were obtained at the following link:www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen
The citations from the First Vatican Council were obtained at the following link:www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

@ F Loughnan: "”Canon I. If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God…let him be anathema."

What Mass would that be, Father? Certainly not the Mass of Paul VI which hadn't been "invented" yet. Even the Holy Father has described the Novus Ordo as is generally practiced as a "banal, on the spot product." His words. But a sacrifice is offered at some point.

No worries. I think the "Ordinary Form" will run it's course and, once it's devotees of the generation that made the mistake of embracing modernism have passed, it will be shelved as a bad experiment that went horribly wrong and caused the loss of countless souls and immeasurable damage to the Church.

But it is a sacrifice.

PROTESTANTS, Radical traditionalist, non-judgmental-judgmentalist, AND OTHER NON-CATHOLICS DO NOT HAVE THE FAITH
Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will... Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will"(Saint Thomas Aquinas,Summa Theologica, II II, Q.5, A.3).

rhemes,Yep, that's what he did! No surprise to me. No use in arguing with him, he is a slave to his intellect, full of intellectual arrogance, pride and anger. One good thing came out of this thread for me, I know that you are not a radical traditionalist. NEVER let protestants like woody confuse you. Now you know what questions to ask.

God Bless You,
Happy Easter,
John

Fr. John Loughnan,I noticed that you had an article by Art Sippo. He post in this forum a lot:www.surprisedbytruth.com/forum

It's a very good forum, WELL, maybe not for radical traditionalist.

John

Woody,Do you really think I'm going to respond and debate you when you start quoting "experts" you think justify you protesting position? I answered your questions and quoted the catechism. That's why I asked if you had one. You said you had 4. Do you have a problem with the Catechism? If I want to hear liberal or rad-trad opinions I can find a disobedient "Catholic" news paper. Plenty of "experts" there!

John

Woody,Just a little side note: It's my opinion, that most people in the Catholic Church will not be saved.

John

Yes thebedards I have four Catechism's

Question 1 do you believe that false religions are means of salvation. ?
By a false religion do you mean a religion that would teach that Vatican II was corrupt or the Novus Ordo Mass was not valid?

Question 2 do you believe the Catholic Church is the one and only ark of salvation. ?
I believe that the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church instituted by God

Question 3 do you believe people who knows the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ but do not join her are they saved ?
Any one knowing the truth of the Catholic Church and doesn't enter can not be saved.

Question 4 do you believe in Catholic, infallible dogma outside the church. There is no salvation. ?
Yes, I believe that all salvation flows through the Catholic Church. That is why I believe the teachings of the Church. See next post.

@jabulon:

Yeah, looks like some kind of Alien-Religion in Star Trek ...

...live long and prosper and may the force be with you!