Wherever you may stand as a Catholic (presuming you, the reader, are a Catholic -- and a Catholic who acknowledges His Holiness Benedict XVI as true pope, in the full and formal sense of that office), the present volume is invaluable. It is naught else than a one stop shop for providing a vital defense of the claims to papacy for the most recent occupants of St. Peter's Chair, as against those cluster of theories continually gaining ground amidst a growing bloc of people throughout the world. The latter individuals are claiming that, while the Catholic Church is indeed the "true Church" and continues indeed to exist, She is nevertheless living during a time of untold crisis, a crisis of such magnitude that the last few would-be popes were either full-blown impostors or otherwise somehow lacking with respect to their formal papal capacity. As one common version of this theory goes, the popes from Blessed John XXIII up to the current Holy Father were and are, in very truth, none other than ANTI-popes! Said "cluster of theories" surrounding the validity and/or formality of the papacy of the would-be Popes reiging during and after Vatican II is that which constitutes what is generally referred to as "sedevacantism".
Now, ironically enough, the authors of the present book are themselves members of a now famous (or infamous) traditionalist and canonically irregular organization, the Society of St. Pius X. Now, this might appear to pose a difficulty: many of you may well be concerned about learning to dispose of the arguments of a certain sort of traditionalist dissident by way of the rebuttals of still *another* traditionalist dissident group (even if, albeit, the latter is of a much lesser and more debatable degree properly called "dissident"). As appropriate as this worry may first appear, consider an opposite outlook on this issue:
As I see it, the authors' arguments might come across as all the *stronger* precisely in virtue of their very dissident status with respect to the contemporary Popes! As odd as this may initially seem, I believe this is so for the following reasons:
(a) Needless to say, as members of the Society the authors have been and largely continue to be themselves incredibly unhappy with the post-Vatican II popes and indeed, at the time of the book's publication, the Society had yet to be offered by Pope Benedict that amazing olive branch of a *possible* and *eventual* (overt) reconciliation with the Holy Father and the whole Church. Indeed, as a matter of plain fact, the state they were actually in at the time *prior* to such overtures by Rome would have been, so it would seem to the Society, rather a cause for grave suspicion regarding Rome: for then all appeared insoluble and that, at best, the Society was in for a very-long haul(decades, perhaps centuries away, before Rome, so the Society would think, came to its senses). Likewise consider that the Society then viewed (and continues to view) Rome itself as *responsible* for the Societys plight in terms of exile and the suffering this enduces; indeed, whether right or wrong in this assessment of theirs, this firm judgment on the part of the Society would surely NOT lend any within the Society's ranks unto an affective _sympathy_ for those "annoying" and "unrepentant" present-day popes!
(b) The arguments given in this book *stand or fall* ENTIRELY APART from the Society's own unique and problematic positions. Thus, if said arguments stand at all it is b/c they have rightly reasoned from principles applicable in ANY era of the Church and are capable of rightly being utilized by any and all obedient members of the Catholic Church of any age. Indeed, the very arguments proffered, if they go to show anything, go to show that the papacy remains (or, alternatively, must be presumed to remain) validly and formally in play (i.e., no pope ceases to be pope and no one elected to the papacy is prevented from becoming pope) EVEN UNDER THE WORST OF SCENARIOS FOR THE CHURCH THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED. Indeed, even should one deny their own assessment of the present-day Church crisis, one can still consider the implication of said assessment under a hypothetical mode and thus appreciate all-the-same the fundamental import of their arguments.
(c) There's also something to be said for the proof being in the "pudding" of their own behavior... Indeed, even if one cannot relate to members of the Society and their unique struggle, the fact of their struggles are undeniable (as indeed Pope Benedict admits). The question of whether said struggles were and are ultimately their own fault or Rome's fault or somewhere in between is really irrelevant to the point that they did indeed suffer terribly by virtue of their gravely deficient decades-long situation appertaining to the Church and also by virtue of their feelings of near despair regarding what happened to most of the Church after Vatican II. Thus, reasonably speaking, we simply cannot deny that in many ways, struggling as they struggled, going the way of the "there just is no pope" crowd (the sedevacantists) might have very often seemed tempting, as the far "easier" choice, requiring far less heroism -- and thus the far easier option apropos of which to rationalize in favor. For the members of the Society to instead "stay" (in some sense of stay, however imperfectly) within the ambit of a contemporary Church in which they felt (and feel) immensely isolated and hurt cannot help but say something about the quality of their moral fibre (however misplaced) and, moreover, the utter firmness by which they hold certain very Catholic convictions regarding the need for the papacy!
Lastly, (d): The present work is simply the ONLY full-length book out there that does any where near a decent job rebutting the "sedevacantist" positions. (I add, however this caveat: much needed adulation apropos of the brilliant ARTICLES re: the same subject written by the great Father Brian Harrison is very much in order -- a great and holy priest IN NO WAY related to the Society and, indeed, an /overtly/ faithful, loyal and fiercely pro-papal son of the Church.
Now, ironically enough, the authors of the present book are themselves members of a now famous (or infamous) traditionalist and canonically irregular organization, the Society of St. Pius X. Now, this might appear to pose a difficulty: many of you may well be concerned about learning to dispose of the arguments of a certain sort of traditionalist dissident by way of the rebuttals of still *another* traditionalist dissident group (even if, albeit, the latter is of a much lesser and more debatable degree properly called "dissident"). As appropriate as this worry may first appear, consider an opposite outlook on this issue:
As I see it, the authors' arguments might come across as all the *stronger* precisely in virtue of their very dissident status with respect to the contemporary Popes! As odd as this may initially seem, I believe this is so for the following reasons:
(a) Needless to say, as members of the Society the authors have been and largely continue to be themselves incredibly unhappy with the post-Vatican II popes and indeed, at the time of the book's publication, the Society had yet to be offered by Pope Benedict that amazing olive branch of a *possible* and *eventual* (overt) reconciliation with the Holy Father and the whole Church. Indeed, as a matter of plain fact, the state they were actually in at the time *prior* to such overtures by Rome would have been, so it would seem to the Society, rather a cause for grave suspicion regarding Rome: for then all appeared insoluble and that, at best, the Society was in for a very-long haul(decades, perhaps centuries away, before Rome, so the Society would think, came to its senses). Likewise consider that the Society then viewed (and continues to view) Rome itself as *responsible* for the Societys plight in terms of exile and the suffering this enduces; indeed, whether right or wrong in this assessment of theirs, this firm judgment on the part of the Society would surely NOT lend any within the Society's ranks unto an affective _sympathy_ for those "annoying" and "unrepentant" present-day popes!
(b) The arguments given in this book *stand or fall* ENTIRELY APART from the Society's own unique and problematic positions. Thus, if said arguments stand at all it is b/c they have rightly reasoned from principles applicable in ANY era of the Church and are capable of rightly being utilized by any and all obedient members of the Catholic Church of any age. Indeed, the very arguments proffered, if they go to show anything, go to show that the papacy remains (or, alternatively, must be presumed to remain) validly and formally in play (i.e., no pope ceases to be pope and no one elected to the papacy is prevented from becoming pope) EVEN UNDER THE WORST OF SCENARIOS FOR THE CHURCH THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED. Indeed, even should one deny their own assessment of the present-day Church crisis, one can still consider the implication of said assessment under a hypothetical mode and thus appreciate all-the-same the fundamental import of their arguments.
(c) There's also something to be said for the proof being in the "pudding" of their own behavior... Indeed, even if one cannot relate to members of the Society and their unique struggle, the fact of their struggles are undeniable (as indeed Pope Benedict admits). The question of whether said struggles were and are ultimately their own fault or Rome's fault or somewhere in between is really irrelevant to the point that they did indeed suffer terribly by virtue of their gravely deficient decades-long situation appertaining to the Church and also by virtue of their feelings of near despair regarding what happened to most of the Church after Vatican II. Thus, reasonably speaking, we simply cannot deny that in many ways, struggling as they struggled, going the way of the "there just is no pope" crowd (the sedevacantists) might have very often seemed tempting, as the far "easier" choice, requiring far less heroism -- and thus the far easier option apropos of which to rationalize in favor. For the members of the Society to instead "stay" (in some sense of stay, however imperfectly) within the ambit of a contemporary Church in which they felt (and feel) immensely isolated and hurt cannot help but say something about the quality of their moral fibre (however misplaced) and, moreover, the utter firmness by which they hold certain very Catholic convictions regarding the need for the papacy!
Lastly, (d): The present work is simply the ONLY full-length book out there that does any where near a decent job rebutting the "sedevacantist" positions. (I add, however this caveat: much needed adulation apropos of the brilliant ARTICLES re: the same subject written by the great Father Brian Harrison is very much in order -- a great and holy priest IN NO WAY related to the Society and, indeed, an /overtly/ faithful, loyal and fiercely pro-papal son of the Church.
