Sede Vacantism - A Modernist Heresy

Sede vacantism is a movement that claims that the papal see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, or in some cases, since the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963. Sede vacantists reject the popes who have followed them, accusing them of being modernists and heretics who have departed from the true Catholic faith. 

Sede vacantists also reject the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, especially those concerning ecumenism and religious liberty. They believe that these changes contradict the previous teachings of the Church and undermine its unique role as the only true religion.

However, sede vacantism is incompatible with Catholicism for several reasons. First, it contradicts the doctrine of papal infallibility, which states that the pope cannot err when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. The popes who have followed Pius XII or John XXIII have exercised this authority on several occasions, such as when they canonized saints, defined dogmas, or issued encyclicals. To deny their legitimacy is to deny their infallibility, and thus to deny a dogma of the Catholic faith.

Second, sede vacantism contradicts the doctrine of the perpetual visibility and indefectibility of the Church, which states that the Church will always be visible to the world and will never fall away from the truth. The Church is not only a spiritual reality, but also a visible society, with a hierarchy, a liturgy, and a teaching authority. The pope is the visible head of this society, and without him, the Church would lose its unity and identity. To claim that the papal see has been vacant for decades is to claim that the Church has been invisible and defective for decades, and thus to deny another dogma of the Catholic faith.

Third, sede vacantism contradicts the doctrine of the providence and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who protects and assists the Church in fulfilling its mission. The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and he inspires and directs its leaders, especially the Pope, in governing and teaching the faithful. The Holy Spirit also guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church and that it will always remain faithful to Christ and his gospel. To claim that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church and allowed it to be overtaken by heretics and apostates is to blaspheme against him and to distrust his promises.  It is a sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32).

One of the most common arguments used by sedevacantists to justify their position that the See of Peter is vacant is that a pope who falls into heresy automatically loses his office. They often appeal to the authority of St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church and a renowned theologian, who wrote extensively on the question of the possibility and consequences of a heretical pope. However, a careful reading of St. Bellarmine's works reveals that he does not say that a pope ceases to be pope by the fact of his heresy alone, but only by the declaration of the Church.

St. Bellarmine considered five different opinions on the question of a heretical pope, and he rejected four of them as either false or improbable. The first opinion was that a heretical pope cannot be deposed by anyone, and must be tolerated until his death or conversion. The second opinion was that a heretical pope could be deposed by the Church, but only after a trial and conviction. The third opinion was that a heretical pope can be deposed by the Church, even without a trial, as soon as his heresy becomes manifest. The fourth opinion was that a heretical pope ceases to be pope ipso facto, by the very fact of his heresy, without any declaration or sentence from the Church.

He rejected these four opinions for various reasons, and he favored the fifth opinion, which he considered to be the most probable and safe. The fifth opinion was that a heretical pope does not lose his office immediately and automatically by his heresy, but only after he is declared to be a heretic by the Church. St. Bellarmine explained that this opinion is based on two principles: first, that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be its head; and second, that the Church has the power to judge and depose its head, if he becomes a manifest heretic.

St. Bellarmine argued that the first principle is certain and de fide, but the second principle is not so clear and certain and therefore requires some explanation. He said that the Church has the power to judge and depose its head, not by a superior authority, but by a ministerial authority, as an executor of the divine law that excludes heretics from the Church. He also said that this power is not ordinary and habitual, but extraordinary and rare, and can only be exercised in cases of extreme necessity when the common good of the Church requires it.

The scholarly saint gave several examples from history and Scripture to illustrate how the Church can judge and depose its head in cases of manifest heresy. He cited the case of Pope Marcellinus, who was accused of apostasy during the persecution of Diocletian, and who was summoned to a council by the clergy and people of Rome to give an account of his faith. He also cited the case of Pope Liberius, who was excommunicated by St. Athanasius and other bishops for signing an Arian creed, and who was later restored to communion after he renounced his error. He also cited the case of Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for supporting the Monothelite heresy, and whose anathema was confirmed by his successors.

St. Bellarmine concluded that these examples show that the Church can judge and depose its head in cases of manifest heresy, but only after he is declared to be a heretic by a legitimate authority, such as a council or a college of cardinals. He said that this declaration is necessary for two reasons: first, to avoid confusion and schism in the Church; and second, to give the pope an opportunity to defend himself and to repent of his error.

Therefore, St. Bellarmine does not say that a pope ceases to be a pope by his heresy alone, but only by the declaration of the Church. This is important to understand because it means that we cannot presume to judge or depose a pope on our own authority or private opinion, but we must respect his office and submit to his authority until he is lawfully declared to be a heretic by the Church.

No one can judge the pope or the first see.  This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that has been affirmed by many popes and councils throughout history. 

The pope, as the successor of St. Peter, has supreme authority over the whole Church, and no human power can depose him or question his decisions. 

The first see, or the diocese of Rome, is also exempt from any judgment by other bishops or ecclesiastical courts. This is because the first see is the source and foundation of the unity and communion of the whole Church. Canon law states: 

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
(https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib7-cann1400-1500_en.html)

 

The first see is the term used to refer to the diocese of Rome, where the pope resides and exercises his ministry. The term comes from the Latin word sedes, which means seat or throne. The first see is also called the Apostolic See because it was founded by the apostles Peter and Paul, who were martyred in Rome. The first see is considered to have a special dignity and authority among all the other dioceses of the Church because it is the seat of the pope, who is the visible head of the Church and the successor of St. Peter.  

The Church needs to have a pope.  Sede Vacantism is just not feasible.  Vatican I was clear.

Some of the references that support this doctrine are:

- The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which declared that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church...is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4)

- The Code of Canon Law (1983), which states that "the First See is judged by no one" (Canon 1404) and that "cases concerning the Roman Pontiff are reserved to him alone" (Canon 1405).

- The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), which teaches that "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Paragraph 882)

These are just some of the many sources that confirm the doctrine that no one can judge the pope or the first see. It is a doctrine that expresses the primacy and infallibility of the pope as the head of the Church and the guardian of the faith. It is also a doctrine that safeguards the unity and communion of the Church under one shepherd. 

Decretum Gratiani states: "Let no mortal man presumes to rebuke [the pope] for his faults, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith." 

The latter part "caught deviating from the faith" is what St. Ballermine was referencing in his opinions.  We need a pope because we need a visible head of the Church, a vicar of Christ on earth, a successor of Peter who holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven. We need a pope because we need a supreme teacher of faith and morals, a supreme legislator and judge, and a supreme pastor and father. We need a pope because we need a sign of unity and a source of authority in the Church. We need a pope because we need someone who can confirm us in our faith, who can strengthen us in our love, and who can lead us in our hope. This is what Christ wanted (Matthew 16:18). Peter is the 'rock' upon which Christ built the Catholic Church.  If you take the foundation out, the rest will collapse.  Therefore, the Church needs to have her 'rock.' 

Sede vacantism is a Modernist Heresy because it takes on the innovative idea that things are subjective and subject to man's reasoning. It adopts a relativistic take on the papacy and Catholic religion. The papacy becomes a democratic social construct like the United States presidency where a sitting president can be impeached.  This is not how the Catholic Church operates.  This is not what the Catholic faith teaches.  Simon Peter was a huge coward. He denied Jesus Christ three times (Matthew 26:34, Matthew 26:69–75). 

Here we have the first pope whom Jesus literally handpicked only to later deny Jesus three times!  What bigger heresy is this?  Despite this, Peter was still the first; he was still the Vicar of Christ and the first pope.  So we see that sin and heresy do not automatically depose a pope. To a sede vacantist like a relativist, words do not matter, tradition does not matter, and the law does not matter; it is just someone who wants to interpret things that matter on their own authority creating their "own truth." The Catholic faith becomes a woke sentiment.  This is why those who subscribe to sede vacantism can pick and choose who is the Pope, which sacraments are valid, and which councils to follow.  It is just absurd and not part of the Catholic faith.  It is an extension of the Modernist Heresy.

Therefore, sede vacantism is not only a false and schismatic position but also a dangerous and sinful one; a modernist heresy. It leads to pride, judgmentalism, division, and despair. It cuts off its adherents from the communion of saints, from the sacraments of salvation, and from the magisterium of the Church. It deprives them of the guidance and grace that they need to grow in holiness and reach their eternal destiny.

Futhermore, SedeVacantists simply do not seem to understand or refuse to understand that sede vacantism is not supported by the Church's teaching. 

1. There has to be a sitting pontiff.  The Church has to have Peter, the Rock. She has to have a chief shepherd, a visible head representing Jesus Christ as the Vicar of Christ.  Without a pope, the Church becomes a collection of denominations like the Eastern Non-Catholic Churches or Protestant communities run by their local pastors. 
2. Lay people and so on cannot judge him nor declare a Catholic a heretic. This is done by the Church, the College of Cardinals, and bishops in unison.  Declaring one a formal heretic usually occurs after death. So it makes sense that a pope cannot be declared a heretic until he has died and his life and errors are fully examined.  
3. No Church teaching says that a pope ceases being a pope even when in heresy.  There exists no doctrine or dogma that allows for a pope to be removed when he is in heresy. St. Bellarmine and others have opined on the matter, but this is just what this is, an opinion. It has no weight in the Catholic Church or its legal processes. Not everything a pope, theologian, or saint says is magisterium, becomes it or becomes law.   
    

In all honesty, Sede vacantism is a psychopathological disorder. When one lives in a delusion and rejects the truth, he or she needs psychiatric treatment. It is Protestantism lite and must be avoided and rejected at all costs.

What do you think? Post your comments below on Disqus. Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can be posted.

References:

- Sedevacantism - Wikipedia 

- Sedevacantism - New World Encyclopedia 

- Sedevacantism – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

- Papal infallibility - Wikipedia 

- Papal infallibility | Description, History, & Controversy | Britannica 

- What Is Papal Infallibility and When Does It Apply? 

- Matthew 16:18 

- Matthew 16:19 

: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VII.29

: Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 35

: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History IV.13

: Council of Constantinople III (680-681), Act XIII

: Pope Leo II (682-683), Letter 1

Racism from 'Mundabor,' Taylor Marshall & So-called 'Traditionalists' against Africans

Like the Pharisees, some so-called "traditionalist" Catholics love to nitpick how a priest is dressed at Mass, the vestments are used or even if he wears a cassock or if his clerical collar shirt has long sleeves. Short sleeves are frowned upon. I guess forearms are too sexual. Nuns are not immune either. If a habit is not full enough to cover a woman like a hajib, then this nun is labeled all kinds of things. God help her if she is not in a habit. The criticism is just childish and borderline psychotic. Well, Pope Francis is not immune either.

After viewing his recent trip to Africa, they began to target his chasuble and crosier or ferula. Nevermind listening to the homily or the Mass. These are not important enough like what the pope wears is. Rather, they focused on a chasuble with a leopard pattern to them. Conspiracist Taylor Marshall took to Twitter and Instagram to mock the pope with some sarcasm.

Leopard skin vestments? I’m guessing that doesn’t come in fiddleback. pic.twitter.com/e2n1AaA4Cg

— Dr Taylor Marshall 🔥 (@TaylorRMarshall) September 8, 2019

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2J13pFjLdV/

A white wealthy man criticizing African cultural expressions in the liturgy is not good optics. Implicit racism anyone? If that is not bad enough, a so-called "traditionalist" blogger posted a very offensive blog post where the pope is mocked and racism is put on full display. This blogger goes after the pope attacking his use of the chasuble and ferula while at the same time disparaging African natives. The blogger writes:

"What does an idiot who visits Africa does? He tries to please the natives with leopard themed vestments.
It is not only the vulgarity that is staggering. It is the condescending stupidity that once again with this man, leaves one speechless. Pope Francis has become the best parody of himself.
Oh, and have you seen the Ferula? Suitably simple, as befits the poor, primitive, leopard-loving natives."

The blogger then ends the post with a very unchristian and quite frankly, racist remark, "Imagine how happy the simple natives will be!"

So there you have it. This blogger makes fun of the use of the simple wooden ferula that comes from the native people in the area and calls them "simple natives." That is right. This blogger describes African natives as "simple."

It is not difficult to see that whoever wrote this blog is not shy about being a racist. Taylor himself implicitly has demonstrated his racism as well. Both of these bloggers either are willfully ignorant or are truly racists. There is no gray area. To attack the pope for using vestments that inculturate the people of Africa is an insult to the African people and their culture. It is xenophobic and racist. This eurocentric mentality has no place in the Catholic Church which prides herself as being universal. This is what the word "Catholic" means. The Catholic Church is centered in Rome, but this does not mean it is the "Eurotholic" Church. She is the Catholic "Universal" Church.

A white wealthy man criticizing #African cultural expressions in the #liturgy. Implicit #racism? #Catholic #CatholicChurch #catholicism #Catholics #CatholicTwitter #traditionalists #traditionalcatholic #AmazonSynod pic.twitter.com/uWEYLNYAE1

— ☧Sacerdotus™⚛✡ (@Sacerdotus) September 23, 2019

The Catholic Church has always incorporated elements from the cultures she has encountered. Any well educated Catholic knows this. Why Marshall and "Mundabor" do not know this is troubling. In fact, Catholicism incorporated things from Judaism and Paganism. Judaism incorporated things from Paganism such as the idea of sacrifice and use of altars. The Catholic Church has made use of altars which are Pagan and origin, and temples. In fact, the Church had no building until about 313 AD when Constantine legalized Catholicism. He gave the Pagan temples to the Catholic bishops. This is why our churches are modeled after the famous Pagan temples in Rome. Later on, architecture for churches developed adopting cultural elements from the regions the Church found herself in. In Catholic parishes and chapels around the world, you may have noticed a red lamp with a candle. This is usually hanging above the altar or next to the Tabernacle. The candle is called the Sanctuary Lamp. It serves as an indication that God is present. In other words, Jesus is in the Tabernacle under the Sacred Species of consecrated bread or hosts. This lamp comes from the Jewish one call the Ner Tamid which served the same purpose. The lamp is perpetually on in every Synagogue and is an indication that God is present. I can go on and on, but we get the point of how the Church as incorporated many elements from Judaism from which she was born from and Paganism, whom she has evangelized.

There is nothing wrong with this. The Church makes it clear that culture is important when evangelizing people, Gaudium Spes states:

53. Man comes to a true and full humanity only through culture, that is through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. Wherever human life is involved, therefore, nature and culture are quite intimately connected one with the other.
The word "culture" in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family.
Thence it follows that human culture has necessarily a historical and social aspect and the word "culture" also often assumes a sociological and ethnological sense. According to this sense we speak of a plurality of cultures. Different styles of life and multiple scales of values arise from the diverse manner of using things, of laboring, of expressing oneself, of practicing religion, of forming customs, of establishing laws and juridic institutions, of cultivating the sciences, the arts and beauty. Thus the customs handed down to it form the patrimony proper to each human community. It is also in this way that there is formed the definite, historical milieu which enfolds the man of every nation and age and from which he draws the values which permit him to promote civilization (Gaudium Et Spes).

So we see here how culture is very important in the life of man. Culture develops and perfects all that man is, body and soul. When evangelizing, culture is extremely important. The Church has to know and understand the people she is preaching the Gospel to. St. Pope Paul VI tells us:

Evangelization loses much of its force and effectiveness if it does not take into consideration the actual people to whom it is addresses [sic], if it does not use their language, their signs and symbols, if it does not answer the questions they ask, and if it does not have an impact on their concrete life (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 63).

If the Church does not use the language of the people and their signs and symbols, she cannot fully evangelize the people. This is why culture is extremely important, especially in evangelization and the Liturgy. Moreover, the Church borrows from the customs and ways of the people she evangelizes. We read in Ad Gentes:

22. The seed which is the word of God, watered by divine dew, sprouts from the good ground and draws from thence its moisture, which it transforms and assimilates into itself, and finally bears much fruit. In harmony with the economy of the Incarnation, the young churches, rooted in Christ and built up on the foundation of the Apostles, take to themselves in a wonderful exchange all the riches of the nations which were given to Christ as an inheritance (cf Ps. 2:8). They borrow from the customs and traditions of their people, from their wisdom and their learning, from their arts and disciplines, all those things which can contribute to the glory of their Creator, or enhance the grace of their Savior, or dispose Christian life the way it should be.(5) (Ad Gentes)

The things the Church borrows from the culture of the people she evangelizes is used to give glory to the Creator and enhance the graces needed so the Christian life can be lived. These elements are culture are purified in order to serve God. We read in Lumen Gentium:

Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, (Lumen Gentium 17)

So we see that the Catholic Church does not want to destroy or erase the culture of the people and replace it. Rather, she borrows from them, cleanses them and uses them to glorify God and evangelize the people so that the people can live their Christian life as it should be lived. The Catholic Church is not an imperialistic empire looking to assimilate and destroy other cultures. She has made it clear. In Faith and Inculturation and Evangelii Praecones, we read this clearly:

24. The Holy Spirit does not establish a superculture, but is the personal and vital principle which will vivify the new community in working in harness with its members (FAITH AND INCULTURATION, 1988).

"The Church's aim is not the domination of peoples or the gaining of temporal dominions; she is eager only to bring the supernatural light of faith to all peoples, and to promote the interests of civilization and culture, and fraternal concord among nations."[23] (Evangelii Praecones)

The idea that every culture must adopt a European or white way of doing this is not the Church's thinking. As stated, The Holy Spirit did not create a super culture in the Church that seeks to replace other cultures. The Catholic Church does not exist to dominate other people and erase their culture. Rather, she cleanses them and makes use of them so they can glorify God and evangelize the people more effectively. Evangelii Praecones goes further by stating:

58. This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither scorned nor rejected the pagan philosophies. Instead, after freeing them from error and all contamination she has perfected and completed them by Christian revelation. So likewise the Church has graciously made her own the native art and culture which in some countries is so highly developed. She has carefully encouraged them and has brought them to a point of aesthetic perfection that of themselves they probably would never have attained. By no means has she repressed native customs and traditions but has given them a certain religious significance (Evangelii Praecones 58)

We said: "The herald of the Gospel and messenger of Christ is an apostle. His office does not demand that he transplant European civilization and culture, and no other, to foreign soil, there to take root and propagate itself. His task in dealing with these peoples, who sometimes boast of a very old and highly developed culture of their own, is to teach and form them so that they are ready to accept willingly and in a practical manner the principles of Christian life and morality; principles, I might add, that fit into any culture, provided it be good and sound, and which give that culture greater force in safeguarding human dignity and in gaining human happiness. Catholic inhabitants of missionary countries, although they are first of all citizens of the Kingdom of God and members of His great family,[46] do not for all that cease to be citizens of their earthly fatherland."[47] (Evangelii Praecones 60)

So as you can see, the Catholic Church does not seek to make every culture into a European one. While we are the Latin rite, that does not mean that every culture must become Roman in the cultural sense. That being stated, "Mundabor" and the comments made about the Shaman etc are out of line and purely ignorant. It shows that this blogger does not know Catholicism well and how it works. The same applies to Taylor Marshall. Despite having a Ph.D. and Protestant theology degrees during his time as an Anglican priest, he has demonstrated his ignorance of Catholicism. Making fun of the pope's chasuble is pretty much-making fun of African culture. It demonstrates a subliminal form of white supremacy. European white culture is not superior to that of the African's. The Catholic Church has made it clear and any sane and intelligent person would know this.

The chasuble itself is something the Catholic Church borrowed from Pagan Rome. It had a secular use, or to borrow from so-called "traditionalists," a vulgar use. This is why I find it silly when these so-called "traditionalists" nitpick chasubles and the like. It really shows that they are ignorant of the Catholic Church, her Liturgy, and her history. Moreover, "Mundabor" attacked the use of the simple ferula the pope carried. EWTN announcers during the Mass stated that this ferula was made from the debris of homes destroyed after a natural disaster hit. In other words, this ferula has a symbolic meaning for the African people the pope was visiting. To mock it is to mock the suffering the people endured during and after the disaster. Very Christian behavior right?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal tells us that the Church allows for flexibility on materials for vestments. Vestments can reflect the cultural richness of a region and can be approved by the bishops of the region. It says:

342. As regards the form of sacred vestments, Conferences of Bishops may determine and propose to the Apostolic See adaptations that correspond to the needs and the usages of the individual regions.[137]

343. For making sacred vestments, in addition to traditional materials, natural fabrics proper to each region may be used, and also artificial fabrics that are in keeping with the dignity of the sacred action and the sacred person. The Conference of Bishops will be the judge of this matter.[138]

344. It is fitting that the beauty and nobility of each vestment not be sought in an abundance of overlaid ornamentation, but rather in the material used and in the design. Ornamentation on vestments should, moreover, consist of figures, that is, of images or symbols, that denote sacred use, avoiding anything unbecoming to this.

345. Diversity of color in the sacred vestments has as its purpose to give more effective expression even outwardly whether to the specific character of the mysteries of faith to be celebrated or to a sense of Christian life’s passage through the course of the liturgical year.

-http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-6.cfm

Number 343 makes it clear that the use of traditional materials and natural fabrics is allowed by the Catholic Church for vestments. Moreover, according to Dr. Jeanetta Selier, leopard skins are used for ceremonial wear in both religious and cultural ceremonies.  The KwaZulu-Natal and Swaziland groups, as well as, the Nazareth Baptis Shembe sect uses it in their worship. In the west, it is a symbol of wisdom. In other words, African culture sees the leopard pattern as equal to gold or silk. It is valuable in their culture.

I hope this post helps Catholics understand how the Catholic Church works with other cultures and why the pope may wear vestments that may look strange to an outsider. He is not trying to disrespect the faith or start a fashion trend. The vestments are meant to incorporate the culture of the people he is visiting. This is what the Church has always done. Remember, the use of vestments was never really part of the Church. She borrowed it from secular, Jewish and Pagan use. It as not until about the year 800 that vestments were formalized and universal in the Church. The chasuble the Church used was more like the one we use today and not the shorter sleeveless fiddleback one that is used in the Extraordinary Form. Knowledge is power. Hopefully "Mundabor" and "Marshall will take the time to do research and not post false information on social media about the Liturgy and the Catholic faith.

Racism in any form is a sin and is evil. It can manifest explicitly or implicitly. "Mundabor" and "Taylor Marshall" need to be more careful and avoid posting racist commentary. Remember, Africa is the life of the Catholic Church now. She is thriving there and vocations are coming out of the MotherLand, Africa more than any other place. She is supplying other regions with priests. Let us respect the African Catholic Church and all cultures the Catholic Church has adopted as her own.

But any kind of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.
Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”), Vatican II, 1965, #29.

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Vatican, 1992, #1935.

Diversity is a beautiful thing when it can constantly enter into a process of reconciliation and seal a sort of cultural covenant resulting in a “reconciled diversity.”
Evangelii Gaudium (“Joy of the Gospel”), Pope Francis, 2013, Chapter 4, #230.

Also, this fetishism with vestments is not healthy,  psychologically speaking. it may be an indicator of repressed homosexual tendencies.   Externals are externals, nothing more.  There is no need to engage in scruples by nitpicking everyone and what they are wearing at Mass.  If Africans see leopard skins as valuable and worthy to use as vestments, who is Taylor or anyone else to judge?  It is not the place for white men, or any layman to dictate how Africans run their liturgies. They have their bishop's conferences and the GIRM gives them the authority to use whatever materials they want for their vestments.  If the pope wore then, then clearly he approved of them.  The pope always has the final word. 

What do you think? Post below on Disque. Be sure to follow the rules on commenting.









Source:

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2019/09/09/pope-leopard-the-african-shaman/

https://twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1170707050336260096?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15388a.htm

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/07/on-origin-and-development-of-vestments.html#.XYnMYlVKiM8

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_02061951_evangelii-praecones.html

https://zenit.org/articles/the-story-behind-the-pope-s-wooden-crozier/

https://www.sanbi.org/animal-of-the-week/african-leopard/