Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on November 28, 2024, 11:07:09 AM
-
I was just reading the long thread on LifeSite News due to +Schneider comments on Bergoglio's so called 'ambiguities' and came across this from a Sean Johnson. Is it the same Sean Johnson of CathInfo fame and is he a sede now?
(https://i.imgur.com/2o0zBZv.png)
-
I recently received a very welcome call from Sean. We spoke for an hour about many things in our lives. He gave me permission to post about our call if I so chose.
It is fair to say that Sean is no longer "R&R" and, like me, he is not a "dogmatic" sede vacantist.
He and his family are happy and doing well.
I choose not to share more than that.
-
I recently received a very welcome call from Sean. We spoke for an hour about many things in our lives. He gave me permission to post about our call if I so chose.
It is fair to say that Sean is no longer "R&R" and, like me, he is not a "dogmatic" sede vacantist.
He and his family are happy and doing well.
I choose not to share more than that.
I'm very happy to learn this.
-
It’s very weak that Sean can’t come back here and say similar things. He was a rabid anti-sede for so many years. There’s no need to apologize but a “Hey, I changed my tune” would be welcome. No shame in that.
-
Good for him. I've always had the impression that his friendship with Bp. Williamson prevented him from taking this step. I am glad that he could overcome this difficulty.
-
It’s very weak that Sean can’t come back here and say similar things. He was a rabid anti-sede for so many years. There’s no need to apologize but a “Hey, I changed my tune” would be welcome. No shame in that.
I speak for myself.
Your mind is weak. Your "analyses" [snickering] are as consistently baseless, flawed, and hysterical as they are over-stated and self-important.
Further:
You are weak and a coward to pontificate on what Sean should do in his absence.
You have no knowledge of all that goes on in Sean's life and utterly lacking in the self-reflection to behave and muzzle your mouth accordingly.
-
:jester: 90% of your posts are just personal attacks. No substance.
-
:jester: 90% of your posts are just personal attacks. No substance.
More subjective hysteria from you.
I've spent the last few days DEFENDING Lad from you and your ilk.
Today I DEFENDED Sean from you.
-
Now Sean I miss.
-
Now Sean I miss.
Me.
-
You have no knowledge of all that goes on in Sean's life
If Sean has time to post on other forums, then he has time to post here. He spent years on here deriding and chastising sedevacantism in the most immature ways. The least he can do is come back here, show a little humility and say "I got it wrong."
-
If Sean has time to post on other forums, then he has time to post here. He spent years on here deriding and chastising sedevacantism in the most immature ways. The least he can do is come back here, show a little humility and say "I got it wrong."
One thing I admired about Sean was that he could and would apologize.
-
Humility? What is that? Does anyone know how to express that these days?
-
Humility? What is that? Does anyone know how to express that these days?
No, not really. I'm pretty sure most of us are too busy blaming everyone else to take ownership of ourselves. Personally, I'm glad Sean has been able to move on and put his energies and time into better things.
-
If Sean has time to post on other forums, then he has time to post here. He spent years on here deriding and chastising sedevacantism in the most immature ways. The least he can do is come back here, show a little humility and say "I got it wrong."
Your presumption in pontificating what Sean should do is astounding. It is even more astounding that you are not embarrassed to do so.
-
Your Sean-worshipping is embarrassing. Sean spent years being a complete jackass on this topic. He owes many people an apology.
-
Your Sean-worshipping is embarrassing. Sean spent years being a complete jackass on this topic. He owes many people an apology.
More hysterical overstatements from someone identifying as a man.
-
Your Sean-worshipping is embarrassing. Sean spent years being a complete jackass on this topic. He owes many people an apology.
Maybe Sean is writing a book about his "conversion".
-
Maybe Sean is writing a book about his "conversion".
That would be very interesting
-
Maybe Sean is writing a book about his "conversion".
Maybe he’s not.
-
I wish Lad and Sean both would come back.
I enjoyed their posts.I learned a lot.
-
I wish Lad and Sean both would come back.
I enjoyed their posts.I learned a lot.
They were among the top posters around, considering the general quality of their posts.
Of course they also spent a lot of time on useless discussions and heated arguments, but everybody has their shortcomings.
It's a shame that both seem to be "all in or nothing at all". If they could calm down a little bit, both could still be posting useful information and interesting opinions and stay absent from the threads that are not of their liking and the endless discussions that lead nowhere.
-
Of course they also spent a lot of time on useless discussions and heated arguments...
Much of that was regarding sedevacantism and Sean has now changed his position toward sedevacantism.
-
Much of that was regarding sedevacantism and Sean has now changed his position toward sedevacantism.
So it's Ladislaus's fault that Sean is sedevacantis now?
-
Lifesite.news IMO is new order. They continue to support New Order bishops. N.O. has nothing. No Holy Orders, nothing! Why does lifesite.news lean for the new order?! Years ago, I put a reply to life site.news about supporting saluting Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, saying how pro-life is was. Well, Catholic Charities and such do support aborton and the clergy is very much in favor. There is no clergy who does not know this. On going for over 65 years.
We need to wake up.
-
We can't forget Human Life international was also mentioned on life site.news. HLI stated that Phoenix had a great pro-life Bishop to come on. You can't trust anyone or anything supporting new order. When they speak like this, the money comes in from those people who are ignorant.
-
So it's Ladislaus's fault that Sean is sedevacantis now?
I'm not blaming Ladislaus. I think it's a good thing Sean is finally a sedevacantist.
-
... Sean spent years being a complete jackass[]. He owes many people an apology.
FIFY
I do not recall a single interaction with him where he wasn't a jerk. I don't care how smart or knowledgeable he was in connection with theology, that does not excuse lack of charity.
"And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2
-
It’s very weak that Sean can’t come back here and say similar things. He was a rabid anti-sede for so many years. There’s no need to apologize but a “Hey, I changed my tune” would be welcome. No shame in that.
.
I second all of this. Sean attacked sedevacantists here. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, then he must retract his errors. This should be obvious.
Furthermore, if he attacked good people for what he now understands to be the truth, then he is even more obliged to come back and retract what he said. This is even more obvious than the previous point.
-
Much of that was regarding sedevacantism and Sean has now changed his position toward sedevacantism.
.
According to whom? Mark isn't Sean's spokesman. He does not speak for him. If Sean has a public position on something, he is the only person who can tell us that.
-
Mark talked to Sean in the phone, so now he’s Sean’s biggest fan and apologist.
-
Actually, Sean and I have been friendly for years. How else would he have my phone number? So much for your discernment.
Decent Catholics can discern why I didn't post about Sean right after our call despite having Sean's permission to post if I chose. I expected such self-serving "I told you so" vituperation, so I didn't post anything until a week later when the anonymous O.P. asked about a public post from Sean addressing the sede issue.
Truly, the behavior of some of you is akin to Shylock demanding his pound of flesh.
-
Truly, the behavior of some of you is akin to Shylock demanding his pound of flesh.
Well as we know, the biggest enemy of a traditional Catholic is... other traditional Catholics. :facepalm:
As someone who holds the sede position, I'm very disappointed in some of the sedes commenting in this thread. Sean Johnson finally comes around to the sede position, and the first thing that some people here can think of is how he should come back here and grovel at the feet of the Sede Sanhedrin in apology, all because he has changed his position on the crisis in the Church to the position he used to argue against. I completely understand Sean not wanting to come back here to post if this is the kind of welcome he would receive.
-
"Sede Sanhedrin"—Perfect! So quotable!
-
and the first thing that some people here can think of is how he should come back here and grovel at the feet of the Sede Sanhedrin in apology
You’re a drama queen.
-
Well as we know, the biggest enemy of a traditional Catholic is... other traditional Catholics. :facepalm:
As someone who holds the sede position, I'm very disappointed in some of the sedes commenting in this thread. Sean Johnson finally comes around to the sede position, and the first thing that some people here can think of is how he should come back here and grovel at the feet of the Sede Sanhedrin in apology, all because he has changed his position on the crisis in the Church to the position he used to argue against. I completely understand Sean not wanting to come back here to post if this is the kind of welcome he would receive.
While I appreciate the generous, even noble, spirit of your view, I think fairness requires a look at the other side of the coin too. Those calling on Sean for an apology have had years of experience with him, years worth of, lets be honest, jackassery. It's easy to see and to say that others should just forgive, and, honestly, that is the right answer, but its not so easy when you're the one that has to do the forgiving. What I'm saying is to realize that many of the enmities found here aren't based on one-off events, but are cuмulative. It's the same thing with Lad, he's worked very hard at creating ill will towards himself for far longer than the recent political debates and that's not anyone else's fault but his own.
As for Sean, I only had a handful of run ins with him for which, to his great credit and to my edification, he apologized. I commend him for his virtue and am glad to hear that he is still working out his salvation.
-
I didn't think it was much of a surprise (https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/where's-sean/msg920798/#msg920798) that he's sede now.
-
While I appreciate the generous, even noble, spirit of your view, I think fairness requires a look at the other side of the coin too. Those calling on Sean for an apology have had years of experience with him, years worth of, lets be honest, jackassery. It's easy to see and to say that others should just forgive, and, honestly, that is the right answer, but its not so easy when you're the one that has to do the forgiving.
What I'm saying is to realize that many of the enmities found here aren't based on one-off events, but are cuмulative. It's the same thing with Lad, he's worked very hard at creating ill will towards himself for far longer than the recent political debates and that's not anyone else's fault but his own.
As for Sean, I only had a handful of run ins with him for which, to his great credit and to my edification, he apologized. I commend him for his virtue and am glad to hear that he is still working out his salvation.
Great post. Especially where you point out that both he and Ladislaus are similar in their histories of poor behavior on this forum (and yet we have a whole thread where most of the posters have done nothing but praise or explain away the latter).
Although I wasn't asking for an apology from Sean, I can understand why others are doing so. I just think we have to be careful not to demand one. Knowing he has made numerous apologies in the past, I won't be surprised that at some time, when he is ready, he will do so in the way he feels most comfortable doing so.
Not too long ago, LaramieHirsch came back to apologize to the sedes:
Sorry, Sedes - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sorry-sedes/msg904424/#msg904424)
I, for one, would love to have Sean come back just to hear how he came to the sede position.
-
While I didn't always agree with Sean and he was sometimes a bit abrasive when angry, I always found him to be quick to apologize when he realized that he was wrong....unlike many other traditional Catholics whom I have known.
He shared a lot of good research and information that has helped me throughout the years and I have a lot of respect for him.
I am just grateful to hear that he and his family are well. To those of you who are in contact with him, please give him my regards the next time you speak with him.
-
I didn't think it was much of a surprise (https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/where's-sean/msg920798/#msg920798) that he's sede now.
Now that you mention it, there were posts of his from 2+years ago, where I wondered if he was adopting a sedevacantist view. I questioned him about it, but he didn't respond, that I recall. Maybe he had been thinking about it or considering it for awhile.
-
Above post is mine.
-
Now that you mention it, there were posts of his from 2+years ago, where I wondered if he was adopting a sedevacantist view. I questioned him about it, but he didn't respond, that I recall. Maybe he had been thinking about it or considering it for awhile.
You could be right, although it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that +Vigano had a lot to do with it. To me, Sean seemed to really admire +Vigano, and because +Vigano said some things that sounded sede might have kinda finally helped push him over the edge.
-
"Sede Sanhedrin"—Perfect! So quotable!
Yes, a good one. It could also be aptly shortened or amended to "Sedehedrin," or "Sedhedrin."
That's simply a comment on the clever phrase, not a denigration of Sedes or their mentality, etc.
-
I wish Lad and Sean both would come back.
I enjoyed their posts.I learned a lot.
Is Lad gone? I've been "gone" myself, but I can't imagine Lad gone from here.
-
Is Lad gone? I've been "gone" myself, but I can't imagine Lad gone from here.
.
This is what she is talking about (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964298/#msg964298).
-
Now that you mention it, there were posts of his from 2+years ago, where I wondered if he was adopting a sedevacantist view. I questioned him about it, but he didn't respond, that I recall. Maybe he had been thinking about it or considering it for awhile.
At first, I thought this was too long ago, but given he's been gone a year now, this is probably not too far off. I started to notice a change/shift in his posting a number of months prior to his leaving.
And to Stubborn's point, yes, it might have had something to do with Vigano but I don't think he was the sole influence (because I still wouldn't consider Vigano a sedevacantist nor am I convinced he will ever be a sedevacantist. Not to mention that he still hasn't made it public that he was conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson and I'm not convinced he ever will do that either what is it a year now?).
-
At first, I thought this was too long ago, but given he's been gone a year now, this is probably not too far off. I started to notice a change/shift in his posting a number of months prior to his leaving.
And to Stubborn's point, yes, it might have had something to do with Vigano but I don't think he was the sole influence (because I still wouldn't consider Vigano a sedevacantist nor am I convinced he will ever be a sedevacantist. Not to mention that he still hasn't made it public that he was conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson and I'm not convinced he ever will do that either what is it a year now?).
I meant to reply to your post sooner. It seems amazing that it's been a year now since Sean left. Time passes more quickly, the older I get. Yes, it may have had something to do with +Vigano. I had forgotten about that. And yes, that probably wasn't the sole influence. I can understand why Sean wouldn't want to come back. After all, he doesn't support the Resistance anymore, that I can tell. And he'd have to deal with those here who resent him for criticizing sedevacantism all those years. Oh well!
-
Oops! The above post is mine. forget to check the box, as usual.
-
Sean sent out an email last December 12 with the subject "Vigano's Remarkable Speech". It presented the Archbishop's "Is The Pope Catholic" Conference from a few days earlier: https://www.marcotosatti.com/2023/12/11/bergoglio-e-cattolico-profetateci-illusioni-carlo-maria-vigano/
I briefly replied to Sean:
I am disappointed with Archbishop Vigano's sedevacantist orientation, only more division will come from it, as always. It spoils his otherwise outstanding work. The devil found a way in.
All the good he was doing to bring conservatives to Tradition risks perishing. It seems he has already alienated the Benedictine nuns in Italy.
He says we cannot declare Francis not Pope, because we do not have the authority, but he effectively declares as much anyway - he never ever calls him Pope Francis.
Too much of what he asserts is conjecture, and no matter how likely it may all be, it is not Catholic doctrine, and I don't think anything has substantially changed from when Archbishop Lefebvre was alive. If he only continued the same respect towards the Pope, while continuing to decry the great evils of his papacy that leave us all in disbelief, I think he would do infinitely more good.
Sean didn't acknowledge this reply. No doubt he received others...
There is no doubt Archbishop Vigano influenced him. The pre-55 Holy Week issue also loomed large for him.
Yes, he is sorely missed. We have much to thank him for. Best wishes to him and his family.
-
Former sede here, now I’m neutral but of course, have nothing to do with the novus ordo.
Now I’m convinced the whole issue (R&R vs sede) is a complete distraction to the spiritual life and actually super dangerous.
Now I see sede has the greater danger due to its tendency towards schism and pride.
I thank God He let me see all this and got me out of it.
May He be blessed for ever and ever.
-
Now I see sede has the greater danger due to its tendency towards schism and pride.
Schism? Classic. I'll stick with sedevacantism but thank you anyway.
-
Former sede here, now I’m neutral but of course, have nothing to do with the novus ordo.
Now I’m convinced the whole issue (R&R vs sede) is a complete distraction to the spiritual life and actually super dangerous.
Now I see sede has the greater danger due to its tendency towards schism and pride.
I thank God He let me see all this and got me out of it.
May He be blessed for ever and ever.
When I read posts like this, I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster never really understood sedevacantism in the first place or his desire to not be an outcast outweighed his love for the truth.
-
Now I see sede has the greater danger due to its tendency towards schism and pride.
I would argue that this is more likely te case with R&R given their actions and thinking towards the man they consider a true Pope.
-
I was just reading the long thread on LifeSite News due to +Schneider comments on Bergoglio's so called 'ambiguities' and came across this from a Sean Johnson. Is it the same Sean Johnson of CathInfo fame and is he a sede now?
(https://i.imgur.com/2o0zBZv.png)
.
To answer the question that this poster asked, whether Sean is a sede now (assuming he is the same Sean Johnson who wrote what is quoted in the image), I'd say the answer is no. First of all, asking questions does not state one's position. In a sense, a question is actually the opposite of a statement.
As to whether we can infer that Sean is a sedevacantist from this post, I would again say no. A sedevacantist is someone who says, "Bergoglio is not the pope" or other statements with similar effect. That is not being said here, nor anything remotely equivalent.
Moreover, if Sean were sedevacantist, not only would he probably have come back here and said so, since he is an honest and stand-up guy, and that's what a stand-up guy would do, but he would also probably be explaining sedevacantism in that quote instead of asking open-ended questions like what is seen here.
All of this causes me to say no, Sean is not a sedevacantist.
-
.
To answer the question that this poster asked, whether Sean is a sede now (assuming he is the same Sean Johnson who wrote what is quoted in the image), I'd say the answer is no. First of all, asking questions does not state one's position. In a sense, a question is actually the opposite of a statement.
As to whether we can infer that Sean is a sedevacantist from this post, I would again say no. A sedevacantist is someone who says, "Bergoglio is not the pope" or other statements with similar effect. That is not being said here, nor anything remotely equivalent.
Moreover, if Sean were sedevacantist, not only would he probably have come back here and said so, since he is an honest and stand-up guy, and that's what a stand-up guy would do, but he would also probably be explaining sedevacantism in that quote instead of asking open-ended questions like what is seen here.
All of this causes me to say no, Sean is not a sedevacantist.
I think his questioning was to make the reader think. You may have missed this update not too long ago. I think he has, in fact, become a sedevacantist:
Recognizing legitimacy to Bergoglio has only one final beneficiary: Bergoglio - page 2 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/recognizing-legitimacy-to-bergoglio-has-only-one-final-beneficiary-bergoglio/msg950831/#msg950831)
-
I think his questioning was to make the reader think. You may have missed this update not too long ago. I think he has, in fact, become a sedevacantist:
Recognizing legitimacy to Bergoglio has only one final beneficiary: Bergoglio - page 2 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/recognizing-legitimacy-to-bergoglio-has-only-one-final-beneficiary-bergoglio/msg950831/#msg950831)
.
Well, in the quote you give, he isn't saying he believes the throne is empty, either. He is saying he doesn't know. But a sedevacantist is someone who believes the seat is vacant.
-
.
Well, in the quote you give, he isn't saying he believes the throne is empty, either. He is saying he doesn't know. But a sedevacantist is someone who believes the seat is vacant.
He does say this:
I guess you could say I’m a “practical sedevacantist,” even if not a theoretical one.
And then says he goes to a SSPV chapel. At the very least, he's definitely no longer Resistance/R&R.
But perhaps you are correct. If so, I think it's just a matter of time before he goes "full-on theoretical". And then maybe we'll hear from him. I hope so. I agree that he is an honest and up-standing guy (even if he and I have had our moments!).
-
When I read posts like this, I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster never really understood sedevacantism in the first place or his desire to not be an outcast outweighed his love for the truth.
Sounds more like he left sedevacantism because he came to really understand it.
-
I would argue that this is more likely te case with R&R given their actions and thinking towards the man they consider a true Pope.
I think the balance depends upon how dogmatic the person is. When it gets to the point of obsession and casting anathemata, either side can fall.
There is no authority alive on Earth today who can settle issues that were not already infallibly defined before the so-called "Vatican 2."
-
Sounds more like he left sedevacantism because he came to really understand it.
If he likens it to schism, then he really does not understand it.
-
If he likens it to schism, then he really does not understand it.
Sede clergy refuse the sacraments to r&r people, and tell sedes they will commit a mortal sin if they go to r&r clergy for the Mass and sacraments.
Yet all the while, at the same time the same sede clergy still claim these r&r clergy are still “catholic”.
So they are refusing the sacraments to people they consider Catholic, and forbidding other Catholics from receiving go the sacraments from clergy they somehow still regard as Catholic.
This is flat out schism.
“The sin of schism is also committed by separation from the members of the Church. Thus, one who refuses to communicate with Catholics in matters of faith or worship, choosing to act as an independent in those things, is a schismatic.”
-
Sede clergy refuse the sacraments to r&r people, and tell sedes they will commit a mortal sin if they go to r&r clergy for the Mass and sacraments.
Yet all the while, at the same time the same sede clergy still claim these r&r clergy are still “catholic”.
So they are refusing the sacraments to people they consider Catholic, and forbidding other Catholics from receiving go the sacraments from clergy they somehow still regard as Catholic.
This is flat out schism.
“The sin of schism is also committed by separation from the members of the Church. Thus, one who refuses to communicate with Catholics in matters of faith or worship, choosing to act as an independent in those things, is a schismatic.”
You are talking about dogmatic non Una cuм Sedevacantist clergy. The CMRI, which is he largest Sedevacantist group, do not follow these practices.
-
If we want to be technical, R&R is also schismatic. They say new-Rome is in authority but then do their own thing.
There’s no Trad option which is free from criticism. Accept this, everyone stop flinging mud, and pray.
-
If we want to be technical, R&R is also schismatic. They say new-Rome is in authority but then do their own thing.
There’s no Trad option which is free from criticism. Accept this, everyone stop flinging mud, and pray.
(https://i.imgur.com/CfuzzaB.jpeg)
-
If we want to be technical, R&R is also schismatic. They say new-Rome is in authority but then do their own thing.
There’s no Trad option which is free from criticism. Accept this, everyone stop flinging mud, and pray.
You should do a little more thinking, this is just parroting what the anti una cuм sede clergy say.
Can you tell me how many sede clergy didn’t do this same exact thing in the beginning? And don’t say “oh it wasn’t clear then.” The point is the principle is sound.
-
You are talking about dogmatic non Una cuм Sedevacantist clergy. The CMRI, which is he largest Sedevacantist group, do not follow these practices.
So they disagree on an issue that one group considers it a mortal sin and the other one doesn’t.
That’s quite the disagreement.
But some still claim they’re all “united in the essentials.”
-
FIFY
I do not recall a single interaction with him where he wasn't a jerk. I don't care how smart or knowledgeable he was in connection with theology, that does not excuse lack of charity.
"And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2
Yeah, over the years, he had such a dominant position on the forum, it appeared Sean was a Cathinfo moderator...towing the line for the SSPX Resistance.
His SSPX Resistance writings were extensive, and his R&R views well known. He never backed down from a fight if you
differed with him, and often "lost his cool". Being big buds with Bp. Williamson and more recently Vigano,
likely made it hard for Sean to face this forum again.
BTW, Bp. Williamson calls Vigano the "Heir to the Light of the Truth", which he means is +ABL.
While Vigano had taken a sede position only to the current jew-pope. He still believes B16 was a true pope.
This was revealed in the Taylor Marshall interview.
-
When I read posts like this, I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster never really understood sedevacantism in the first place or his desire to not be an outcast outweighed his love for the truth.
“Sedevacantism” is a talismanic word, conjured by followers and crypto watch-dogs of the Church Revolution.
The magical properties endowed to the word can be exhibited by a robust conversation amongst a group of trads, when “sedevacantist” is mentioned, suddenly you’d think kryptonite was dropped in front of Superman.
It’s as if adult Catholics cannot engage in a conversation of the reality of an usurper jew-pope schism, as in Church history, as elucidated by St. Bernard of Clairvaux*.
Hold strong to the Faith and do not be fooled by newChurch dialogue and talismanic words. They want your souls and your money.
*See the history of anti-pope Anacletus II, 1130 A.D..
-
Every Traditionalist group (not including the Indult, which isn’t Traditional) is technically schismatic. But the Trad argument is to say that modern Rome is the schismatic sect. There’s no perfect Trad position. Both R&R and Sede positions solve problems and also have issues. Nothing's perfect. It’s not our job to figure it all out.
The current sspx continues to slide towards indultism. The resistance is solid. Most Sedes are solid. There shouldn’t be as much fighting as there is between Trads. But life’s not perfect.
-
Every Traditionalist group (not including the Indult, which isn’t Traditional) is technically schismatic. But the Trad argument is to say that modern Rome is the schismatic sect. There’s no perfect Trad position. Both R&R and Sede positions solve problems and also have issues. Nothing's perfect. It’s not our job to figure it all out.
The current sspx continues to slide towards indultism. The resistance is solid. Most Sedes are solid. There shouldn’t be as much fighting as there is between Trads. But life’s not perfect.
It is no longer amusing to toss around the accusation of schism.
In his lifting of the episcopal excommunications "Pope" Benedict XVI explicitly stated that there was only "danger of schism" and he explicitly stated that the excommunications were of persons for proceeding without a papal mandate and that the SSPX institution was not schismatic. To repeat, he only went so far as to claim a "danger of schism."
I recently posted his exact words, so am not at all inclined to look for it again to re-post it. I estimate the post was about 1 month ago.
-
Legally speaking, all Trads are in schism. Morally speaking, they are not.
-
It is no longer amusing to toss around the accusation of schism.
In his lifting of the episcopal excommunications "Pope" Benedict XVI explicitly stated that there was only "danger of schism" and he explicitly stated that the excommunications were of persons for proceeding without a papal mandate and that the SSPX institution was not schismatic. To repeat, he only went so far as to claim a "danger of schism."
I recently posted his exact words, so am not at all inclined to look for it again to re-post it. I estimate the post was about 1 month ago.
That's what he said about the SSPX, what would he say about CMRI, SSPV etc.?
-
That's what he said about the SSPX, what would he say about CMRI, SSPV etc.?
Since he is dead and judged, we cannot ask him. We can only speculate.
-
Since Ratzinger is dead and judged, we cannot ask him. We can only speculate.
-
Legally speaking, all Trads are in schism. Morally speaking, they are not.
In schism from what? The conciliar church?
-
In schism from what? The conciliar church?
That's what schism means - a formal division between 2 groups or organizations.
Schism can be good or bad. It depends on the situation.
In the situation of Trads, they are in schism with new-rome, but NOT is schism with Truth, doctrine, orthodoxy.
In the situation of new-rome, they are in schism with Trads and also Truth, doctrine, orthodoxy.
Trads are morally free from guilt. New-rome is not. But both are in schism, per the legal definition of the word.
-
I usually sit on the sidelines watching the Sedevacantist debate with some amusement. It is not an either/or situation. It is true that Francis is either pope or he is not pope. This is true. But whether one can know positively that Francis is pope or not pope, this is not true. No man in the world can know, positively, that Francis is pope. Why cannot a man say, Francis may or may not be pope, who is to know given the current crisis?
If the new rites of the priesthood and the bishopric are called into question - and any sane Catholic would call these into question - then we all must ask the questions: Are these Cardinals priests? Are they bishops? If they are not, then what? This whole attitude that one must be a sedevacantist, or that he must not, seems on the face of it to be imbalanced.
-
I usually sit on the sidelines watching the Sedevacantist debate with some amusement. It is not an either/or situation. It is true that Francis is either pope or he is not pope. This is true. But whether one can know positively that Francis is pope or not pope, this is not true. No man in the world can know, positively, that Francis is pope. Why cannot a man say, Francis may or may not be pope, who is to know given the current crisis?
If the new rites of the priesthood and the bishopric are called into question - and any sane Catholic would call these into question - then we all must ask the questions: Are these Cardinals priests? Are they bishops? If they are not, then what? This whole attitude that one must be a sedevacantist, or that he must not, seems on the face of it to be imbalanced.
I agree. I have very similar thoughts.
On the practical side of things though, we have to choose. I mean, where do you go to mass? Do you fast as people did in the 50s, or do you accept Paul VI's rules? Do you assist at Una cuм masses or not?
-
I agree. I have very similar thoughts.
On the practical side of things though, we have to choose. I mean, where do you go to mass? Do you fast as people did in the 50s, or do you accept Paul VI's rules? Do you assist at Una cuм masses or not?
Why do we have to choose? Our business lies in avoiding sin and keeping the faith, not in deciding whether the pope is the pope or not. The pope has authority over us and are to obey him unless he wants us to do something that offends God. This is how true obedience to all authority works whether that authority is your general in the army, drill sergeant, boss, parent or pope. Always has, always will.
-
Why do we have to choose? Our business lies in avoiding sin and keeping the faith, not in deciding whether the pope is the pope or not. The pope has authority over us and are to obey him unless he wants us to do something that offends God. This is how true obedience to all authority works whether that authority is your general in the army, drill sergeant, boss, parent or pope. Always has, always will.
Then you have already chosen R&R. No problem for me. May God bless you.
-
On the practical side of things though, we have to choose.
In the early days of Tradition, there were no dogmatic Sedes. There were also no dogmatic R&R. Post 1990s, this has changed. But still, one can avoid dogmatic chapels and go to any Trad chapel. That’s how it should be.
-
Do you fast as people did in the 50s, or do you accept Paul VI's rules? Do you assist at Una cuм masses or not?
No one is going to hell if they mix up the fasting rules. Una cuм was made up by Fr Cekada. These are all man-made divisions in Traditionalism; these divisions are not from God.
-
No one is going to hell if they mix up the fasting rules. Una cuм was made up by Fr Cekada. These are all man-made divisions in Traditionalism; these divisions are not from God.
"Una cuм" was made up by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers, if I am not mistaken.
Anyway, I am only asking what people that are non-dogmatic Traditionalists do on their daily lives. We can learn through other people's good habits and customs.
-
If we want to be technical, R&R is also schismatic. They say new-Rome is in authority but then do their own thing.
I find this a very poor argument but one the sedes fling towards non sedes all the time, it’s one of the main ones they use actually.
If a would-be Pope teaches something erroneous or heretical, no matter how orthodox he might appear to be, you cannot follow his teaching, and you don’t have to justify rejecting the teaching by first reaching the conclusion that hey, he’s actually not a real Pope because what he’s doing is technically impossible, so the only conclusion is that he must be a fake Pope etc. etc. so then NOW I have full justification to legitimately reject him.
It’s preposterous and flies in the face of history and common sense.
The sedes who use this argument would have ignorant people who have no clue about the doctrine of the heretical Pope losing office etc. following error and heresy on the principle that “you have to obey the Pope if you think he’s the Pope no matter what.”
-
While I appreciate the generous, even noble, spirit of your view, I think fairness requires a look at the other side of the coin too. Those calling on Sean for an apology have had years of experience with him, years worth of, lets be honest, jackassery. It's easy to see and to say that others should just forgive, and, honestly, that is the right answer, but its not so easy when you're the one that has to do the forgiving. What I'm saying is to realize that many of the enmities found here aren't based on one-off events, but are cuмulative. It's the same thing with Lad, he's worked very hard at creating ill will towards himself for far longer than the recent political debates and that's not anyone else's fault but his own.
As for Sean, I only had a handful of run ins with him for which, to his great credit and to my edification, he apologized. I commend him for his virtue and am glad to hear that he is still working out his salvation.
I understand what you're saying, but I personally believe that no one on this forum (including Sean Johnson) should get upset and hold grudges from the theological warzones here. It takes, at the very minimum, two to argue. There's nothing forcing anyone here to get into arguments, and there's certainly nothing forcing said people to continue those arguments when they get nasty. It's just not worth it in most cases to get absorbed in online arguments, and it's never worth developing grudges over it. And that's what I'm really taking issue with here, the grudges! At best, the grudges are pointless, and at worst they are spiritually harmful!
My interactions with Sean were limited, but I never had any arguments with him (at least that I can remember). Then again, I wasn't interested in arguing about sedevacantism with him. After all, there are plenty of other members here who can handle that :laugh1: