Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 2Vermont on September 15, 2013, 07:46:53 AM
-
I know that one of the main differences between the sedes and other trads here is that the former judges that the pope isn't a valid pope and the latter doesn't wish to "judge" the pope because it is "above their pay grade" (I've seen these terms quite often in the last week).
I would like to speak further about this because I always thought that when we talk about "judging" anyone we are talking about the state of their soul and where they will end up after death. It seems to me that this is not what is going on here. The sedes are merely stating that based on heretical actions that the pope (if ever legit) automatically/ipso facto loses his title and membership in the Catholic Church. Church teaching backs this. This is not a judgment on where he will end up when he dies which belongs to God. This is something that just happens even if we don't "see" it, even if there is no official proclamation by the Church. At least that is my understanding of things.
Please discuss.
-
The sedes and most of the trads here all agree that Francis is not Catholic, they say it all the time.
The difference that I see is this: A Roman Catholic who embrace the sedevacantist position merely says, the Pope, Vicar of Christ MUST be a member of the One,Holy,Catholic, Apostolic Church, and MUST be Catholic. They come to this conclusion because they LOVE God, and do not want to insult HIM.
The others who also believe Francis is not Catholic are afraid to face this truth because they only fear God.
-
I don't think fear of judging the pope is based on the universal admonition against judging souls, but rather on the specific admonition of Pope Innocent III "he (the Pope) judges all and is judged by no one."
Of course, Pope Innocent said this in a time when Catholic laymen were blessed not to have electronic media that gave them access to every papal "off the cuff remark" and personal impropriety (which no doubt would have caused disastrously widespread scandal during the pontificates of say, Stephen VI, John XII, or Alexander VI).
The pope was someone the average Catholic never saw, and could not even pick out of a lineup. The pope was the Vicar of Christ, whose name was remembered in prayers, and that was about it. The duty of the Catholic layman was salvation of his own soul, building up his personal sanctity and developing his Sensus Catholicus. At times that proved difficult (the Arian crisis of the 4th Century and, well, the Modernist crisis of today come to mind), and during the Western Schism, laymen could not even know who the pope was for close to a century... But the layman's duty remained the same, as it remains today.
My own view on the "option" of Sedevacantism (which is de facto lay judgement of the pope) is identical to Bishop Williamson's (as I quoted recently in the "Would you follow him" thread). To paraphrase: We Catholics had been spoiled with a century's worth of good popes before the crisis hit.... And now we're finding out (thanks to electronic media) just how far astray Christ will allow the head(s) of His Church go, while still not allowing the Church to cease being what it has always been.
And this may be apropos of nothing at all (or it may not) but most of the sedevacantists I've personally known have been converts from Protestantism.
-
And this may be apropos of nothing at all (or it may not) but most of the sedevacantists I've personally known have been converts from Protestantism.
Very strange, because I belong to one of, might even be the largest sedevacantist positions known as CMRI, and always love to hear their stories about how they come to believe as they do. Most have always had a deep devotion to Our Lady in some way. The Protestants converts that you mention have married a Catholic with a devotion to Mary, and converted through their prayers, as happened to my husband.
One could easily say, the same about your position, whatever it is. Talk is cheap.
Sedevacantist do not sit around and bad mouth who they believe is the pope, nor do our priest mention the "pope" from the pulpit, except to quote the true popes, of which they do often. They are not hypocrites who believe one way and speak another. This is why most forums do not allow us because they realize how foolish they look. They insult God to insist a heretic can be His Vicar. They believe that God allows truth and error to be His Vicar. They believe the Holy Ghost looks the other way because of some Church laws that were put into place when times were normal. Laws are for the good of the people, and when in crisis, man made laws do not even come into the picture.
-
I would like to speak further about this because I always thought that when we talk about "judging" anyone we are talking about the state of their soul and where they will end up after death.
No, I think that most folks are judging Pope Francis' actions, but not his soul. Although, there is a tiny minority who enjoy judging his soul and presuming where it will go.
We are called to judge righteously and unhypocritically. But we are not really supposed to determine where a soul goes. That is up to God's Divine Will, which we cannot know right now.
-
I know that one of the main differences between the sedes and other trads here is that the former judges that the pope isn't a valid pope and the latter doesn't wish to "judge" the pope because it is "above their pay grade" (I've seen these terms quite often in the last week).
I would like to speak further about this because I always thought that when we talk about "judging" anyone we are talking about the state of their soul and where they will end up after death. It seems to me that this is not what is going on here. The sedes are merely stating that based on heretical actions that the pope (if ever legit) automatically/ipso facto loses his title and membership in the Catholic Church. Church teaching backs this. This is not a judgment on where he will end up when he dies which belongs to God. This is something that just happens even if we don't "see" it, even if there is no official proclamation by the Church. At least that is my understanding of things.
Please discuss.
Your understanding is correct. We are judging external and public facts. We take no pleasure in this, and we are forced to make these judgments, as the pope cannot be ignored.
A public heretic loses his office automatically by operation of the law. The reason for this is because a heretic loses his membership in the Church, and by that his office is lost. A public heretic cannot rule over Catholics. The idea that a public heretic can be pope is odious and the result should be obvious.
-
Sedevacantist do not sit around and bad mouth who they believe is the pope, nor do our priest mention the "pope" from the pulpit, except to quote the true popes, of which they do often. They are not hypocrites who believe one way and speak another. This is why most forums do not allow us because they realize how foolish they look. They insult God to insist a heretic can be His Vicar. They believe that God allows truth and error to be His Vicar. They believe the Holy Ghost looks the other way because of some Church laws that were put into place when times were normal. Laws are for the good of the people, and when in crisis, man made laws do not even come into the picture.
I don't think it has anything to do with anyone realizing how foolish they look so they won't allow talk of SV - - and what ever happened to your belief that God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.
-
And this may be apropos of nothing at all (or it may not) but most of the sedevacantists I've personally known have been converts from Protestantism.
They insult God to insist a heretic can be His Vicar.
Was Pope Honorius not His Vicar?
-
A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.
At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?
-
God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.
He does, but He chooses Catholic men, not Masons.
I don't change my mind when it comes to doctrine of the Church, with God's grace I never will.
-
A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.
At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?
Define "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" for us.
-
A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.
At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?
Define "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" for us.
That's precisely what I'm asking. We all know what sedevacantism is. I'm curious to know at what stage it becomes "dogmatic."
-
God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.
He does, but He chooses Catholic men, not Masons.
I don't change my mind when it comes to doctrine of the Church, with God's grace I never will.
Please post the doctrine stating God chooses the popes.
-
Your the one that brought it up, you post it.
-
Matthew- Never mind. I see you answered this about a year ago. It's a good answer, so I'll paste it below.
Dogmatic sedevacantism is where "sede vacante" (the See is vacant) is raised to the level of a dogma, and that everyone denying this "dogma" is a heretic or non-Catholic.
Dogmatic Sedevacantists claim that those who don't adhere to sedevacantism are not just taking a different path in the Crisis, but that they actually need to be converted. If they don't convert, they must be either ignorant or of bad will -- just like a good Catholic would say about non-Catholics.
The idea the sedevacantism can be considered like a dogma of the Faith is ridiculous. Absolute, googly-eyed, "where's my straightjacket" insanity.
As an aside, dogmatic sedevacantists are NOT welcome on CathInfo. In other words, if you consider most CathInfo members to be non-Catholic, or matter for "conversion", you are not welcome here.
There are plenty of intelligent, educated Catholics of good will who look at Sedevacantism and keep walking. Such is a completely legitimate position.
As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."
So we are free to pick our poison.
-
A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.
At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?
Define "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" for us.
That's precisely what I'm asking. We all know what sedevacantism is. I'm curious to know at what stage it becomes "dogmatic."
The way I understand it, here on Cathinfo, if becomes dogmatic when a sedevacantist says, unless you believe like me, you are damned.
That is wrong to say, because no one knows who is damned or not, in my opinion. The Church teaches us not to judge the soul of anyone, not even those who die without water baptism. NO ONE! That is up to God.
I believe Matthew will get rid of people who call other trads here who have a different position than sede, outside the Church. He also says he will bann those who call sedevacantism outside the Church, so I guess that would be R&R dogmatic. TABOO!
-
A question for Matthew- I've heard "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" is not tolerated here.
At what stage does sedevacantism become "dogmatic"?
Define "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" for us.
That's precisely what I'm asking. We all know what sedevacantism is. I'm curious to know at what stage it becomes "dogmatic."
The way I understand it, here on Cathinfo, if becomes dogmatic when a sedevacantist says, unless you believe like me, you are damned.
That is wrong to say, because no one knows who is damned or not, in my opinion. The Church teaches us not to judge the soul of anyone, not even those who die without water baptism. NO ONE! That is up to God.
I believe Matthew will get rid of people who call other trads here who have a different position than sede, outside the Church. He also says he will bann those who call sedevacantism outside the Church, so I guess that would be R&R dogmatic. TABOO!
I'm satisfied with Matthew's definition of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, as well as Bishop Williamson's assessment of its origins and tenability.
-
As someone told me recently, "There are unanswerable questions both for the Sedevacantists and the Recognize-and-Resist side. Neither side has a perfect answer to all the objections/questions."
The sedevacantist position if correctly understood answers all of the objections. It is a logical, consistent, and Catholic answer to the crisis.
With that said, I am firmly against "dogmatic" sedevacantism, it is schismatic.
-
God chooses which popes get elected? I take it you've changed your mind on that one.
He does, but He chooses Catholic men, not Masons.
I don't change my mind when it comes to doctrine of the Church, with God's grace I never will.
God chose Stephen VI, John XII and Alexander VI?
-
They were Catholics, yes? Not Masons.
God also chose Judas... interesting.
-
My own view on the "option" of Sedevacantism (which is de facto lay judgement of the pope) is identical to Bishop Williamson's (as I quoted recently in the "Would you follow him" thread). To paraphrase: We Catholics had been spoiled with a century's worth of good popes before the crisis hit.... And now we're finding out (thanks to electronic media) just how far astray Christ will allow the head(s) of His Church go, while still not allowing the Church to cease being what it has always been.
quote]
Sounds like a wishy washy apology for apostasy. This situation is not even remotely comparable to anything before Vatican II. NEWSFLASH- The Church has ceased being what it has always been!
-If Francis is the pope and teaches Catholic Doctrine, you must obey him. Failure to do so is a sin.
-If he does not, but actually teaches condemned heresies, have nothing to do with him.
The Church has never been something that promotes as part of its doctrine any of the anti-Christian garbage of JPII, BXVI or F.
It is beyond comprehension how anyone can say that someone who tirelessly does SO MUCH to destroy the faith given to us by Jesus Christ Himself promotes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and anti-Christian religion as official church doctrine is the "head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!"
It is also puzzling how you try to call out "dogmatic" sedevacantists as if there were really such a thing. Maybe you are talking about the Dimonds or something? If the only sedevacantists you have run across are recent converts to the Church from protestantism, then you have a very limited understanding of who sedevacantists are and are thus not in any position to be overly critical or so fearful of them.
I pray for God to give us a true pope and for the true Catholic Faith to be held by all Catholics,
-
Your the one that brought it up, you post it.
The only doctrine I know of pertains only to the first pope:
Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Some time after that and till today, the popes are all elected, the one with the most votes is elected pope.
So other than God choosing the first pope, there is no doctrine that teaches that God chooses the popes. Looks like it is only a personal belief that you and probably many other SVs bind themselves to.
-
I wonder if there's such a thing as ecclesia-vacantism. Is that like SV, or a forerunner to SV?
I consider it because Fatima:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images%20(401-500)/485_Fatima-01.jpg)
And not even ONE of the NewBishops, including the sometimes-heralded Cardinal Burke, would think to do the Catholic thing and storm Fatima and tear down that atrocity and burn the heretics [pictured].
Holy Pope Boniface VIII would have made sport with what the conciliarists pass off as 'bishops' today. (Srsly, ask the EO.)
Ecclesia-vacantism... you know, this picture might actually explain it all. MAYBE the NewBishops are literally VACANT and therefore can't be stabbed with swords!
-
I wonder if there's such a thing as ecclesia-vacantism. Is that like SV, or a forerunner to SV?
I consider it because Fatima:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images%20(401-500)/485_Fatima-01.jpg)
And not even ONE of the NewBishops, including the sometimes-heralded Cardinal Burke, would think to do the Catholic thing and storm Fatima and tear down that atrocity and burn the heretics [pictured].
Holy Pope Boniface VIII would have made sport with what the conciliarists pass off as 'bishops' today. (Srsly, ask the EO.)
Ecclesia-vacantism... you know, this picture might actually explain it all. MAYBE the NewBishops are literally VACANT and therefore can't be stabbed with swords!
St. Cecilia herself would have done it
-
Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
-
Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
There a lot of traditional Catholics who don't call themselves sedevacantists that have concluded all of those points.
-
Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
There a lot of traditional Catholics who don't call themselves sedevacantists that have concluded all of those points.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that these folks even though they don't call themselves sedes actually are? Or are you saying that you don't have to be a sede to come to the above conclusions?
Because I take Bishop Sanborn's meaning as you can judge a pope not to be a pope (ie. "outside o the Church")....and many traditionalists are not willing to take that step because they feel they are judging the pope and only the "court of law" can do that first (ie. the Church). I would suugest that the latter group is the SSPX (if I understand their position correctly).
-
My own view on the "option" of Sedevacantism (which is de facto lay judgement of the pope) is identical to Bishop Williamson's (as I quoted recently in the "Would you follow him" thread). To paraphrase: We Catholics had been spoiled with a century's worth of good popes before the crisis hit.... And now we're finding out (thanks to electronic media) just how far astray Christ will allow the head(s) of His Church go, while still not allowing the Church to cease being what it has always been.
quote]
Sounds like a wishy washy apology for apostasy. This situation is not even remotely comparable to anything before Vatican II. NEWSFLASH- The Church has ceased being what it has always been!
-If Francis is the pope and teaches Catholic Doctrine, you must obey him. Failure to do so is a sin.
-If he does not, but actually teaches condemned heresies, have nothing to do with him.
The Church has never been something that promotes as part of its doctrine any of the anti-Christian garbage of JPII, BXVI or F.
It is beyond comprehension how anyone can say that someone who tirelessly does SO MUCH to destroy the faith given to us by Jesus Christ Himself promotes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and anti-Christian religion as official church doctrine is the "head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!"
It is also puzzling how you try to call out "dogmatic" sedevacantists as if there were really such a thing. Maybe you are talking about the Dimonds or something? If the only sedevacantists you have run across are recent converts to the Church from protestantism, then you have a very limited understanding of who sedevacantists are and are thus not in any position to be overly critical or so fearful of them.
I pray for God to give us a true pope and for the true Catholic Faith to be held by all Catholics,
John-
Welcome to Cathinfo!
Matthew (the moderator) himself has defined (and forbade promulgation of) "dogmatic sedevacantism" for the purposes of this forum. Please consult him if you have something against this prohibition.
-
They were Catholics, yes? Not Masons.
God also chose Judas... interesting.
So God positively willed the pontificate that brought us the Cadaver Synod? God positively willed the selection of open fornicators like John XII? God positively willed the selection of Alexander VI, a philanderer whose gross pride bordered on idolatry (commissioning more statues of himself than any other subject)? These were the best men for the job, and God selected them... how, using their electors as powerless automatons completely devoid of free will?
Please cite what canon or dogma leads you to believe that God actively selects Popes.
Two additional points:
1. Judas was not a pope.
2. Our Lord chose Judas while He was here bodily on earth, and with perfect knowledge of the integral part Judas would play in His Passion and Death.
-
Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
There a lot of traditional Catholics who don't call themselves sedevacantists that have concluded all of those points.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that these folks even though they don't call themselves sedes actually are? Or are you saying that you don't have to be a sede to come to the above conclusions?
Because I take Bishop Sanborn's meaning as you can judge a pope not to be a pope (ie. "outside o the Church")....and many traditionalists are not willing to take that step because they feel they are judging the pope and only the "court of law" can do that first (ie. the Church). I would suugest that the latter group is the SSPX (if I understand their position correctly).
More or less, yes, I'm saying that traditional Catholics generally fall into the category of what most people consider sedevacantism. I think the apparent aversion to being called a sedevacantist stems from two major things: The (false) impression that ABL was anti-sedevacantist, and the stigma that has been placed on sedevacantism due to people who can barely be called Catholic, such as Richard Ibranyi.
There are traditional Catholics who think ABL was opposed to SVism, and that 'the nine' were expelled for being SV, and that ABL had 'settled' the question of the pope. They think that by opposing sedevacantism, they are carrying on the Archbishop's work. He himself acknowledged that there may be a time where we are obliged to say 'the pope is not the pope' (read: there may be a time to call the man most consider to be pope an antipope). He was a non-sedevacantist, but he was not an anti-sedevacantist.
Furthermore, Catholics show their allegiance to the pope by following his direction. He is the proximate rule of faith. Catholics love him and assent to what he teaches, and not just when he teaches ex cathedra. Some traditional Catholics give Francis, Benedict, John Paul, et al. the title of pope, but they do not treat him as pope. Actions speak louder than words. They do not really consider this man to be pope. If they did, they wouldn't be traditionalists in the modern world :)
I wouldn't say that by recognizing the points laid out by John that a person isn't a sedevacantist, only that they may not make that distinct realization. I also don't think that making that realization is something that MUST be done, though I have found it helpful.
-
So God positively willed the pontificate that brought us the Cadaver Synod? God positively willed the selection of open fornicators like John XII? God positively willed the selection of Alexander VI, a philanderer whose gross pride bordered on idolatry (commissioning more statues of himself than any other subject)? These were the best men for the job, and God selected them... how, using their electors as powerless automatons completely devoid of free will?
Stubborn brought up about God choosing popes, I don't know if that is doctrine or not. Talk to him about it.
I do know that even when we have a true pope, they still have a free will, and some true popes were very evil. The Bible says we all sin, so I suppose that would include popes as well. To be honest, I don't know anything about the Cadever Synod, I will look it up. I remember learning in school that we had many antipopes (sinful popes), but none of them changed the doctrines of the Church as did Vatican II.
Going now to look up Cadever Synod...
Our Lord chose Judas while He was here bodily on earth, and with perfect knowledge of the integral part Judas would play in His Passion and Death.
Not sure if this is correct, it doesn't seem like God to predestined a person to do evil. Or am I misunderstanding you.
-
Okay, after reading a little about that time period, I remember learning it was a time of truly, and really great political strife. Just did not recall that name Cadever.
The way the nuns explained to us students a long time ago, I remember learning this time period God allowed to prove that His Church was a Divine Institution, not human, because if it was human, during all these things that happened it would have fallen and the gates of Hell would have prevailed. Although many abuses happened and strange things like digging up the dead to put them on trial, Popes being strangled, etc. The doctrines of the Church were not tampered with successfully, such as today with Vatican II. In fact they were protected, unlike today. That is the difference.
Whether the Holy Ghost actually picks the person of Pope, as He did St. Peter. I don't know but I will ask Him when I face Him face to face.(interesting question)
I do know that the Holy Ghost is invoked often, i.e. in the Divine Office by the Hour of Tierce. In fact the entire liturgy of the Church gives us the example of continual recourse to the Holy Ghost. Many functions of Holy Church opens with an invocation to the Holy Ghost. So when you have holy men getting ready to elect a True Pope, I do believe the Holy Ghost would be invited.
However when Vatican II became full swing, unless you do not believe the Vatican was infiltrated with the enemy. If you close your eyes to the fact that Protestants were there along with other enemies of the Church to make it more worldly, if you turn your head so as not to notice the INTENT of these Freemasons, communists who now had control, of the property of the Church, do you really believe the Holy Ghost was there to help. I don't. God is not mocked.
-
Imagine the absurdity of saying: “I have witnessed a murder, but cannot testify against the perpetrator because he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.” Imagine if every witness said this.
It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary, if we are accusing Vatican II of heresy and substantial deviation from Catholicism, to conclude to the heresy of the promulgators of Vatican II and its reforms, with the conclusion that (1) they are public heretics, and therefore outside the Church; (2) they do not intend the objective good of the Catholic Church through the maintenance of its traditional doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy.
On the other hand, if we are not accusing Vatican II and its reforms of heresy and substantial deviation, then why do we have a traditional movement?
- Bp. Donald Sanborn
There a lot of traditional Catholics who don't call themselves sedevacantists that have concluded all of those points.
Reminds me of H.E. Moises Carmona, when he was officially "excommunicated" from the Conciliar sect he responded, "Blessed excommunication!" "Bendita excomulgacion!"
I don't mind being a called a Sedevacantist because it makes it more clear to those unfamiliar what sort of Catholic I am. The only problem is that many conclude because they are called Sedevacantist that it must teach something new or novel as a result, but to those familiar with the position it is something that is not a novel idea. Kind of like those that call Lefebvrist to the Recognize and Resist crowd, I would not say that it is necessarily a bad thing, but rather a good thing. It reminds me of Fr. Cyprian (Prior) of Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery, he said when someone says are you a Lefebvrist the thing that comes to his mind will be whether he will answer like St. Peter during the Crucifixion. "I know not the man." And then again they will accuse you and tell you that your manner of speech is so close to him, everything that you say reminds them of +Lefebvre speech. Will you like St. Peter start cussing and cursing exclaiming to everyone, "I know not the man!" Some do it out of fear and human respect, it is somewhat understandable human response, but to those that have supernatural faith it is definitely showing a lack of character.
The Apostles imitated Our Blessed Lord in everything, so that everyone could be able to recognize them as disciples of the Lord. Many in the indult especially the FSSP/ICK et al, are accused of being Lefebvrist by the Conciliarists, because their manner of speech is so close to the Archbishop's that it gives them away quickly. Some of them will not necessarily repudiate that, some others will be scandalized by that. So when Concilarist attempt to mention the "Sedevacantist" dilemma of trying to make them seem like a particular sect, be a little bit more circuмspect and realize that you will more then likely be called a Lefebvrist yourself. So that it really benefits no one to particularly be "dogmatic" about your sedeplenism. If you would get a group of traditionalists and you would write a survey of whether they consider sedevacantist schismatics, you would find the overwhelming majority of SSPX type of individuals answer that they are schismatic, ready for the fires of hell. Now if you had the same survey, with the SV'ist you will find that the majority of them would not consider the SSPX schismatic to the same degree that the SSPX folks consider SV'ist. The SV'ist will obviously respond that such a position tends towards Schism, and each individual would be judged accordingly to how badly their mentality is schismatic.
We see ourselves as nothing more or less then Catholic, this is understood by all traditionalists but sometimes in an age where the modernist have completely destroyed all good manner of speech changing the meaning of words to pervert their meaning. So then this becomes a part of the reality of our everyday communication. The Conciliarists love to see themselves as "New Order Catholics" doing everything in the spirit of Vatican II. So that the Conciliarist will call us Sedevacantist/Lefebvrist to try to make us look like outside of the Church, but they stand condemned by the previous magisterium. So that they might be able to initially, get away with bloody murder for a little while. We will stand convicted (if we persevere to the end) if not within our lifetime in the life to come as to why we were right all along for taking a stand against the New Religion. Who matters more? Men or the Divine Supreme Judge who knows all things and the deepest recesses of the heart. So let us then be encouraged by living according to the reality of eternity, it is precisely eternity that we must strive for. Never let the sophistries of heretics discourage you, or alienate you from the truth of the faith on one single iota. Don't be afraid to be called SV'ist/Lefebvrist etc... At the end of the day it is precisely the Catholic faith that they are trying to impute to us by labeling us with these blessed names, this is why we should not be angry or upset about the labeling. Rather rejoice, because you have been found worthy to suffer for the Lord's sake ridicule by worldly men.
-
Furthermore, Catholics show their allegiance to the pope by following his direction. He is the proximate rule of faith. Catholics love him and assent to what he teaches, and not just when he teaches ex cathedra. Some traditional Catholics give Francis, Benedict, John Paul, et al. the title of pope, but they do not treat him as pope. Actions speak louder than words. They do not really consider this man to be pope. If they did, they wouldn't be traditionalists in the modern world :)
Yes, this is exactly how I see things. They may not say the pope isn't the pope, but their actions say otherwise.
-
Myrna, check your spelling again!! It's not a Cadever Council. There's no such word as cadever so you'll never find it! It's Cadaver which means 'dead body'. I think BTNYC made that up to make a point. Clever, too.
And while I'm at it, no one can bann anyone, they can only ban. Banns: public announcement esp. in church of a proposed marriage.
Methinks no one wanted to correct you, so let me be the bad guy again. As Catholics we need to be very careful - every letter is important.
Your welcome. I mean you're welcome. LOL