Yep.

Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?

Well Busillis, I don't think a SV needs to elect a pope after coming to their conclusion. He only recognizes things as he see them, but needing to elect a pope is not part of the opinion or a requirement of submitting to it. Also, and I hope I'm not mistaken, the authority for SV is the same as that of those who reject the Modernists- it comes from supplied jurisdiction.

Quote from: s2srea

This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.

Funny thing, s2srea, the SSPX has quite publicly stated that the SV position is "too simple"!  This actually proves how moderate and true the SV position is because it gets blamed sometimes for being too simplel and sometimes for being too complicated! Think about it...the school boy learns simply about the trinity or transubstantiation, yet theologians can go into those quite deeply.

The Arian heresy was one subtle philosophical error (pretty much the difference between one letter in a word!), yet the simple Catholic was praised for realizing that it was against the Faith while he disassociated himself from all the Arians.

Let's cut out the accusations of ease or difficulty and simply talk about whether something is "true" or not. How about that?

Let me quote a very learned sedevacantist here:

Let me put it this way. At present, there are basically two types of "Catholics": those who are happy with the "changes" and those who are not. Of the latter group, some if not most have joined some sort of resistance "movement" at least in their minds. The first group is not Catholic, and I have no concern with them, though I hope and pray for their conversion to the Truth as I do for all unbelievers. They are not members of the Church, and they are not interested in what I or "traditionalists" have to say. It would take a far greater than I to convert them. My "mission" is to those who are unhappy with the "changes" but have not found the way out from conciliar heresy and schism. I am convinced that on a better understanding of Catholic teaching, given to us by Our Divine Redeemer for our comfort as well as for our salvation (and every single syllable of it was bought and paid for by His Most Precious Blood), they will see the need, regardless of the "Pope" question, of totally rejecting the "changes." They will understand the falsity of the position of so many compromisers who, while not accepting the heresies of Vatican II openly, are in the position of the Semi-Arians of the 4th century, of the Jansenists, of other groups who have diluted the pure truth of Christ to gain a following, or out of human respect, or because they have been partly deceived by heretics.

Therefore, as I have said, my "mission" (I can't and don't wish to speak for others) is not per se to prove that the conciliar Popes are invalid, but to convey the absolute necessity of believing the doctrine of the unity of the Church, as well as the sacrosanct character of all Tradition, both doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary. The invalidity of the "popes" is a conclusion depending on the heretical nature of their teachings. Those who adhere to their teachings obviously will never agree to this. There is no point discussing this with them at all, when there is no antecedent agreement on matters of Faith. For those who do see the heresy, to a greater or lesser extent, the "pope question" may be necessary, and is likely to be helpful, as clearing out an obstacle to the full truth, particularly the obstacle of confusing a heretical sect with the True Church. If this is confused, the mind is deprived of clear ideas about doctrine. The necessary result is that all the doctrines rejected in the Novus Ordo "church" are reduced, in the minds of otherwise would-be orthodox people, to matters of opinion. This is actually the position of certain well known "traditional" priests (in communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy). Their whole position is founded on accepting, a priori, conciliar "popes" as legitimate and the Vatican Council as a legitimate council. Their great danger is precisely the appearance, and their claim, of 100% orthodoxy, enabling them to keep people in the conciliar slaughterhouse.

There are so many important Catholic principles which have been lost sight of today. One could clean the Augean stables before succeeding in restoring these to men's minds. But one of the most important, and neglected even by traditional priests, is that of St. Augustine: In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity. (Frequently fractured by heretics to "in unessential things" as though any matter of doctrine could be unessential). There need be no division between Catholics over controverted matters when they are DIFFICULT, OBSCURE, not clear from past teaching or requiring proof of facts not evident to us, and of course, not yet decided by Catholic authority (Pope or general council). Such, it seems to me, is the question of the legitimacy of the "popes" since 1958. Such is NOT the clear teaching of the Church (whether or not solemnly defined) which has been overthrown in countless ways by and since the Council. In these things, there can be no disagreement. Those who are with us on this are with the Church; those who are not, are not Catholics. If some of the matters are difficult, many, if not most, are not.

Now Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino, where do you disagree?

So, Katholikos- everything you've just said had nothing to do with what I'd posted, right? So nothing I've mentioned is "unfair" yet, right? Will you take back the 'that's a bit unfair now' part? Or are you leaving it in for effect?

If I understand you right, you took issue with my defense of sedevacantism on the grounds that it was too theological. For a position that is theological in nature, necessarily so, yes, I think that's a bit unfair, especially since I'd be opening up myself to the charge of not using enough theology if I don't use much of it. But that's just my opinion. If you think I have unjustly "accused" you of being unfair, I am happy to retract that. I suppose it's a matter of opinion/perspective. (But you did tell me, in a post on page 23, that the issue of sedevacantism was "more complex" than I was making it out to be in a particular post - didn't you?)

And here I can agree with you. Nothing you've said has really been that 'deep' in terms of theology. However, would you agree that in order to ascertain the answer to the sedevecantist question, that one should be able to, and actually need to, dive deep into theology.

No, I don't think it's necessary. It probably depends on the person. Some people "get it" right away, just from the basics, whereas others aren't satisfied by that and want more.

Put another way, would it truly be safe for someone to take such a stance as being pro-SV, without ruling out its theological implications in its entirety, given that it has no dogmatic, doctrinal or canonical basis?

"Given that", huh? :) Of course sedevacantism has a dogmatic, doctrinal, and canonical basis.

This doesn't even mention the amount of prayer and meditation one should perform prior to accepting it as their position; and this prayerful discernment is almost never mentioned by any (spare a few) sedevecantists.

It's a given that anything having to do with one's soul, one's salvation, one's Faith, ought to be accompanied by lots of prayer. That goes for ANY position - that of remaining in the Novus Ordo, that of taking the "papal/magisterial babysitter" position of the SSPX, and that of sedevacantism. Before you call a liturgical rite universally promulgated and approved by the (person you recognize to be the) Pope EVIL, yeah, you should do a bit of praying. This argument cuts in all directions.

I just wanted to point it out. You said it, friend. It is the greatest theological mystery, yet we are all bound to accept it (as you'd originally argued, and argue below)? Hmm. I would go out on a limb and argue that almost sounds like a dogma...  I don't believe you've shown yourself to be a dogmatic sedevecantist, but I believe this helps illustrate my point.

You've lost me. What I'm saying is that no matter which way you slice it, the situation we are faced with (and regardless of what position you take) is the greatest mystery since the founding of the Church. What we have been witnessing since 1958 has never happened before.

Not at all! And that's my point! A catholic is not bound to discuss or have opinions on anything over the level of his Catechism. Anything more than that, and he is free.

That's all well and good, but what I'm saying is that YOUR position CONTRADICTS the catechism.

And this is where you fail again; essentially equating coming to an affirmative to the SV question is similar to reasoning that there is a God (you said, "The human mind can know things") isn't really comforting. Yes we can know things as human beings. But as Catholics, we have never been, nor will we ever be, required to make a determination on the status of the pope or the papacy.

Let me explain: Coming to affirm sedevacantism is the ONLY WAY that you can escape the dilemma of either schism or heresy. If you do not want to make a determination on the "Pope," fine, but then follow him (Benedict), because your catechism compels you to. Ah! But if you do that, then what do you believe? Do you believe the old or the new Faith? You cannot believe both. (Challenge me on this if you like.)

OK, so you decide to stick with the Old Faith. Now you have a problem: You cannot submit to the "Pope" the way the Old Faith tells you to. In other words, both options run into a contradiction, into a dead end: You will either refuse to submit to the Pope (schism), or you will submit to him and thus compel yourself to believe the New Faith (heresy).

Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.

As I've said before, if this particular truth is "knowable", then why can't the brightest theological minds come to an agreement on the issue? If this or that docuмent rendered the Sedevacantist issue "CASE CLOSED", why do so many people dispute it? While 99% of people are out of the game for various reasons, that still leaves a lot of people! Why don't most of them -- even half of them -- agree on the same "truth" about the Papacy?

Who are these brightest theological minds? Can we get some examples? Sedevacantism isn't that tough to figure out. But for many people it's unsettling, understandably. There are many obstacles in people's lives, some more and some less burdensome. Some are faced with no Mass to go to; some will have family problems; some depend on a "marriage annulment" from the Novus Ordo to be able to keep their lives in order; some don't have sufficient resources to research the matter; some will lose their job; some will lose recognition; some will fall into depression, etc.

I am not saying that everyone who hasn't embraced sedevacantism has an ulterior motive. Not at all. But we would be fools to tell ourselves that some of the above motives don't come into play for a lot of people.

Some people just haven't come across the right sources yet (that's how it was for me - I wasn't aware of all Church teachings when I was in the SSPX, but once I was exposed to more Church teachings, I realized the SSPX was wrong and sedevacantism was true). And for some still, sedevacantism maybe has never been sufficiently explained to them. And yes, grace plays a big role too, probably the biggest one. Think of all the monasteries and convents no longer in existence. All those pious clergy who used to be there - are no longer praying. The Holy Mass is barely offered anywhere anymore, and so much less grace is available today from those sources.

But this whole argument being made here isn't a very good one. One might as well apply it to all traditionalists and ask, "How come 99.999% of all 'Catholics' aren't Traditionalists?"

When 100 people have 7 different theories on the Papacy, how can ANY of them accuse the others of bad will, just for holding to an opposing theory?

It's not right to accuse people of bad will rashly. Unfortunately, some have a terrible habit of doing that. I am not one of them.

But to get back to the issue: If someone wants to defend the SSPX-type position in light of the evidence, by all means, let me hear it.

My theory: The answer is not to be found, or is unknowable without divine revelation. That's part of the grave nature of the current Crisis. We have to fall back on what we know, and "play it safe" until God sorts this mess out.

And how do we "play it safe"? By becoming schismatics or by becoming heretics? (see the two non-sedevacantist options I described above)

As a corollary, I'm saying that there isn't enough empirical data to prove anything about the situation with the popes today. And that the papacy is matter for THEOLOGY, not PHILOSOPHY. That is, it involves revelation and supernatural matters, and isn't something purely in the natural realm that can be deduced with human reason and logic.

Wait a minute... you're saying that we need new Revelation from God to be able to figure out what we ought to do or believe? I won't jump the gun here, but I think that's probably a heretical idea. In any case, Sacred Theology uses human reason and logic quite a bit in its method. While it would require theology to sort things out totally (i.e., which precise theory is correct? sede vacante, sede impedita, material/formal theory, etc.), it does not require a theologian to conclude that Benedict XVI is not the Pope or that one cannot follow the New Religion. Heck, you would probably agree to the latter part of my statement.

Human minds can know truth, and can handle philosophy. But Theology requires much input from God's revelation. We can't "get it right" purely on our own about matters pertaining to God without His help.

There's no new theology required. No new revelation, no new principles.

What I'm trying to say is, even if there WERE sufficient information out there, what's the chance that Joe Scholar who THINKS he discovered "the truth" to be objectively correct?

It's very easy to figure out that Ratzinger is not the Pope: You cannot submit to him without losing the Faith. That's the end of it, right there. And you basically agree with that.

I just think it doesn't matter. Something that most Catholics can't figure out CANNOT be of vital importance to salvation. We insult God to say otherwise. How can we accuse God of making something vital to salvation such an enigma? Either the Pope question is simple (which obviously isn't true) or we can GET BY at least without knowing the truth on this matter. I'm going with the latter.[/color]

OK then.... so that means that we can be Novus Ordo? That we can fully embrace the entire Novus Ordo magisterium, liturgy, canon law, canonizations, etc., and our faith will not be in danger? If so, then, what the heck are we doing trying to be traditional? Lenten fast? Heck! There's an easier way to Heaven now....

I tell you what- insofar as it affects my salvation, no I couldn't care less if BVXI was pope or not, or what the NO teaches, because they are both not acting Catholic. And until they are and teach withing the teachings of the Catholic Church, I will stick to Tradition and save my soul through receiving the Sacraments and living a holy life as best I can. Untill then, it matters not whether they are pope or not, because I still have the Catholic Church to follow, can still save my soul, and am not wasting my time debating something which is outside my reach. Something that is too far deep theologically for me to understand, and which is not required for me to understand.

Thanks for being straightforward about it. So, the institution you believe to be the Roman Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation, is "not acting Catholic." May I suggest that that's perhaps because it isn't Catholic? (Ditto for Benedict.) Funny how you feel competent to recognize what is and isn't Catholic (even though the "Church" tells you otherwise!), but when it comes to drawing the logical conclusion, you decide it's above your head and could not possibly be "required" of you.

If you "have the Catholic Church to follow," why don't you then? Or, do you concede that this modernist monster headquartered in Rome isn't the Catholic Church, after all?

And what's this business about "Tradition" you allegedly adhere to? Where did it come from if not from the Catholic Church? (The one you think is still in Rome) And who gets to decide what is and isn't traditional? Where do you draw the line, and what if someone disagrees?

And where in any theological manual or magisterial statement does it say that Catholics are only bound to submit to "Tradition" (defined by themselves) and can ignore the Pope/Church at all other times?

Again, I will not argue on the points of SVism itself, but I will say that I do and am subject to the Roman pontiff insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

See, this is exactly what I mean: You guys have to change the Faith in order to uphold your "resist" position. The clause "insofar as he is within the genuine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" you will find in no council docuмent or theological manual or catechism, at least not in the way you mean it. In fact, Vatican I made clear that we can safely submit to the Pope and the Church, knowing that they cannot mislead us. Vatican I taught: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion" (http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecuмe3.htm).

Please explain how you reconcile this with your "recognize and resist" position.

I said earlier that I didn't care about the status of the pope, 'insofar as it affects my salvation', and I meant it. But this doesn't mean that I don't care outright. I'm trying to tell you, and have been trying to tell you, that I, personally, can not know. And many others are the same. And at the end of the day, this does not affect my salvation. I will still save my soul, as long as I follow Christ, his Blessed Mother, the Teachings and Commandments of the Church, etc.,

Please do not think me to be doubting or attacking either your sincerity or your devotion and piety. By no means. I can totally sympathize and commiserate with you. I know you want to do what is right and what God asks of you. I am just telling you that this position you have taken is not compatible with that very Faith you profess to hold.

How will you save your soul by following the teachings and commandments of the Church when you disregard those teachings and commandments after 1958 (or 1965, whenever the case may be for you)? As long as you believe this institution to be the Catholic Church, you have no grounds for refusing it. You must conclude that it cannot be the Catholic Church.

Honestly, if all the people in the SSPX and the indult had concluded sedevacantism 40 years ago, I doubt that the New Church would still exist, at least not the way it does now.

The SSPX position, no matter how devout and sincere the individual people may be, has done grave damage to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX has led people to believe that the Catholic Church can teach error, impose impious rites and laws, can issue false "canonizations," can legislate error, and that a bishop from Switzerland (and thereby anyone, really, with a copy of Denzinger) can sit in judgment of the Holy See, filtering and contradicting what is issued by Rome. Unbelievable!

May God bless!

katholikos-

Thank you for the sincere response. I will try to figure out if I will respond fully, partially, or at all. Again, at a certain point, we can go on forever. And, again, my argument is not about SVism itself, but I think the complexity of the issue, as shown by our lengthy discussion and imagining just how long our disagreement could go on for (forever?), proves the point I wish to make. I'm sure we'll have a good time engaging on similar and other issues if I don't respond to this.

In Christ and Mary,

Richard

Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.

Except it's not the only possible conclusion. Others reach different conclusions. I don't believe they're correct, but I can see how they reach their conclusions, which, btw, are the same ones previously held by some sedevacantists. What's disturbing to me about your conclusions is your apparent accusations of schism and heresy.

Quote from: katholikos

Therefore, sedevacantism is the only possible conclusion. It avoids both schism and heresy. That's it in a nutshell. And this is all knowable.

Except it's not the only possible conclusion. Others reach different conclusions. I don't believe they're correct, but I can see how they reach their conclusions, which, btw, are the same ones previously held by some sedevacantists. What's disturbing to me about your conclusions is your apparent accusations of schism and heresy.

What other conclusions, then, are possible without falling into schism or heresy? Just because others reach different conclusions doesn't mean those conclusions are sound. I, too, once believed in the SSPX position. But I came to know that it was not a possible position.

As far as those "accusations of schism and heresy," please understand that I am not accusing any individuals of the sin of schism or heresy. I am not speaking subjectively but objectively. A position which rejects Catholic dogma is heretical, and a position which refuses submission to the man recognized to be the Roman Pontiff, is schismatic. That's the teaching of the Church.

I totally understand how horrible all of this is for people to go through. It's no different for me. My life could be a lot easier if I were not a sedevacantist. It took me years to figure out which position is possible and which isn't. So, I totally sympathize. But at the end of the day, this doesn't change the facts.

Quote from: katholikos

I, too, once believed in the SSPX position.

Were you a heretic or schismatic back then?

Subjectively, probably not - because I was in ignorance of / in good faith on a lot of things that I came to know and understand later. Objectively, yes.

If so, what did you believe contrary to the Faith?

I denied/doubted the Catholic dogma of the primacy of the Pope, that the Pope enjoys a primacy of jurisdiction, and that a Catholic must submit to the Pope in terms of his teachings, laws, liturgical rites, etc. I also denied/doubted the assent which a Catholic must give to papal and other magisterial teachings.