Thanks LoT. I get the feeling that the down thumbing is from a newer member (who has 10 days less 1 as a member on this forum), who seems to be overzealous in his stance on the SV position(nothing wrong with that), and is of the mentality that whoever does not agree or is not on board with the stance, shouldn't be given credibility. Its okay though, he will mature. Also I may be wrong.

katholikos, you and others also are able to discuss this issue well, and that is always good too.

Even then, Bp. Sanborn has said 90% of the people can't follow the arguments ... so why expect it?

What is the alternative? Not to solve it? But the question must be solved at least in the practical order: You must make a decision as to what to believe and where/whether to go to church. If you take the resistance position, what sort of catechism do you teach your children? Do you just blacken out those passages that talk about submission to the Pope? Or those that talk about the authority of the magisterium and the glory of the Church? Does the Faith, then, change?

Anyway, even if the entire traditional world became sedevacantists, how would that right things? If you know ... please share it.

For one thing, it would rob the Novus Ordo Church of a huge amount of credibility. The main reason the Novus Ordo can do so much damage is because people acknowledge it to be the Catholic Church. Imagine what would happen if people started laughing at the claim! Imagine what would have happened if the local ordinaries in the late 60s had told Paul VI that his claim to the papacy is laughable, and he should try to deceive and impose his monster mass on someone else! Oh well. If Paul VI had only been laughed out of St. Peter's basilica... how different it would all be today!

If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith (I am thinking in particular of those steeped in the errors of modernism and those non-Catholics who never dreamed of becoming Catholic because they could tell the Novus Ordo Church is just the Anglican religion from a few decades ago). Which ultimately means that more and more grace would flow and God would certainly bless us in ways we cannot imagine right now. He would surely hasten the restoration of Holy Mother Church!

Let this be our prayer!

It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!

The Mass Media didn't really say a word about the SSPX either, until Bishop Williamson's remarks on the h0Ɩ0h0αx. And Fellay's attempts at a "reconciliation" with Rome is giving them attention from the media, because selling out to Rome would be the media's dream come true!

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: katholikos

If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith  

I'm not so sure. Sedevacantists are labeled as crazy by the NO church (as are all Trads for that matter). So I'm not sure the number of Trads would increase if the SSPX went sede. It would be much better than the state the Society is in now though (refering to Bishop Fellay's attempt at reconciliation).

It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!

Katholikos is right about "risk" but not necessarily "serious risk", because the Mass Media has so much control. However, they don't have that much control of the Internet, and I think Katholikos may very well be exactly right  because the Internet is unwieldy for the Freemasons of the Mass Media. They have created a monster they cannot control.

The Key issue in all of this is how best to preserve the Faith as handed down by Christ to the Apostles and guarded by the Holy Ghost since the First Pentecost Sunday.  

I see a lot of back and forth about who is right and who is wrong about who is obedient and who isnt - about The Legitimacy of Vatican II Popes - or the question of how can there be a true Pope or then how can a sedevacantist group ever elect a true Pope to which the obvious simple answer is - with GOD all things are possible. My answer is simple - Who limits GOD? Do we not all claim to believe in GOD Almighty?  So , does that sound altruistic or does that sound too simplistic?  Am I bold enough to say for certain the "Thesis of Cassiciacuм" has more merit than the theological stance of sedevacantism or the ongoing argument regarding "Baptism of Desire" being invalid or am I to say the Dimonds are too rigid in their interpretation and insistance of its exclusion and everyone else is a "HERETIC"  To me - the Traditional movement is its own worst enemy. Or as Dr Drolesky is fond of saying - Bishop Pivarunas is WRONG About this or that etc etc etc .  

So in keeping with the subject matter of your post - the Masons can indeed and do indeed exploit these divisions to their advantage and rather than combat them by providing a united front - we instead spend our time divided and weak. Now , as for the Novus Ordo and their perception of the Traditional Movement - to me thats a non issue. I believe the lions share of the Conservative Novus Ordo hate the changes but feel they must obey. In a lot of ways that is commendable.  So there is middle ground. We simple choose to ignore that middle ground. The left wing Novus Ordo is probably not Catholic anyway - so why worry about what they think.

What we lack as Catholics - is a common united front.  Certainly in Tradition - from the time of Pope Pius the 12th back - we have the foundation for that United Front. Perhaps the answer lies in a new Marian Movement of Laity.   If we form a Marian Society - free to all Traditional Catholics - regardless of whether or not they are SSPX or Sedevacantist or SSPV or Dimond or even Conservative Novus Ordo and we actually decide to practise what we all claim to believe in and dedicate the rest of our lives in solving the division through spiritual action - are we then to despair and say its impossible or are we going to take action and rid ourselves of the very thing used to exploit us - our self division.  

A Common Ground can be found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For make no mistake - there is division not merely because of human activity - but the war is being fought in the spiritual realm as well. If we hope to win - we need to fight in both simultaneously.

Pax  

I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.

Busillis, I encourage you to read the following transcribed talk by John Daly, given in 2002, entitled "The Impossible Crisis":

http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis

I have yet to see a single Novus Ordo or SSPX apologist even attempt to refute this argument-at-large.

The nice part about this type of argument is that it does not require anyone to detect, suspect, or judge anyone else of being a heretic. Not that that would be unreasonable, but since a lot of people seem "uncomfortable" with that, this argument presented here totally avoids that whole problem, and establishes sedevacantism while refuting the "recognize but resist" position, the Novus Ordo position, and also, in the same breaths, the errors of Feeneyism.

Another easy-to-follow essay is "Resistance and Indefectibility" by Fr. Donald Sanborn (1991):

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10

Here, then-Fr. Sanborn analyzes the 3 main positions that have been advanced to deal with the situation since 1958: indult, SSPX, and sedevacantism. Fantastic read, good summary, level-headed analysis.

Also, a good "reality check" for the "resisters" (indult & SSPX) is presented in "Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the 'Restoration of Tradition'":

http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm

It is a great read, an informative essay about Vatican II, the New Church, the SSPX, Catholic principles, the bogus "Restoration of Tradition" advanced by The Remnant, manifest heresy, and the real Benedict.

At the end of the day, we must face reality as it is. We cannot begin with a desired conclusion and then try to find a way to "reason" ourselves to this conclusion. In all this turmoil, let us never despair but trust and hope in God, who foreknew and allowed this entire "situation" from all eternity, and certainly knows how and when to end it. Let us be grateful that we have been chosen to be a part of it, to be allowed to suffer through this, for His Holy Church and in penance for our manifold sins.

Thanks katholikos! I'll take a look at the material.

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?)



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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?"



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.



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



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.



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



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.




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....



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?



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.



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!

What a post.  I hope all is well with you Katholikos wherever you are.