CathInfo.com

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!