Author Topic: Bishop Williamson the Sededoubtist (Read 4880 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** May 17, 2014, 07:32:05 AM »

It's taken His Excellency many years to come around to this, the correct position, regarding the crisis. Welcome aboard, Your Excellency.

Quote from: Eleison Comments

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe.

Without the certainty of faith in their legitimacy, they are not Popes for all intents and purposes papa dubius nullus papa and therefore can be resisted without schism. Recall that the legitimacy of a Pope must be known with certainty, the certainty of faith; it's in the category of dogmatic fact.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2014, 07:46:53 AM »

You mean the correct position while one labors in doubts?

If one is certain he is the pope, or certain he is not the pope, naturally to doubt his papacy would not be the best position!

Doubt of these papacies come with the territory. It's impossible not to doubt them.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2014, 07:50:16 AM »

I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:19:20 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Doubt of these papacies come with the territory. It's impossible not to doubt them.

Exactly, but very few will admit this in public. If you dig deep enough, however, and ask "Do you believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are popes?" the answer has to be "No."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:24:11 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.

Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:39:58 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.

Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

I could get on board with that actually. However, what would that look like practically speaking?

soulguard · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2014, 10:48:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.

Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.

Cantarella · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2014, 11:14:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.

Quote from: Nishant

50+ year Sedevacantism is gravely false, erroneous and no informed Catholic should in any way support such a position, especially its being publicly preached. Dropping the name of the man universally recognized as Pope from the canon is a borderline schismatic act at best, objectively speaking, it separates one from Catholic unity and teh communion of the Church. Claiming the Church can be reduced to bishops without ordinary jurisdiction is heretical. Claiming bishops can receive ordinary power of jurisdiction and formal Apostolic succession from anyone other than a real Pontiff is heterodox. There is practically no sedevacantist in the world who doesn't believe in some combination of these errors, and the Society has pointed it out many times. While some sedevacantists may be in good faith, their position is objectively erroneous, and therefore must be opposed, most of all for the sake of these souls, who are materially attached to this separatist position. Forget failing to oppose it, to even in any way indicate indifference toward the position is wrong, for as the Popes teach, to be indifferent between truth and error is to show oneself to be in error.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2014, 11:49:01 AM »

Vatican II, itself is the greatest Schism EVER.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** May 17, 2014, 02:39:49 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.

I agree.

It's the Schism crap I have a problem with -- the "trying to eliminate the competition" of the Fr. Cekadas of the world. Trying to convince Catholics to stay home alone when there are plenty of valid Masses around them. That is horribly evil and does the devil's work.

All that Schism and Cult crap -- that's the part of "experienced in nature" Sedevacantism that I'm quite confident about rejecting, and always will be.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2014, 02:43:31 PM »

Schism is to take a rusty saw to the most holy Mystical Body of Christ. Cutting off a priest here, a bishop there, a group of Faithful here or there...

What a damnable deception of the devil!

Unless God told you otherwise, when someone professes to be Catholic (which means they subjectively adhere to everything the Faith teaches as they understand it) it's not our place to excommunicate them!

And if a priest is validly ordained and offers a Tridentine Mass, if you are a layman YOU ATTEND THAT MASS IF YOU CAN. It's not our place to issue decrees about what version of the Missal to use, tell the priest he must not utter Francis' name in the Canon, stay home because our feelings have been hurt, etc.

That is not our place, and God will not hold us accountable. Any more than God will hold me personally accountable for Roe vs. Wade being passed in 1973. Why would He?

However, if we stay home from Mass when we could have attended Mass, God will hold us accountable for that. Be sure of it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2014, 03:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ladislaus

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.

I agree.

It's the Schism crap I have a problem with -- the "trying to eliminate the competition" of the Fr. Cekadas of the world. Trying to convince Catholics to stay home alone when there are plenty of valid Masses around them. That is horribly evil and does the devil's work.

All that Schism and Cult crap -- that's the part of "experienced in nature" Sedevacantism that I'm quite confident about rejecting, and always will be.

Just so you know, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn's ideas on dogmatic sedevacatism are not the majority of Sedevacantists.

The CMRI is by far the largest worldwide organized group of sedevacantists and they do not condemn or in any way dissuade Catholics from going to SSPX.

Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn are much louder than CMRI, but much smaller. Almost all of the "sedes" that I know do not have a schismatic spirit.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2014, 05:39:44 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: soulguard
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.

Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.

How do you know that the New Religion is not the True Religion? One could just as easily say it matters not.

That doesn't follow.

We can tell when something is Catholic or not, especially if it effects our Faith. We have a Sensus Catholicus.

Being able to offer a definitive ruling on the status of the Pope is not within a mere layman's knowledge or capabilities.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2014, 05:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: soulguard
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.

Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.

Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.

Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).

Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."

I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.

How do you know that the New Religion is not the True Religion? One could just as easily say it matters not.

That doesn't follow.

We can tell when something is Catholic or not, especially if it effects our Faith. We have a Sensus Catholicus.

Being able to offer a definitive ruling on the status of the Pope is not within a mere layman's knowledge or capabilities.

I would also say that I think sg was referring to the ability to follow the Catholic Faith regardless of whether the current papal claimant is true.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2014, 06:38:13 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Schism is to take a rusty saw to the most holy Mystical Body of Christ. Cutting off a priest here, a bishop there, a group of Faithful here or there...

What a damnable deception of the devil!

Unless God told you otherwise, when someone professes to be Catholic (which means they subjectively adhere to everything the Faith teaches as they understand it) it's not our place to excommunicate them!

And if a priest is validly ordained and offers a Tridentine Mass, if you are a layman YOU ATTEND THAT MASS IF YOU CAN. It's not our place to issue decrees about what version of the Missal to use, tell the priest he must not utter Francis' name in the Canon, stay home because our feelings have been hurt, etc.

That is not our place, and God will not hold us accountable. Any more than God will hold me personally accountable for Roe vs. Wade being passed in 1973. Why would He?

However, if we stay home from Mass when we could have attended Mass, God will hold us accountable for that. Be sure of it.

Perfect post, Matthew. The CMRI, who I am affiliated with, believe that we should attend any valid mass said by a valid priest if it is available . The "home aloners" are disavowed by all sedevacantist groups.