The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.

What was the clear-cut solution to the crisis that was presented?  I would love to hear the solution, even if it is from simple-minded people.  Or are you speaking of the root cause of the crisis in the Church?

Are all that presented the solution simple-minded or only some of them?  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote

The solution to the Crisis in the Church is NOT clear-cut like some simple-minded people seem to think. To say otherwise is to maul the truth.

What was the clear-cut solution to the crisis that was presented?  I would love to hear the solution, even if it is from simple-minded people.  Or are you speaking of the root cause of the crisis in the Church?

Are all that presented the solution simple-minded or only some of them?  

I'm saying that Sedevacantism isn't any more "perfect" of a solution than "Recognize-and-Resist".  Both positions have pat-on-the-back, "slam dunk" aspects, as well as things they'd rather not talk/think about. That is, there are unanswered questions.

As far as I know, no one has received a revelation from heaven as to what we should be doing right now -- what "camp" we should be in. So there's no way to know who's "better" or "objectively more correct". That's why many of us argue until we're blue in the face.

Where to go to Mass in 2012 is a prudential decision, and not a question of fidelity to the Faith or Catholic Dogma. We MUST strive to attend a Catholic Mass as said before Vatican II; and we must seek out priests who teach only what was taught/practiced before Vatican II. Those are the ONLY essential parts. That is what makes you a "faithful Catholic". Choosing a 1962 Missal over the 1953 or the 1890 doesn't make you a heretic. Choosing to attend SSPX Masses rather than Independent/SV Masses doesn't make you a heretic. And vice-versa.

That was a good response.  

Are the simple-minded the pure SVs and the pure anti-SVs who think their position is correct, and as a necessary result, that the contradictory position is incorrect?

Perhaps it is not necessary to try to figure out who the simple-minded are that you allude to.  I'm not even sure what a simple-minded person is, in regards to holding certain positions and being able to grasp contrary positions, though I suppose I could look it up.  Are the simple-minded incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what they currently believe to be true even if this is carefully explained to them?    

I couldn't help myself here is the definition of "simple-minded":

1. Lacking in subtlety or sophistication; artless or naive: a simple-minded horror movie; simple-minded generalizations.2. Stupid or silly; foolish.
3. Mentally impaired.

Perhaps this definition would not fit either the SVs who are sure about their position or the anti-SVs who are sure about their position (depending on which one is correct).  I say this because SV is either true or not true.  At the very least, whoever holds the correct position probably could not be labeled simple-minded on that position since the correct position is the correct position.  If some people have to be labeled as simple-minded they would probably be the ones who hold the incorrect position and or those who are not sure either way.  

Perhaps I could understand better if you could explain what type of individuals you think are simple-minded.

1.  Those who are sure that we have no Pope.

2.  Those who are sure that we do have a valid Pope.

3.  Those who are not sure either way.

4.  None of the above but some other category.  (Which category?)

as well as things they'd rather not talk/think about

I'm willing to talk about any objection to SV for the record.  Just to set the record straight, there are others I know, such as Griff Ruby and Mario Derksen, (at least in regards to those who engage in a charitable back and forth without name-calling [in your case you did not name any individuals who are simple-minded which is in your favor I would think]) who will talk about anything and are quite willing to talk about all sincere objections, and in fact welcome them.

In fact there a quite a number of SVs that are not simple-minded, Father Stepanich comes to mind here as do numerous other, and it would seem, that there are a good number of anti-SVs that are not simple-minded; unless simple-minded refers to the entire human race with our fallen human nature and dulled intellect.

Your recent posts on this issue are much more digestible for me than those of the past for whatever that is worth.  It is good to realize that you are not anti-SV merely because accepting it is a huge emotional barrier to overcome, or would be a large inconvenience to your current liturgical affairs, and that you are seemingly are not an anti-SV at all, but admit that it could be possible even if it is still somewhat repugnant to you as it goes against all that you have been taught these many decades.

Perhaps the contrary opinion is repugnant to the SVs who have found themselves in that camp for many decades.  In my case I went from the NO to traditional, not SV, to possible SV, to definite SV.  I was not immersed in a Church for decades that forced either opinion on me.  Others have been so we really can't blame them, so much, for believing what they have been taught, repeatedly, all these years, in my opinion.

Lover of Truth:

Perhaps simple-minded was the wrong word.

Narrow-minded might be much better.

The idea is to appreciate the agreements of the "other side" and the flaws of your own position, whatever it is.

Because it's an objective fact that neither side has a 100% slam-dunk answer to the Crisis in the Church. If they did, I'm sure they would have conquered all hearts and minds by now.

The fact is, all known positions (as expressed by Traditional priests and the Mass centers where you can attend their Masses today) have flaws in their arguments, no matter how good their debate skills are.

Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.

P.S.: there is a tidal wave of heresy and apostasy in all of the above.

The SSPX believes every doctrine and dogma the Church has ever pronounced on. The present crisis has caused divergent opinions, because it is not immediately apparent how these doctrines (such as indefectibility) apply or there are facts with which they are not easily reconciled.

There have been difficulties in Christendom before, and divergent camps such as with the "Great Western Schism" when there were three Papal claimants, and it wouldn't have been just for any side to claim the others were non-Catholics merely over the question of the identity of the Pope.

Since you are so eager to accuse others of heresy, and since it is "divine law" that you will be judged by the same measure with which you judged others, as Our Lord said, perhaps you should tell me how your notion of a 50 year sede vacante does not compromise the Apostolicity (another dogma) of the Church.

For, ordinary jurisdiction is the formal component of Apostolicity, and the person of the Supreme Pontiff is the necessary channel through which this ordinary jurisdiction is transmitted to new Bishops. By all appearances, sedevacantism seems to lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic. Now, what possible assent can such a theory claim, let alone the claim that it is binding on all faithful Catholics? There are certainly extremely strong reasons to reject such an explanation altogether.

The best of sedevacantists concede this is a real problem and therefore affects the level of certainty that sedevacantism, even if true, can claim in the present day.

As one Catholic, Hobbledehoy, a sedevacantist, has written in this thread, himself quoting John Lane, another sedevacantist.

There is no "complete" published sedevacantist theory except the Guerardian one (and even that has not been published in any language than French, and even in French it was not put into a systematic form and published in a volume, but rather it appeared scattered throughout issues of a journal). Yet non-sedevacantists are attacked for failing to adopt "sedevacantism".

This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be immediately apparent. Can any reasonable and just man condemn another for refusing to accept a theory which, as far as he can see, involves the denial that the Church has a hierarchy? Can anybody really be condemned for not adopting a theory which nobody has even bothered to present in a professional and complete form?

Ted, this is a forum where you don't say the SSPX are heretics for being not sedes.

I didn't say that the SSPX is heretical because it is not sedevacantist.

Lover of Truth:

Perhaps simple-minded was the wrong word.

Narrow-minded might be much better.

The idea is to appreciate the agreements of the "other side" and the flaws of your own position, whatever it is.

Because it's an objective fact that neither side has a 100% slam-dunk answer to the Crisis in the Church. If they did, I'm sure they would have conquered all hearts and minds by now.

The fact is, all known positions (as expressed by Traditional priests and the Mass centers where you can attend their Masses today) have flaws in their arguments, no matter how good their debate skills are.

Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.

Thank you for that thoughtful response.  I may not agree that all you express is objective fact but I am pleased that you no longer condemn SV as others have as being something only crazy or stupid people would hold to, as something that cannot possibly be true. Something that is in fact plausible.  This is where I have seen the greatest weakness (and lack of plausibility) in the “arguments” against SV, in the ad hominem attacks.  

I remember watching an angry elephant in a wildlife program and it reminded me of the way others attack the SV position.  They do not respond rationally or with well-reasoned arguments but just kind of stomp around and throw stuff with their trunks.  The comparison fails when checking the anti-SV for a trunk however.  

I like the peaceful and respectful dialogue so much that I hesitate to ask the following:

Sure, some people are good at debate, and can frustrate/make their opponents give up. But that doesn't mean their arguments are 100% victorious. It just means they haven't met the right opponent, and/or they aren't honest in their argumentation.

Are you saying the good debaters, merely because they have not been refuted, are not honest in their argumentation?

I would agree that the intellectually dishonest (bad debaters) can make people give up because they ignore the legitimate points made and engage in name calling; but the good debaters can't be refuted or have not been are so, in my opinion, not because they are not honest, but simply because they present the truth.  Here is some of the truth they present, and you do not need good debating skills to present it.

It is Divine Law that a Public Heretic cannot be Pope.  Father Ratzinger is a public heretic.  Therefore . . .

Further, a valid Pope cannot bind (and or maintain) the following on the faithful:

1.  A heretical council

2.  Doubtful Sacraments

3.  A doubtful incentive to impiety Mass

4.  Heretical Cannon Law

But they the conciliar Popes have.  Therefore . . .

Further still, a valid Pope cannot partake in worship with heretics or pagans (engage in heretical acts) unless they explain that they did so without having a heretical intent.  *  But the Father Ratzinger and his immediate predecessors do (over and over again without apology).  Therefore . . .

*An example of engaging in a heretical act without being an actual heretic would be if he passed by a Tabernacle without genuflecting but explained that he has a bad knee that does not allow him to do so.  Or by saying I did not really kiss the Koran but was ducking a bullet.  Or I worshipped at Mecca or at a Jєωιѕн service or with Anglicans etc. because I was put in a drug induced state against my will and could not control my actions.  Or, I allowed a devil-worshiping witch-doctress put cow dung on my forehead because I was hypnotized into allowing her to do so without realizing it.

Sometimes people of good will who have differing opinions on very important things (whether we have a valid Pope or not is very important) get into trouble because of misunderstandings.  This is just an example and not an attack on you, but I use it because it will resonate.  A person can use terms like "simple-minded" or "narrow-minded" or "dishonest" in a way not meant to put those who hold a contrary opinion to what a person believes into those categories but be mistaken for doing so with the result being barriers put up against further communication for no legitimate reason.

Let me put the focus on me instead of you so you will not feel like this is an attack.  I throw around the phrase "intellectually dishonest" or "willfully blind" alot.  I do not, and I make this clear when I use the term (usually if not all the time), that I do not intend to put all who disagree with me into that category merely because they disagree with me.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure you do not think all SVs are simple-minded or narrow-minded or dishonest.

But I do know that intellectually dishonest and willfully blind people exist, I have seen it in my family (parents sister) and friends.  I have seen it in debates where one is clearly proven wrong on a certain point and instead of granting the point they go on the ad hominem attack.  It is very difficult for me to respect such people or take them seriously.  

The "brothers" Dimond come to mind here.  

Other intellectually dishonest people will use a false logic:

The Dimonds are not charitable.  The Dimonds are SV.  Therefore the SV position is incorrect.  

People that focus on SVs of bad repute or even those who are good but have done some bad or stupid things as a way to undermine the SV position itself do not appear to be of good will to me because they use a faulty argumentation.  It is as if they don't want to see the truth and will use anything they can to try to undermine it much like political adversaries who hurl accusations at one another in order to garner support from themselves.  This tactic may work but that does not make it right.  

Earlier on this thread you said both sides have slam dunk arguments.  To which I would have asked, "What is the slam-dunk argument on the anti-SV side?" You may have seen the flaw in that argumentation and later said that neither have slam dunk arguments.  Now if one side is correct, and one side is correct (both sides can’t both be wrong as he is either Pope or he isn’t), one of those sides does have a slam dunk argument, though it is possible (but doubtful) that the correct side has not used it.  I believe your point is, and you are more qualified than most to make it, as you have seen the argumentation on both sides more than most others, and both sides make, at least apparent good points, without engaging in the ad hominem attacks.  I would agree that there are some who pretty much avoid the ad hominem attacks and I see points now and again that I have not considered and I am glad to see them so that I can check their validity and whether the point undermines the undeniable (as opposed to points some make that are deniable or questionable) points that the SVs make (Divine Law prevents a public heretic from being a valid Pope).  

I guess the whole moral of this story is that I see more charitableness and intellectual honesty in these discussions and I am encouraged by this.  

Thank you for accepting people like me on your forum.

What made you change your position

?

The answer is long and involved.  The long answer is as follows:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/06Mar/mar23ftt.htm

and:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/06Nov/nov06ftt.htm

I wish I could remember the defining moment for absolute sure.  Klaus Gamber’s, The Liturgical Reform, Ferrera’s “The Great Façade” and the Remnant’s “We Resist You to Your Face” woke me up a bit.  My discussions with John Galvin, who was not an SV at the time (he wasn’t sure either way) but is now, woke me up.  A discussion about fixing the new Mass in the Wanderer woke me up.  I wrote in saying that they are fighting a losing battle, that the new Mass is broken in and of itself and cannot be fixed and I was wondering why good Catholics had to deal with this and why a “Pope” would promulgate the new mass and for all practical purposes abolish the true Mass?

But it was my realization that the Sacraments of the Holy Roman Catholic Church were messed with that cinched it for me I believe.  This seemed like a diabolic plan that was being followed rather than an endless series of unexplainable coincidences.  How can the devil get bring the most souls to Hell with him?  By getting rid of the ordinary means we have of obtaining sanctifying grace – through the Sacraments.  What is the best way to get rid of the Sacraments?  Better even than messing with the form and or matter is getting rid of the only people that can administer them – the Priests and Bishops themselves by invalidating the Sacrament or Ordination and Consecration of Bishops.  No these were not a bunch of unfortunate coincidences but a diabolic plan that has been willingly followed.  Then afterwards SV kept being reaffirmed.  I found out that The Oath Against Modernism was abolished as well as the Papal Coronation Oath and the Papal Crown was given away never to be worn again.  It all started to fall into place.  And all this happened after, as a confused N.O. when was I wondering why the “popes” were telling us not to proselytize the Jews or the Orthodox, approved the consecration of the Eucharist with no consecration formula (the Anaphora Rite?) and weakened the Exorcism Rite perhaps in an effort to get more ecuмenical with the Devil.  

What is happening in the Church is happening in the world.  Why is an American president repeatedly doing such un-American things like  systematically bankrupting us and raising the debt beyond our wildest imagination?  Because he is anti-american.  He wants to destroy this country. Why do the recent “popes” do all these things?  Because they are anti-Catholic.  I don’t know if the Constitution allows an anti-American president but Divine Law does not allow an anti-Catholic Pope.

These “unexplainable” abominations and novelties, one after the other for decades were/are quite explainable indeed.  All these things are happening because the anti-Popes and their Master, Satan, want it to happen.  They are not Popes.  By definition they cannot be.  No longer did I have to bang my head against wall figuring out why these “Popes” were causing the destruction of the Church.  The answer is very simple, but not simplistic, because they are not Popes but anti-Catholic destroyers of the Church.