Author Topic: Traditional Sedeplenism Schismatic? (Read 3013 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2013, 04:19:06 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: Ladislaus
It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic.

Read up on the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity:

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_1.htm

Obviously the SSPX response will be more biased than the Catholic Encyclopedia

The response was not done by the SSPX.

Sorry about that. I saw the link and assumed. Is it a post conciliar source?

It still looks like SSPX to me.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2013, 04:25:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I think that the only Catholic position is the sede-doubtist position, as I refer to it tongue-in-cheek. I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier held this position. Some sedevacantists also hold it as just mere private opinion. But the radical sedeplenists and radical sedevacantists IMO are BOTH just plain wrong.

Could you please describe the sede-doubtist position? How is it any different from any of the other sedeplenist positions?

TKGS · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2013, 05:46:58 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Could you please describe the sede-doubtist position? How is it any different from any of the other sedeplenist positions?

It seems to me that the main difference between this "sede-doubist" position and the "sedeplenist" position is that the "doubtist" isn't continually condemning the sedevacantist position just about every chance he has.

This is what I have noticed in some of the "Resistance" sermons I've listened to. It seems they are so afraid of being labeled sedevacantist they ensure that they condemn the sedevacantists in no uncertain terms very forcefully and then proceed to condemn their pope as well.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

But this is just what I gathered by this brand new term of "sede-doubtist". Please correct me if I am wrong.

2Vermont · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2013, 06:59:07 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont
Could you please describe the sede-doubtist position? How is it any different from any of the other sedeplenist positions?

It seems to me that the main difference between this "sede-doubist" position and the "sedeplenist" position is that the "doubtist" isn't continually condemning the sedevacantist position just about every chance he has.

This is what I have noticed in some of the "Resistance" sermons I've listened to. It seems they are so afraid of being labeled sedevacantist they ensure that they condemn the sedevacantists in no uncertain terms very forcefully and then proceed to condemn their pope as well.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

But this is just what I gathered by this brand new term of "sede-doubtist". Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I remember correctly, Ladislaus leans SV, so I think it may be somewhere between the two?

TKGS · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2013, 08:32:15 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: 2Vermont
Could you please describe the sede-doubtist position? How is it any different from any of the other sedeplenist positions?

It seems to me that the main difference between this "sede-doubist" position and the "sedeplenist" position is that the "doubtist" isn't continually condemning the sedevacantist position just about every chance he has.

This is what I have noticed in some of the "Resistance" sermons I've listened to. It seems they are so afraid of being labeled sedevacantist they ensure that they condemn the sedevacantists in no uncertain terms very forcefully and then proceed to condemn their pope as well.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

But this is just what I gathered by this brand new term of "sede-doubtist". Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I remember correctly, Ladislaus leans SV, so I think it may be somewhere between the two?

Between the two what?

2Vermont · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2013, 05:01:23 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: 2Vermont
Could you please describe the sede-doubtist position? How is it any different from any of the other sedeplenist positions?

It seems to me that the main difference between this "sede-doubist" position and the "sedeplenist" position is that the "doubtist" isn't continually condemning the sedevacantist position just about every chance he has.

This is what I have noticed in some of the "Resistance" sermons I've listened to. It seems they are so afraid of being labeled sedevacantist they ensure that they condemn the sedevacantists in no uncertain terms very forcefully and then proceed to condemn their pope as well.

It really doesn't make sense to me.

But this is just what I gathered by this brand new term of "sede-doubtist". Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I remember correctly, Ladislaus leans SV, so I think it may be somewhere between the two?

Between the two what?

I'm wondering whether sede doubtist is somewhere between sedeplenist and SV (if that is even possible?).

Hopefully Ladislaus will see this and respond.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:45:29 AM »

Sorry about dropping off. I've been extremely busy the past few days.

SedeDoubtism is actually pretty straightforward. I consider the legitimacy of the Vatican II popes to be in doubt.

I find this to be by far the most preferable attitude towards the current crisis. Unfortunately, Traditional Catholics have become polarized and radicalized into the sedeplenist and sedevacantist camps so that more and more we find dogmatic sedevacantists and dogmatic sedeplenists.

By adopting sededoubtism I avoid formal schism because my reason for refusing submission is based on objective, material, positive doubt about their legitimacy. If I happen to be wrong and Francis I is the pope, then I would be in material but not formal schism. I also avoid the damage done to the authority of the Church's magisterium by the magisterium-sifting mentality. I also avoid the damage done to the Church's infallibility and indefectibility.

By adopting sededoubtism I also avoid the schismatic attitude often found among sedevacantists of considering any person in the Novus Ordo or any non-sedevacantist to be schismatic. I also defer to the Church's authority by recognizing that mine is only a private opinion and does not suffice to make definitive judgment on a matter that has to be known with the certainty of faith (legitimacy of popes is in the category of dogmatic fact) ... thereby avoiding the damage done to the authority of the Church's magisterium by the pope-sifting mentality.

It allows us to stay in an attitude of humility and avoid schismatic tendencies. We can therefore go about the work of saving our souls in peace and tranquility and without bitter zeal. In one way it's a humble "punt" of the entire issue.

If I were a priest, for instance, I would offer the Mass "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but would leave out the actual name. On the one hand I profess submission to the Supreme Pontiff in principle, and to Francis conditionally (in the event that he happens to be the Pope) but I wouldn't risk positively affirming allegiance to an AntiPope and thereby introducing an infamous name into the Sacred Canon.

With this position, there's no impediment to Traditional Catholics of varying opinions to begin working together in mutual charity and in humility. I found all the other positions to be seriously problematic.

When I have more time this evening, I'll get back to illustrating the problem with outright sedevacantism from the perspective of the Church's authority and the harm it does to the magisterium and to the Church's authority. I think that the problem of potential schism in radical sedeplenism is pretty straightforward.

What's funny is that I think both sides are RIGHT and that both sides are at the same time WRONG. In other words, sedevacantists have some very valid criticisms of the sedeplenist position. On the other side, sedeplenists have some very valid criticisms and concerns regarding the sedevacantist position.

Consequently, I adopt a sededoubtist position which in fact concedes the valid arguments on both sides of the issue without presuming to necessarily "solve" the problem. To my mind that belongs to people at a "higher pay grade" than mine, so to speak. I'm just trying to save my soul, keep the faith, and not offend God or do any harm to the Church.

Obviously this is all within the context of Traditional Catholicism. Of course the alternative would be something in the Novus Ordo continuum or spectrum (from full-blown acceptance to Indultism (aka extraordinary formism) to FSSPism to Fellayism...which is right on the border).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:04:43 AM »

Yes, I personally believe that the Holy See is most likely vacant. I do NOT know this with the certainty of faith. I believe that it's very possible that I'm mistaken in this opinion. I also think, however, that my opinion doesn't matter a whole lot; clearly my opinion and my reasoning cannot bind the consciences of others. I do NOT think that considering Francis I to be the pope by itself makes someone non Catholic. I DO have a problem with the radical sedeplenists who denounce sedevacantism in principle as if it's the greatest evil in the world since modernism. I DO have a problem with the sedevacantists who elevate the vacancy of the papacy to a matter of faith (along the lines of Bishop Sanborn who condemns "opinionism" and thinks that sedevacantism is practically de fide). I do NOT believe that saying that legitimate pope promulgated the evils and errors of an Ecuмenical Council and a Rite of Mass is at all consistent with the Church's infallibility and indefectibility. But I also do not know whether something else weird and sinister may have taken place (blackmail of Paul VI for instance). I believe that the personal heresy matter is very difficult to establish (for many reasons). I could probably go on and on. On the infallibility issue, I do NOT believe that everything a Pope teaches authoritatively is infallible, but I also think that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae would certainly CROSS THE LINE in terms of what would have to be infallible in order to preserve any non-trivial or non-meaningless or non-tautological a priori notion of the Church's indefectibility.

In other words I absolutely do NOT see this issue as black and white and reducible to a single slam-dunk de fide syllogism one way or the other.

bowler · « **Reply #23 on:** December 23, 2013, 01:36:13 PM »

Ladislau,

Ditto. I agree with you 100%.

Meanwhile these "experts" (Dolan, Cekada, CMRI etc) and their followers who are trying to shove all this down our throats, have also concluded that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized, nor desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

Someone who sheds his blood for Christ can't be saved, however, someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized, nor desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Jesus Christ.

Go figure?

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Petertherock · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2013, 01:57:39 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: TKGS
I agree that, on its face, it does seem schismatic. Of course, I think it is schismatic similar to the way a Catholic in England is in schism with the Queen. He recognizes the Queen as the legitimate head of the Anglican Church but he rejects the direction she is taking that church. A poor analogy, I know.

In these confused times, I still think it possible that these people may be in a de facto schismatic state yet not be culpable of the sin of schism, though I believe that the line which allows one to hold this view is getting more and more faint.

Quote from: Mabel
When we do get a pope again, are all of these things just going to be handed over in submission or will a true and old fashioned schism develop? I'm not sure the way this is going, with the mentality that has developed that some of these people and their groups will be absorbed back into the normal functions of the Church.

I have considered this issue as well. I do believe that, when a true Catholic pope reigns again it will come in one of two ways:

1. Either the Vatican will fall so far that it becomes impossible to give it any benefit of doubt (by, for example, the consecration of women bishops and the inevitable election of a woman pope) and the remnant of traditional bishops call a conclave to elect a pope (probably called by the superior general of the SSPX), in which case there will be virtually no schism through tradition but the administration of the Church will be, by necessity, very decentralized. (Interesting that Bergoglio's desires of a decentralized Church would come about in this way.)

or

2. A Catholic would be elected through the Conciliar structures, in which case, it would take--literally--years to right the Ark of Peter, pump the bilge water from her holds, and be fully accepted by all of tradition. In this case, I think there would be pockets of schism that would develop but it would not, ultimately, be widespread. Interestingly, however, I believe that much of the Conciliar church would go into schism (as if they are not already there) and formally break ties with the Vatican.

Remember, you heard it here first.

A third way would be for the Catholics to take over Rome and install a Bishop. And then simply lay down the Catholic Doctrines and Disciplines clearly and concisely and show the Novos Ordo that are against the Catholic Church where the door is if they do not like the Catholic doctrines and disciplines.

The Pope would have to abolish V2 whole and entire.

Make (another) clear and definitive (perhaps dogmatic, I would solemnly define the teaching if at all possible) statement regarding the Feeneyite errors.

Lay down the protocol for attendance at una cuм heretic Masses should our current situation arise again.

Put a system in place to make sure, as much as possible, that our current situation will not arise again.

Clarify the teaching on continence in marriage.

Make sure the Catholic Bishops realize they have the mandate and full jurisdiction and then clearly explain the issue of jurisdiction during an extended interregnum where certain bishops hold fast to the faith and are considered by the replacement false Church as schismatic while their heretical and non-valid Bishops are considered the hierarchy.

Make known to all the invalid clergy that that they are in fact invalid and cannot function as clerics in the Catholic Church.

Clarify all the peripherals, no girl altar boys, no lay Eucharistic ministers, or readers or whatever else they have going on at new Church.

Clarify (again) when (the circuмstances when - pertinacious public heresy etc.) the laity should understand that one acting as Pope should not be treated as such until and unless the contrary is proven.

Make as clear as possible that the salvation of all Catholics (explaining to those of the Feeneyite tendencies of taking a statement and forcing it on everyone despite their culpability that those good willed Catholics who are not aware of the necessity to submit to all a valid Pope binds on the Church through no fault of their own are not automatically damned for their inculpable ignorance on the manner) depends on submission to all that a valid Pope binds on the Church

Officially regularize the traditional clergy i.e. make them aware of their status and clarify what their status was during the interregnum. Bar or discipline those who pose as traditional clergy but cause great scandal to the faithful.

Fr. Feeney was not in error. Fr. Feeney held fast to what the Church has always taught. In fact, "Feeneyites" are the original trads.

2Vermont · « **Reply #25 on:** December 23, 2013, 05:38:36 PM »

I think my personality is not comfortable with a decision to doubt. I do not much like greys when it comes to matters of Faith. I became Catholic because it gave me black and white answers, not wishy washiness. It gave me a sure foundation.

This is probably why I feel the way I do most days lately. Even when I try to focus on "the Faith", the not knowing about the state of the papacy gives me a lot of discomfort and unsettled feelings.

Mabel · « **Reply #26 on:** December 24, 2013, 11:22:03 AM »

The best approach is humility.

It is one thing to be able to explain your position well. It is another to be so attached to it that you cut yourself off from others and turn a blind eye upon the faults of your own camp.

For me, my position largely determines where I go to mass, or if I go to mass.

Even if I mostly agree with a group, I won't have anything to do with those who deny communion, ban people from their chapels, are dogmatic sedevacantists, or try to usurp the roles of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** December 24, 2013, 05:19:39 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I do not much like greys when it comes to matters of Faith. I became Catholic because it gave me black and white answers, not wishy washiness. It gave me a sure foundation.

But my point here is that this issue isn't a matter of faith, not directly anyways. There are of course principles involved, and those dogmatic principles are in fact absolutely immutable. But there's sometimes doubt about application and facts, and sometimes lack of total clarity with regard to whether conclusions proceed validly even from certain premises. There was anything but certainty during the Great Schism, not with regard to certain facts or applications of principle, so much so that you had saints on the wrong side of the issue. And despite the large body of absolutely certain dogmatic matters, there's an equally large body of disputed questions on which theologians have long been at odds (see the monumental battles between the Dominicans and Jesuits on grace and free will for instance).

2Vermont · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2014, 04:34:40 AM »