Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on January 14, 2016, 05:54:02 AM
-
http://www.fathercekada.com/2016/01/13/if-i-were-not-a-sedevacantist/
A New, Short Video
I’M happy to pass along an excellent little video by Fr. Nicolas Desposito, a colleague and theology professor at Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida.
The point: If you insist Bergoglio’s a real pope, you’ve got to treat him like one!
-
If you insist Bergoglio’s a real pope, you’ve got to treat him like one!
I absolutely agree with this point from the Sedevacantists. It's why R&R is completely untenable from any and all known Catholic ecclesiological principles.
-
If you insist Bergoglio’s a real pope, you’ve got to treat him like one!
I absolutely agree with this point from the Sedevacantists. It's why R&R is completely untenable from any and all known Catholic ecclesiological principles.
It is good to be consistent. In my family we do not pretend there is a Santa Claus. But insisting there is a Pope and acting as if he is not is akin to treating ourselves like our little children. After all, it is much funner to believe in Santa Claus than not to.
-
Source (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1998_November/Concerning_a_Sedevacantist_thesis.htm)
Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma. Their understandable ancestral veneration for the pope seems to unleash a veritable panic at the idea of contrasting their cherished, idealized image of the papacy with such popes as Paul VI and John Paul II.
Sedevacantism appears to be more of a psychological than a theological problem. It would be both easy and cruel to evoke here some of the variations, as well as the successive divisions fostered by their numerous cliques and the astounding reversals and turnabouts coming from their inconsistent motives.
But why be so harsh with them? Are not those reproaches, which they make regarding the Pope's teaching, his pastoral approach, including some erroneous Vatican II teachings, indeed well founded? Admittedly, some indulgence could be shown for some theological error which, for the moment, has but little practical consequences, if we were not to note and observe the dire consequences brought upon the faithful. We now see only too well what effects those theological outpourings produce in passionate Catholics. They now have become their own pope. They judge their own priests. No longer do many of them have recourse to the sacrament of Confession. No longer do they hearken to the Church's infallible teachings. They generally bring moral ruin on their own families. [These are the self-titled and self-styled "home-aloners."- Ed.]
We used to know truly pious Catholics. After a few years we met them again only to find them marked by a psychological behavior found in types such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or in protestants in general: haughty, understanding everything, seeing everything through their jaundiced and obsessed eyes, unceasingly shaking their rattles of definitive, final, and unanswerable arguments which they do not understand themselves. Beware the time when they lose their God-given Faith and give up on everything.
How can one explain such a breakdown in the Christian spirit? We may well wonder if sedevacantism may not prove to be even more grave, more serious than it first seemed. Experience has proved that that which is understood by most of those Catholics won over to the sedevacantist camp turns out to be quite a simple idea: an unworthy pope is no longer pope. This strangely resembles the unhinged teachings of Wycliffe and of John Hus: A pope in the state of mortal sin is no longer pope, a bishop in the state of mortal sin is no longer bishop having authority in his own diocese, nor does a pastor in such a state have any authority over his parish. And the same for a king over his country, etc. We may think that John Hus was sincere in his errors. His death does not seem to be one of a formal heretic. But this fact changes nothing with regard to the eventual ugly consequences. The followers of Jan Hus later became bloodthirsty wolves feeding on their exploited fellow citizens as they hunted to death those bishops, pastors, kings and princes whom they thought were not worthy of life.
Rank speculation? A strange mixture of ideas? Do not be too sure. Let those who know of the appalling affair of the lnstitut Cardinal Pie think deeply about this: a half-crazed, self-appointed leader had applied the Cassissiacuм thesis to the French political system. He preached that those in power had no intention of working for the common well-being of their people, and therefore their power was only a sham, their places in government were vacant and required being taken over by right-thinking men. "I," said their leader, "know what is necessary for the welfare of France. This is my desire and intent and I therefore constitute the legitimate power of the country." And thus was founded a secret society levying taxes on its members, passing judgments by internal tribunals, and spying on its associates. Of course, such nonsense could not last and soon fell apart. But the sudden appearance and taking form of such a project and the seduction it was able to exert over intelligent men and women proves that the spirit of sedevacantism is indeed harmful to souls.
-
Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma.
Hogwash. This question of the papacy is of UTMOST importance to Catholics. You should know, Stubborn, that it's defined dogma that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Pope. To call a burning desire to be subject to the Holy Father the result of "some psychological trauma" borders upon the blasphemous.
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.
-
Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.
It is obvious that for you, Stubborn, the papacy is nothing but a stumbling block.
-
Oh come off it - that video is the stupidest sede video I can remember ever seeing.
If you think that it is accurate, then your "pope problem" is a bigger problem than I thought it was.
-
Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.
Both SV and AntiSV seem to be obsessed by the matter.
The AntiSV apologetic material is probably as massive as the pro.
Possibly the only topic more divisive and monomania-inducing is the subject of EENS.
-
Well maybe after Lover of Spam as you call him starts another 50 threads all promoting sedevacantism as if it's a revealed truth, you will agree that some sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. Maybe not, but maybe.
Both SV and AntiSV seem to be obsessed by the matter.
The AntiSV apologetic material is probably as massive as the pro.
Possibly the only topic more divisive and monomania-inducing is the subject of EENS.
And yet the attention paid to these things is absolutely justified. Everything about Traditional Catholicism, the justification for it, rests upon these two questions. If you don't see this, then I can't help you.
-
Oh come off it - that video is the stupidest sede video I can remember ever seeing.
I have to agree here though. It's an incredibly weak video simply assuming all the principles of dogmatic sedevacantism ... so it doesn't prove anything but is completely circular.
-
And yet the attention paid to these things is absolutely justified. Everything about Traditional Catholicism, the justification for it, rests upon these two questions. If you don't see this, then I can't help you.
I agree that they are very grave matters, of enormous importance.
Unlike Stubborn, whom I entirely disagree with about the (non) necessity of a Pontiff (apart from nominal bureaucratic homages) in the matter of Salvation,government, guidance, doctrine and so on.
On the other hand, I can admit there's many borderline monomaniacal cases, ie people (even in high positions) who barely can avoid talking about the matter even in the context of unrelated arguments.
Maybe it's the internet contributing to giving out this impression, I don't know, as I have very little real life experience with Traditionalism&similar.
-
And yet the attention paid to these things is absolutely justified. Everything about Traditional Catholicism, the justification for it, rests upon these two questions. If you don't see this, then I can't help you.
I agree that they are very grave matters, of enormous importance.
Unlike Stubborn, whom I entirely disagree with about the (non) necessity of a Pontiff (apart from nominal bureaucratic homages) in the matter of Salvation,government, guidance, doctrine and so on.
In a nutshell, the point I am trying to make by asking; "why do you need a pope?" is that our salvation as individuals certainly does not depend on whether or not we have a pope in the Chair. We do not have to know if the pope is the pope or not to save our souls. So why is it so all important to sede's to broadcast repeatedly that the pope is not the pope as if their very salvation depends on the pope not being the pope?
What we, as individuals have to know, is our obligations to Christ as Catholics, which has been taught and laid down for us for many centuries, all of which make up the traditional Catholic religion which you and I already know - and practically all of which can be found out either by asking a trad priest or in the older catechisms or the Papal and Council docuмents and writings of the Fathers - which for the most part is at the tip of nearly everyone's fingers thanks to the internet.
And don't discount Fr. Cekada's influence in all of this. He keeps the flames fanned, for, well, I will only say for reasons that for all intents and purposes look to be self serving.
-
While that may be true, it has no bearing on the matter of the necessity, as an actual and present institution, of both a Church and a Pontiff.
Theoretically, you don't even need a Church also. Not even a "trad" priest. Only baptism from someone.
Then you could go among the Matutu (or whatever they are called) in the Amazon and live in peace.
Or, even more exceptionally, you could live alone on an asteroid (if it were possible) and an Angel could have baptised you and taught you the rudimentaries of Catholic faith.
That does not negate the absolute and imperative necessity of the Catholic Church and the Pontiff, as optimal and universal institutions.
Case in point: the very last 60 years.
-
Very predictable nonsense.
What else can be expected from a man who believes that "Feeneyites" are outside the Church?
(while at the same time maintaining that non-Catholics can be saved by last minute BOD, just as much as the "conciliar anti-Popes")
Cekadian sede logic :rolleyes:
-
Very predictable nonsense.
What else can be expected from a man who believes that "Feeneyites" are outside the Church?
(while at the same time maintaining that non-Catholics can be saved by last minute BOD, just as much as the "conciliar anti-Popes")
Cekadian sede logic :rolleyes:
According to your pope Cantarella everyone is saved, so take care of your own house.
Here is another link, enjoy!
http://traditioninaction.org/movies/028_Bowie.htm
-
Oh come off it - that video is the stupidest sede video I can remember ever seeing.
I have to agree here though. It's an incredibly weak video simply assuming all the principles of dogmatic sedevacantism ... so it doesn't prove anything but is completely circular.
Some will be surprised to hear me say that I too think this is a weak video.
-
From the blog Catholic Truth: http://catholictruthblog.com/2016/01/14/whos-afraid-of-sedevacantism/
Who’s Afraid of Sedevacantism? A response to Father Cekada.
...Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment. Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path. Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.
If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world. We know from the Great Schism that merely being wrong about this factual issue in the context of confusing times does not separate one from the Church of Rome. Canonized saints were incorrect in their assessment of who in fact was the legitimate pope. Thus, we have nothing to fear if someday the Church adjudicates that one or more of the Men of the post Conciliar era were not legitimate popes. We will have held fast to the truths of the Faith and refused any command contrary to Divine or Natural Law and shown ourselves willing to submit to the legitimate authority.
Yet, as we shall see, the longer the crisis in the Church continues the less plausible is the opinion that each and every Man since 1958 has been an antipope (even if perhaps one or the other might have been). Rather, it is those holding the Sedevacantist opinion who should fear the state of affairs they hold to be true. If it were true that no pope has reigned since John XXIII, there are no valid Cardinals, and there is no Roman clergy (by definition if there is no bishop to validly and legitimately ordain and incardinate them into the Roman church), then the Church in her essential nature would have defected. There would be no method for continuing the Roman Church or the election of a new pope. The Sedevacantist opinion was more plausible in the early 1970s when there were pre-Conciliar Cardinals who could restore the papacy (or at least a Roman clergy to elect a pope according to prior practice). The longer the crisis continues the less plausible becomes the Sedevacantist opinion that none of the popes since 1958 have held office because the methods consistent with the Church’s Constitution for a valid papal election become impossible to achieve.
-
I thought the video says exactly what it would be like to NOT accept the sedevacantist position, maybe it was just too simple for some. Reminds me of when I was in High School and the nuns were telling us students about Fatima and the Peace Plan from Heaven, Our Lady brought us, (Daily rosary, daily duty, Penance ...) the nuns told us it was too simple for the "enlightened" ones, the leaders of the world to understand. Thus we have what we have today, everything except peace.
What we see here on this forum and all over the world is nothing but confusion regarding the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and that is a CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING NO POPE.
-
I thought the video says exactly what it would be like to NOT accept the sedevacantist position, maybe it was just too simple for some. Reminds me of when I was in High School and the nuns were telling us students about Fatima and the Peace Plan from Heaven, Our Lady brought us, (Daily rosary, daily duty, Penance ...) the nuns told us it was too simple for the "enlightened" ones, the leaders of the world to understand. Thus we have what we have today, everything except peace.
Father Cekada recently released a video entitled “Why Traditionalists Fear Sedevacantism” as a response to the oncoming book by R&R Salza and Siscoe. Rather than demonstrating that Traditionalists fear Sedevacantism, Father Cekada’s remarks suggest that he fears Traditionalists critiques of Sedevacantism. He focuses in ad hominems and oversimplifications, instead of sound theological arguments, as the posted article explains, and this poor - quality, highly emotional video confirms.
-
...Rather than Traditionalists fearing Sedevacantism, it seems that those holding the opinion rather fear the complexity of the crisis God has willed to permit His Church undergo. Rather than the arduous work of sifting through the confusion that has been coming out of the Vatican and chanceries for decades and applying certain Catholic principles to make proper distinctions between legitimate commands and those that lack authority, the opinion of Sedevacantism proposes an alluring simple black and white solution that avoids this difficult work of discernment. Like Conciliar Catholics who unthinkingly accept everything coming out of the Vatican press office, Sedevacantists take an analogous approach of accepting nothing. In different ways both avoid the more arduous path. Traditionalists who hold fast to the principle of discernment have nothing to fear. If Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ, they will render obedience when required, if he legitimately commands what is in harmony with higher law, and they will withhold obedience when he exceeds his authority. They will therefore not be led into erroneous actions.
If we learn from the Church someday that he was not a legitimate pope, then we still have nothing to fear. We will have only obeyed commands that are consistent with Divine and Natural Law and we will have made merely an error in factual judgment. We acknowledged a Man who has been accepted as the pope by Catholics throughout the world. We know from the Great Schism that merely being wrong about this factual issue in the context of confusing times does not separate one from the Church of Rome. Canonized saints were incorrect in their assessment of who in fact was the legitimate pope. Thus, we have nothing to fear if someday the Church adjudicates that one or more of the Men of the post Conciliar era were not legitimate popes. We will have held fast to the truths of the Faith and refused any command contrary to Divine or Natural Law and shown ourselves willing to submit to the legitimate authority.
Yet, as we shall see, the longer the crisis in the Church continues the less plausible is the opinion that each and every Man since 1958 has been an antipope (even if perhaps one or the other might have been). Rather, it is those holding the Sedevacantist opinion who should fear the state of affairs they hold to be true. If it were true that no pope has reigned since John XXIII, there are no valid Cardinals, and there is no Roman clergy (by definition if there is no bishop to validly and legitimately ordain and incardinate them into the Roman church), then the Church in her essential nature would have defected. There would be no method for continuing the Roman Church or the election of a new pope. The Sedevacantist opinion was more plausible in the early 1970s when there were pre-Conciliar Cardinals who could restore the papacy (or at least a Roman clergy to elect a pope according to prior practice). The longer the crisis continues the less plausible becomes the Sedevacantist opinion that none of the popes since 1958 have held office because the methods consistent with the Church’s Constitution for a valid papal election become impossible to achieve.
While I do not know Cekada and probably disagree with him on most things,
I have to say this is complete nonsense through and through.
-
The OP isn't actually convincing, because it doesn't really support WHY one should believe those statements made. But without the support, the statements can be true nevertheless.
Here is the support for this. A quote by Pope St. Pius X in 1912:
“When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public docuмents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.”
St Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912, AAS 1912, p. 695.