Well, well.
Actually, no. You asked me to give you one example, I probably couldn't name more than 10 Cardinals off the top of my head, so I gave you Cardinal Burke. You tell me, well, he is not a Bishop nor, presumably, a priest, as if we're committed to this position. It is circular reasoning. Please see Fr. Scott's article, I'll post only the relevant excerpts if you don't want to read the whole thing, on this subject and all the nuances involved.
I mean, i just read the entire article you linked here and just from that you can get a good case
for the invalidity of the new rites.
The SSPX position is truly insane. I mean look at the last two paragraphs:
"For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s Holy Orders,
we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop
Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion.
We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible…".
How a supposed Catholic can say such a thing and still say the leaders of this "new religion" are the authorities of the Church is unfathomable to me.
If he didn't belong to that religion, then how on earth are it's "popes", who founded and instituted it, Catholics with legitimate authority? How can there be two Catholic religions? Two faiths? Where is the unity?
The whole thing is insane. How the SSPX is not sedevacantist is an incredible mystery to me.
Also from the article:
"On the one hand, it is our duty to avoid the excess of sedevacantism,
which unreasonably denies the very validity and existence of the post-conciliar Church and its priesthood".
He just made a pretty good case of the invalidity of the new rites, and yet he can still say such a thing.
How supposed Catholics can consider the rites of what they deem to be the Church, ILLEGITIMATE, is nothing short of non-Catholic and schismatic. Never has such a thing been heard of in the Church.
That article doesn't do anything to "defend" the invalidity of the new rite of ordination anyways. It barely says anything about all the omissions and changes it has which affects the intention. It is interesting that he quotes Davies and his book because that book totally proves how the new rite is invalid just like the Anglican is.
How can you possibly claim to recognize the Novus Ordo as the Catholic Church, and at the same time defiantly proclaim its rites illegitimate, doubtful and probably or possibly invalid? When has such a thing happened before? How is that not complete schism?
That's why sedevacantism is perfect, because you say these
aren't authorities at all, so you are not defying any authority or committing schism because they have none to begin with.
"Recognize and resist", on the other hand, is schismatic because you are defying what you deem to be the authorities.
Your points about sin and crime I'm well aware of, but we were talking of Bishops, that's why I specifically mentioned those subject to canon law.
You're making the same mistake in the very next sentence after you say that you are familiar with the difference of sin and crime.
Do you not see that?
If you want to show Bishops have lost their office, present the facts and we'll deal with them. I'll conclude this or that man is a heretic with moral certitude and has lost his office if you do.
You must be joking.
Cardinal Burke was alive and appointed before Cardinal Siri had died, so I don't see your point.
He's just a layman.
Do you concede that the local Church of Rome, as all authorities also teach, is indefectible as a particular Church? That is, that the clergy incardinated into that diocese will never completely defect or die?
This creates the "Bishop in the woods" idea, because, as far as it has or can be observed, they have ALL defected to the new religion.
Which begs the question: where is this one Bishop then? "Somewhere".
As far as the Pope is concerned, there are many reasons to treat his case differently, and to withhold judgment. For one, are you aware of why theologians say a Papacy accepted by the Church is a dogmatic fact? I doubt it, especially considering your more recent posts, though if memory serves, both Fr. Cekada and certainly John Lane are aware of it.
Yes i am aware of it and it is irrelevant and actually all these "papacies" have been defied and questioned by many people and certainly not "accepted by the whole Church".
Starting from John 23 it certainly looks like it was illegal and invalid and that Siri was elected.
Does God go by numbers and appearances?
Secondly, I already told you I grant the difficulties you raised, many of them are outstanding questions that pose serious challenges for all thinking traditional Catholics, and it's far from clear how they are to be resolved. We just don't think much of your proposed solution for the other reasons mentioned, that it, as your title says, raises more questions than it solves.
The only questions that remain for sv don't pose any threat or contradiction to the teachings of the Church, such as, "well how do we get a new pope!? where is this bishop with ordinary jurisdiction!?"
The questions r&r raises, on the other hand, are death-dealing and do pose multiple contradictions.
Indefectiblity doesn't say large portions of the Church cannot defect. If and when they do, we follow the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, that of Sacred Tradition. Also the example of St. Athanasius.
True, but that's not what i said.
I said if the Church were to promulgate, teach and give error or heresy it would have defected and the Gates of Hell would have prevailed.
But that's what happened at Vatican II and what has been happening since.
The only explanation is Paul the Sick was not a real pope, nor his "successors". This saves indefectibility.
According to you, it's the height of hypocrisy to recognize and resist a Pope in his laws and such. Well, then, why do you the same about the Pio-Benedictine code, does that make you guilty by your own standard, in a double measure of hypocrisy?
I am not declaring the Code illegitimate or even doubtful, as the SSPX does to the new rites.
I am simply asking for an explanation.
That was hardly a comparison of what you do or the "height of hypocrisy".
And do answer, if you will, whether you believe there is an Age of Mary to come, which I doubt.
I don't know. Maybe. I have read both things. One in favor of a restoration and another against it. This doesn't really matter anyways.
Topic: To Jehanne: "Sedevacantism creates more problems than it solves" (Read 9432 times)