Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Making sedevacantism into a religion  (Read 2503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2939
  • Reputation: +1448/-2279
  • Gender: Female
Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2017, 10:13:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The two words "sede vacante" doesn't sound to me like he considers only sedevacantists to be Catholic. You really need more evidence than that.

    I consider Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSSP, and generally R&R to be "Catholic", but dangerous Catholics, because they promote a position dangerous to the faith. In many cases, one must treat non-Catholics and dangerous Catholics the same, but depending on the circumstances.

    So....most of the Catholics one this board (non-sedevacantists) are dangerous, in your view? Am I reading that right? If so, that's a scary view to take, IMO.

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #16 on: May 31, 2017, 11:47:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • That's an equal opportunity statement.  

    Of course everyone here has the equal opportunity to do their duty of fighting error and countering with truth. Unfortunately, many don't know their duty, don't know their faith well, and/or not capable of debating.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.


    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #17 on: May 31, 2017, 11:50:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • So....most of the Catholics one this board (non-sedevacantists) are dangerous, in your view? Am I reading that right? If so, that's a scary view to take, IMO.


    I said, depending on the circumstances.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #18 on: May 31, 2017, 12:10:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I said, depending on the circumstances.

    Could you provide an example of what the circumstances would be?

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #19 on: May 31, 2017, 05:09:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Could you provide an example of what the circumstances would be?

    The danger is in proportion to the influence and attraction. The number one danger is clergy, even if they never personally preach the error.

    The best example is given by the followers of St. Athanasius who refused to attend the Masses of the priests who were in association with Bishop Arius' error. This was before the Church condemned Arianism. Arianism was one subtle philosophical error against the teaching of the Trinity, and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment. Even though a priest was associated with, but didn't personally preach, the error. The true Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid Sacraments.

    Today, this means the R&R mass centers, which are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the papacy and magisterium.

    Catholic laymen are a danger in proportion to the strength and scope of influence and the frequency and zeal in pushing their errors, OR giving a huge public podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #20 on: May 31, 2017, 05:37:00 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The danger is in proportion to the influence and attraction. The number one danger is clergy, even if they never personally preach the error.

    The best example is given by the followers of St. Athanasius who refused to attend the Masses of the priests who were in association with Bishop Arius' error. This was before the Church condemned Arianism. Arianism was one subtle philosophical error against the teaching of the Trinity, and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment. Even though a priest was associated with, but didn't personally preach, the error. The true Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid Sacraments.

    Today, this means the R&R mass centers, which are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the papacy and magisterium.

    Catholic laymen are a danger in proportion to the strength and scope of influence and the frequency and zeal in pushing their errors, OR giving a huge public podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them.

    Thanks for the explanation. I'll provide a fairly simple response, since I'm not intellectually inclined. Maybe others can give a more thorough response. 

    It seems to me that the error regarding the Trinity back in St. Athansius' time was far more clear than the errors of modernism. Modernism mixes truth and error, and also ambiguity to push for its agenda. That's a difference I see between the Crisis back then, and the Crisis now.

    You mention that R&R mass centers are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the Papacy. Can you be more specific? I would think that the errors you are referring to are specifically errors according to the sedevacantist view, would that be right? And there are quite a few different versions of the SV view. I don't think that there were so many different versions of what constitutes error back in St. Athanasius' day. 

    Regarding Catholic laymen being a danger in proportion to the strength and power and scope of influence, including frequency and zeal, or giving a podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them, well, I assume that those Catholic laymen you are referring to don't believe that they are pushing error. Correct? Why then would they stop when they don't believe that are doing anything wrong? (I'm not sure to whom you are referring to exactly, when you describe the "Catholic laymen.") 


    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #21 on: May 31, 2017, 05:55:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Thanks for the explanation. I'll provide a fairly simple response, since I'm not intellectually inclined. Maybe others can give a more thorough response.

    It seems to me that the error regarding the Trinity back in St. Athansius' time was far more clear than the errors of modernism. Modernism mixes truth and error, and also ambiguity to push for its agenda. That's a difference I see between the Crisis back then, and the Crisis now.

    Actually, the error then was not far more clear. As I said, and the books say, it was a subtle, philosophical error:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

    The R&R position is not modernism. It is an erroneous (against the faith) response to why Vatican II should be opposed.

    The error is not difficult. The R&R have accepted the statement, "The pope is head of a false Church, and head of the true Church."

    That is as blatantly heretical as saying, "Our Lady was assumed into heaven body and soul, but I am looking forward to an archaeologist finding some bones of our Our Lady at some digging site in Israel."


    You mention that R&R mass centers are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the Papacy. Can you be more specific? I would think that the errors you are referring to are specifically errors according to the sedevacantist view, would that be right? And there are quite a few different versions of the SV view. I don't think that there were so many different versions of what constitutes error back in St. Athanasius' day.

    The statement I gave above should suffice.


    Regarding Catholic laymen being a danger in proportion to the strength and power and scope of influence, including frequency and zeal, or giving a podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them, well, I assume that those Catholic laymen you are referring to don't believe that they are pushing error. Correct? Why then would they stop when they don't believe that are doing anything wrong? (I'm not sure to whom you are referring to exactly, when you describe the "Catholic laymen.")

    The error is dangerous, despite the lack of intention to harm.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #22 on: May 31, 2017, 06:18:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually, the error then was not far more clear. As I said, and the books say, it was a subtle, philosophical error:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

    The R&R position is not modernism. It is an erroneous (against the faith) response to why Vatican II should be opposed.

    The error is not difficult. The R&R have accepted the statement, "The pope is head of a false Church, and head of the true Church."

    That is as blatantly heretical as saying, "Our Lady was assumed into heaven body and soul, but I am looking forward to an archaeologist finding some bones of our Our Lady at some digging site in Israel."


    The statement I gave above should suffice.


    The error is dangerous, despite the lack of intention to harm.

    If the error of Arianism was a subtle philosophical error, as you say above, then how is it that Catholic lay faithful were able to understand the distinction between truth and error? Were they really so well educated in the faith that they were able to do so, all on their own? 

    I don't agree that the acceptance of the Pope as being the head of the True Church and also the head of the conciliar church is the same thing as believing that Our Lady's body will be found by an archeologist someday. The Church's teaching is clear regarding our Lady's Assumption into Heaven. The current Crisis, on the other hand, does not lent itself to clarity. Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white. IMO, the situation with having a modernist Pope is not so clear-cut as SV's want it to be. That's a big difference between the two viewpoints. 

    Regarding the supposed errors (of R&R Catholic laymen) being dangerous, despite the lack of intention to harm, seems to me to come down to a subjective view of yours that they really are promoting dangerous error. It's an opinion, right? 



    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #23 on: May 31, 2017, 06:42:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • If the error of Arianism was a subtle philosophical error, as you say above, then how is it that Catholic lay faithful were able to understand the distinction between truth and error? Were they really so well educated in the faith that they were able to do so, all on their own?

    The answer is that St. Athanasius is the one who informed them, which is why they were enlightened about it, and had the authoritative backing to confidently do what they did.


    I don't agree that the acceptance of the Pope as being the head of the True Church and also the head of the conciliar church is the same thing as believing that Our Lady's body will be found by an archeologist someday. The Church's teaching is clear regarding our Lady's Assumption into Heaven. The current Crisis, on the other hand, does not lent itself to clarity. Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white. IMO, the situation with having a modernist Pope is not so clear-cut as SV's want it to be. That's a big difference between the two viewpoints.

    Unfortunately, that is your view. But it is mistaken. Truth is simple, yes, and sometimes it is not that simple. But for Bp. Williamson to reject something just because it is "black and white" is a false Liberal belief.

    The fact is - no true pope could be the head of the true Church, simultaneously with being the "head" of a false, heretical Church. That is a diametrically opposed proposition to Catholic teaching....meaning it is absurd, doctrinally, and an error against the Faith.


    Regarding the supposed errors (of R&R Catholic laymen) being dangerous, despite the lack of intention to harm, seems to me to come down to a subjective view of yours that they really are promoting dangerous error. It's an opinion, right?

    Some opinions are true, and some are not. We have to face that fact. The word "opinion" is not a license to reject a proposition out of hand.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #24 on: May 31, 2017, 07:51:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The answer is that St. Athanasius is the one who informed them, which is why they were enlightened about it, and had the authoritative backing to confidently do what they did.


    Unfortunately, that is your view. But it is mistaken. Truth is simple, yes, and sometimes it is not that simple. But for Bp. Williamson to reject something just because it is "black and white" is a false Liberal belief.

    The fact is - no true pope could be the head of the true Church, simultaneously with being the "head" of a false, heretical Church. That is a diametrically opposed proposition to Catholic teaching....meaning it is absurd, doctrinally, and an error against the Faith.


    Some opinions are true, and some are not. We have to face that fact. The word "opinion" is not a license to reject a proposition out of hand.

    From what I recall, St. Athanasius did inform them, though he was not the only one to speak out against the error of Arianism, of course.  

    However, you said in reply #19 today: "...and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment..[...] The True Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid sacraments."

    Perhaps you did not intend to make it seem as if the Catholics at that time refused communion based only on their own judgment, but that's what I took it to mean. 

    You mentioned above that..."But for Bishop Williamson to reject something just because it is "black and white" is a false liberal belief." I never said that Bishop Williamson rejects SVism because of the "black and white" issue. That's not the same thing at all as what I said. I said that Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white. 


    So, the Catholic lay faithful did not make the judgment all on their own regarding the errors of Arianism, but rather they trusted in the leadership and judgment of a bishop, St. Athanaius.  Just as many of us trust in the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre. Not that he was perfect and got everything correct. 

    I've seen the study of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais regarding the belief that the Pope is the head of two churches. It makes sense to me, though it is difficult to read. 

    I agree that some opinions are true and some are not. And I agree too that this in itself isn't a license to reject a proposition out of hand. 

    And lastly, you said that "no true pope could be the head of the true Church, simultaneously while being the head of a false, heretical church." This statement of yours is not one with which the R&R would agree, I don't think. The conciliar church still has some aspects of the faith left. It isn't completely heretical. It's view of the SV's that the conciliar church is completely false. Please don't infer that non-SV's take this view (though perhaps some non-sedes do)

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explains it quite well in his study, which can be found on Dominicans of Avrille website. He wrote that the conciliar church is like a parasite that feeds off its host (the True Church), and that there is a transfer of substance, so to speak, from host to parasite. He says more of course, but that's what it basically boils down to. 

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2925
    • Reputation: +1616/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #25 on: June 01, 2017, 03:24:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    Relentless Sede pushing his personal opinions as dogma responds - I consider Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSSP, and generally R&R to be "Catholic", but dangerous Catholics, because they promote a position dangerous to the faith. In many cases, one must treat non-Catholics and dangerous Catholics the same, but depending on the circumstances...... Catholic laymen are a danger in proportion to the strength and scope of influence and the frequency and zeal in pushing their errors,

    Above is a perfect example of the "ugly sede"  ( not your typical sede) and what I think Matthew is complaining about in the OP.
    I have said it a million times, I have nothing against sedes except one thing, the relentless sedes who "break communion" (their own expression) with all their friends because they consider them "a danger" or whatever other excuse.  I believe that it stems from a fault in their personality that has caused them to not have any friends and that their sede position of "breaking communion" is just another manifestation of the core personality fault.

    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2925
    • Reputation: +1616/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #26 on: June 01, 2017, 03:51:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    I consider Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSSP, and generally R&R to be "Catholic", but dangerous Catholics, because they promote a position dangerous to the faith.
    I do not consider any Novus Ordo, SSPX, Indult, or Sede group  to be the end all be all answer to the current vortex of confusion,  for I consider them all flawed in some way. I believe that God has made it this way so that we keep in mind that the pope is the head of the Church, the shepherd. The shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered. So, where does one go? My answer is that I go where I can find valid priests ordained in the old rite. Whatever valid priest God puts in my path is my priest.

    I know that my mindset stems from the fact that all the SSPX and the Sede priests have their roots in Abp. Lefevbre's seminaries and they all profess the same contradiction to clear dogma in their teaching that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Bhuddist.... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. If they can swallow the camel that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Trinity, indeed, without the sacraments, without explicit desire to be baptized into the Church or to be martyred for the Catholic faith, nor be invincible ignorant....., THEN they can swallow anything. Thus all I seek is a valid priest, because  to me practically all trad priests are flawed. If I were to "break communion" with all these priests for the errors that they teach, I would have no sacraments.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +223/-656
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #27 on: June 01, 2017, 05:31:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • From what I recall, St. Athanasius did inform them, though he was not the only one to speak out against the error of Arianism, of course.  

    However, you said in reply #19 today: "...and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment..[...] The True Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid sacraments."

    Perhaps you did not intend to make it seem as if the Catholics at that time refused communion based only on their own judgment, but that's what I took it to mean.

    They weren't forced to, so they did so by their own volition.


    You mentioned above that..."But for Bishop Williamson to reject something just because it is "black and white" is a false liberal belief." I never said that Bishop Williamson rejects SVism because of the "black and white" issue. That's not the same thing at all as what I said. I said that Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white.

    We are obliged to always TRY to see everything clearly. It's what the mind and conscience is designed for. If someone cannot comprehend something clearly, they should humbly just admit they personally don't, rather than attempting to preach against what the mind and conscience is designed for.


    So, the Catholic lay faithful did not make the judgment all on their own regarding the errors of Arianism, but rather they trusted in the leadership and judgment of a bishop, St. Athanaius.  Just as many of us trust in the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre. Not that he was perfect and got everything correct.

    Some may throw up their hands and go on pure trust. Others understand the situation. Both, in the end, do so by their own volition. We are obliged morally to separate from that which is a danger to our faith. This is a perennial teaching.


    I've seen the study of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais regarding the belief that the Pope is the head of two churches. It makes sense to me, though it is difficult to read.

    I agree that some opinions are true and some are not. And I agree too that this in itself isn't a license to reject a proposition out of hand.

    And lastly, you said that "no true pope could be the head of the true Church, simultaneously while being the head of a false, heretical church." This statement of yours is not one with which the R&R would agree, I don't think. The conciliar church still has some aspects of the faith left. It isn't completely heretical. It's view of the SV's that the conciliar church is completely false. Please don't infer that non-SV's take this view (though perhaps some non-sedes do)

    The Church teaches that ONE heresy destroys the faith. To say that Francis is head of a false Church is saying he is a manifest heretic. The Catholic books are very clear about what that means -  a manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2559
    • Reputation: +863/-181
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #28 on: June 01, 2017, 05:44:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • He wrote back and called me emotional.

    Here are the relevant excerpts (this guy has been reading too much Traditio. Just listen to him!)

    Typical beta-male idiocy.  Wouldn't know common sense if it fell from the sky and landed on his face.  The type who can't think outside of the box, and likely can only stand to have people kiss his butt and agree with him.  Don't lose sleep over it.  He sounds like a moron.  
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Making sedevacantism into a religion
    « Reply #29 on: June 01, 2017, 10:40:08 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • They weren't forced to, so they did so by their own volition.


    We are obliged to always TRY to see everything clearly. It's what the mind and conscience is designed for. If someone cannot comprehend something clearly, they should humbly just admit they personally don't, rather than attempting to preach against what the mind and conscience is designed for.


    Some may throw up their hands and go on pure trust. Others understand the situation. Both, in the end, do so by their own volition. We are obliged morally to separate from that which is a danger to our faith. This is a perennial teaching.


    The Church teaches that ONE heresy destroys the faith. To say that Francis is head of a false Church is saying he is a manifest heretic. The Catholic books are very clear about what that means -  a manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.

    Well yes, we are obliged to see things clearly, if the situation is clear. If this Crisis were all that clear, then there wouldn't be debates such as this one.

    If you feel that you are morally obliged to separate yourself from that which is a danger to the Faith, then may I ask why you are participating on this board? Isn't the R&R stance a danger to the Faith, in your view? You do believe that everyone who does not adopt your view is a danger to the Faith, isn't that correct? You've stated that it depends in circumstances. Either the R&R stance is a danger to the Faith, or it is not.  

    It cannot really be such a danger if you are willing to participate here, IMO. 


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16