Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on May 29, 2017, 06:05:57 PM
-
Do you realize that there are some Sedevacantists who consider all other Traditional Catholics to be non-Catholic? They really consider themselves to be in a different religion. Not compared to the Conciliar Church, mind you (for which an argument could certainly be made!) but compared with SSPX, Resistance, and any other non-Sedevacantist group.
I just got an "unsubscribe" request today for my Gregorian chant CD business. His reason for unsubscribing?
"Sede vacante"
Here is my response:
Can I ask how a piece of traditional, pre-Vatican II Gregorian chant can have an opinion or position on the Pope question?
Chant is chant. Do statuary, rosaries, altar linens, and other Catholic merchandise have to be sedevacantist/non-sedevacantist as well?
I bet you $50 you couldn't tell a sedevacantist recording of "Jesu dulcis memoria" from a non-sedevacantist one. :)
It seems to me that certain things, like pre-Vatican II Catholic books (i.e., the old TAN Books) and Gregorian Chant qualify as "neutral" in all the controversies in the Traditional movement...
-
He wrote back and called me emotional.
Here are the relevant excerpts (this guy has been reading too much Traditio. Just listen to him!)
I didn't owe you a reason and you retort with the typical, womanish, irrational flaming.
Regardless, if it "makes no difference" then what makes you so special? Do you get royalties? What is it? Is chant now only available via you?
If you would like to proceed as adults, then fine. You can thumb suck on your own.
Now, what's it to be?
Please surprise me in taking the "let's try this again rationally option" v "womanish wailing" option.
[/pre]
Here is my 2nd response.
I honestly would like to know how Chant can be sedevacantist or non-sedevacantist?
As I see it, it's either true, pre-Vatican II Gregorian chant or it isn't.
I could listen to chant (say, an hour a day for 5 years) from the biggest compromisers (or the most liberal group) in the world of Tradition, and it wouldn't make the first dent in my Faith or my Traditional Catholic position/beliefs.
That's because the various distinctions, positions, etc. within the broader Traditional Movement are irrelevant for things like statues, rosaries, chapel veils, or Gregorian chant.
It's like saying a chair has to be Republican or Democrat.
Where am I wrong in all this? I'm giving reasons and asking rational questions here.
By the way, I'm not saying you have to buy "my chant", but the idea that a sedevacantist has to restrict himself to "sedevacantist chant" is ludicrous. That is the only reason I wrote to you in the first place.
Matthew
-
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 circuмstances.
-
Do you realize that there are some R&R folks here on this forum who consider all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic?
Of course you have noted that some sedevacantists are schismatic and refuse communion with others though (in my experience) usually it is because they are affiliated with a particular group that has become a cult. Those sedevacantists wouldn't consider me a Catholic either since I don't attend their list of "approved chapels". But we should all remember, schism is schism whether the schismatic is a sedevacantist or an R&R aficionado.
(By the way, I was told that when a Resistance priest--I don't remember the name--was invited to come to central Indiana to give Catechism classes near the new SSPX chapel, the priest at the SSPX chapel told the congregation that it would be sinful for them to attend his classes because he is not in communion with Bishop Fellay. I was also told that several people who were going to go never showed up. I never did hear how many classes the priest ended up holding. Would you think this was schismatic? I would. Perhaps we should have a topic about the SSPX setting up their own religion.)
-
Exchanges like this one -- notice who is name calling who -- is why sedevacantists are GENERALLY forbidden from most Traditional Catholic boards.
There are too many "Traditio wanna-bes" out there. They think bitter = virtue and harsh = zeal, so the more the merrier!
I'm not talking about the CI population of course -- I'm talking about all those I've had to ban over the years...
-
TKGS,
It applies to all cults, including the SSPX. Sectarianism is sectarianism, and schism is schism. Both sectarianism and schism are my mortal enemy, and the fight against them is my personal crusade. But in this particular thread, for the sake of focus, I'm in the mood to discuss sedevacantists who act like this, inspired by an e-mail I received from a sedevacantist.
Next week or next month, we can discuss how this applies to the SSPX, and maybe after that we can talk about Fr. Pfeiffer's group.
It's equally ridiculous and un-Catholic regardless of the group that is guilty of this.
-
I'm glad that you feel that way. Since I don't personally know any sedevacantists who think like your correspondent, I'll not be participating further.
-
I'll never understand those with the personality that thinks it is constructive to bicker and argue constantly, cause divisions and control people. I guess there are those leaders who want to be the 'big fish in a small pond' and there are followers who want to be part of a group that's 'special'.
-
Exchanges like this one -- notice who is name calling who -- is why sedevacantists are GENERALLY forbidden from most Traditional Catholic boards.
I have always found it interesting that on a sede board like Faithful Catholics, they openly welcome those from the SSPX and Resistance and make no attempts at silencing them. In fact, they encourage them to present their arguments. But they rarely present them because they are immediately devoured like guppies in a shark tank.
-
Bosco, it's sad that most of your posts are spent on making snide remarks and clever comebacks instead of adding to the conversation...
-
The hate for the destroyer Francis and his modernist, communist, Masonic friends can easily become a dangerous zeal. For some Love thy neighbor is only telling your neighbor what he did wrong.
-
Bosco, it's sad that most of your posts are spent on making snide remarks and clever comebacks instead of adding to the conversation...
I don't see anything snide about what Bosco said in this thread. What are you talking about?
-
The hate for the destroyer Francis and his modernist, communist, Masonic friends can easily become a dangerous zeal. For some Love thy neighbor is only telling your neighbor what he did wrong.
Does this mean when you when you see on this forum someone who spends a lot of time correcting error (as should be done anyway), that you judge that the person elsewhere in real life must not express his love for his neighbor in any other way than correcting error? How could you possibly judge that? You don't know how Liberal that sounds. Almost as if you either don't see the multiple errors flowing on this forum, or else you somehow hold a misplaced conviction that one should only correct so many errors and no more!
-
That's an equal opportunity statement.
-
The hate for the destroyer Francis and his modernist, communist, Masonic friends can easily become a dangerous zeal. For some Love thy neighbor is only telling your neighbor what he did wrong.
The above is how I would describe most of the sedevacantists on this board, with a couple of exceptions. They tend to be obsessive in pointing out error, as if that's the only thing that matters.
-
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 circuмstances.
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.
-
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.
-
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 circuмstances.
-
I said, depending on the circuмstances.
Could you provide an example of what the circuмstances would be?
-
Could you provide an example of what the circuмstances 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.
-
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.")
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 circuмstances...... 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.
-
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 Jєωs, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 circuмstances. 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.
-
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.
I agree. I, too, think that this is an example of what Matthew is concerned about, though perhaps he will participate more on this thread, and address it. It does indeed seem to be a personality flaw to view that everyone around them is a danger to the Faith. It's somewhat paranoid. Certainly not all Sedes think this way, of course. Hopefully, it's only a few.
The thing is, we can hardly step outside of our front door without encountering something that contradicts the Catholic Faith. But if we have a strong faith, rooted in truth, and a strong prayer life and devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, then we can survive it, though it isn't easy.
-
If the pope is not the pope does that mean there are only 8 commandments and 6 beatitudes and 3 cardinal virtues?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that everything Frantic says is heresy?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that all the popes before John XXIII were perfect?
If the pope is not the pope then how will we know if the pope is the pope again?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean the sedevacantists are infallible?
:sleep:
-
If the pope is not the pope does that mean there are only 8 commandments and 6 beatitudes and 3 cardinal virtues?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that everything Frantic says is heresy?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that all the popes before John XXIII were perfect?
If the pope is not the pope then how will we know if the pope is the pope again?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean the sedevacantists are infallible?
:sleep:
Please post when you are not drinking. Please!
-
I agree. I, too, think that this is an example of what Matthew is concerned about, though perhaps he will participate more on this thread, and address it. It does indeed seem to be a personality flaw to view that everyone around them is a danger to the Faith. It's somewhat paranoid. Certainly not all Sedes think this way, of course. Hopefully, it's only a few.
The thing is, we can hardly step outside of our front door without encountering something that contradicts the Catholic Faith. But if we have a strong faith, rooted in truth, and a strong prayer life and devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, then we can survive it, though it isn't easy.
Meg, it's as if you didn't even read what I previously wrote you. I never said anything of the sort that you are now attributing to me. Let me quote myself:
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.
What I am saying is based on Church moral teaching, not personality.
There's a difference between an "occasion of sin" and a "near occasion of sin". Sometimes what is a near occasion for one person may not be for another. But where it is a near occasion of sin, one would sin simply by not avoiding that occasion, even if that occasion did end up with that particular sin.
"Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin
mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their association,
or by listening to preaching, or by their reading." - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
It statistical today that going to a Mass just because it's valid most often ends up where the person accepts the doctrinal errors the priest is associated with.
-
The hate for the destroyer Francis and his modernist, communist, Masonic friends can easily become a dangerous zeal. For some Love thy neighbor is only telling your neighbor what he did wrong.
once (not sure when) the pope said somethning negative about the masons. But he could have changed his mind? I don't know, but Pope F is an odd person and he definitely teaches non-Catholic stuff
-
The only "religion" applicable should be simply Catholicism. The tricky part is that events of the past 50+ years have blurred and confused just what exactly that is. When I was born (1958, while Pope Pius XII was still alive), everyone positively knew what a Catholic was, regardless of whether they agreed with Catholicism or not. If a person merely claimed to be a Catholic that claim could pretty much be taken at face value. God, I miss those days!
But I do note that there has always been room for discussion and disagreement on specific topics upon which the Church has not pronounced, even where the answer to a question might be objectively contained in Divine Revelation. Every facet of the Novus Ordo religion which in any way sets it apart from traditional Catholicism has already been condemned (admittedly in varying degrees) by the various Popes of the Church, and classically a Catholic was defined by a number of specifically visible characteristics, worship at the Catholic Mass, no meat on Fridays, prayers to saints, and so forth. By that standard Novus Ordo followers are not visibly Catholics, which is not to say that there wouldn't be at least some among them who are "Catholic-at-heart," justified before God but handicapped by invincible ignorance, in the same category as some sincere Protestants.
But traditional Catholics must all be regarded as Catholics, for they show themselves visibly to be so, regardless of their opinions on things the Church has not ruled on. Van Noort, in his Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 127-128 writes "For as long as there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church about some point or other, even though it may perchance be contained objectively in the sources of revelation, it can be freely discussed without any detriment to the unity of the faith, provided that all the disputants are ready to bow to a decision of the Church's teaching office, should one be forthcoming. Obviously the unity of faith does not extend beyond the limits of the rule of faith."
Though it is trivially demonstrable that, given the known history of our ecclesial circuмstances during and since Vatican II, the Sede Vacante finding is "contained objectively in the sources of revelation," the fact remains that "there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church" confirming this finding. I flatly disagree with the thought that "Francis I" can be considered to be a real Roman Catholic Pope, a Successor of Peter, the rule and guide of our Faith, in any sense whatsoever, whether legal, visible, ceremonial, figurehead, material, or even by "common error, and I am quite prepared to prove that such a view absolutely has to be the Church's ruling, once one is to be made." But I gladly receive as my full brother (or sister) in Christ any traditional Catholic, whatever the stripe, as he practices the Faith of his (or her) baptism visibly and fully as a Catholic, in the sense that everyone could visibly recognize a Catholic on the day of my birth.