Author Topic: Sedevacantism as an operation of Grace (Read 2993 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #30 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:01:44 AM »

Yes, I remember reading that. I propose one-half hour. The graces during this time are immense and for many of us, we only receive once a week. Also, receiving Holy Communion for the sake of the conversion of sinners is a most noble practice that I can say pleases Jesus and Mary very much.

There is nothing better than maintaing peace and order within the Church, it should weigh on the heart of every traditional Catholic. To this end, I also propose an international convention of all traditional catholics, monks, nuns, priests and bishops in order to unite under a single banner, to maintain friendly relations and mutual concord and to focus a combined effort at combatting error and corruption. Hiding away in the small corner of our churches should come to an end. We need to make ourselves known and engage the enemy with vigor. Thus far, the revolutionaries have managed to marginalize and render us obsolete by silence and ignoring our presence.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:32:45 AM »

gladius_veritatis said:

Quote

Caminus said:
It's Catholicism + 1. That's never a good thing.

Sadly, we see it from all sorts of trads, and from many in the NO, too. Yes, it is manifested in slightly different ways, but it is essentially the same thing. It seems to be part of the cross of these times. A man with a balanced take is a rare thing, and the world in which we live does not help matters.

What are you saying, Caminus, we shouldn't correct our brother on a crucial matter regarding the faith for fear of considering ourselves "Catholics + 1"? Because practically all you do is rebuke and upbraid, so you must be a Catholic + 30.

It fascinates me how some in SSPX almost naturally seem to fall into communist, Jєωιѕн tactics of argumentation, with that particular Jєωιѕн method where they wield an iron fist while cringing and appealing to crude emotion ( "Why do we fight? Let's just pray more," etc. ) It is a uniquely unappealing mixture of brutality -- in the form of sophistry and harsh rhetoric -- and sentimentality.
The SSPX marginalize sedes and then they cringe and whine about how we mistreat THEM, even when we are practically blocked from any site on the Internet. And the reason for this is simply because we have the truth and they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be so irritated.

You can't erase the truth, even when you drive it into a corner it will always haunt you. Humans were made to love God, and God is the truth. That is why if you reject or rebel against God, your conscience will always nag at you, you won't have peace. You can kill off or marginalize all the truth- tellers and sit at the top of the world, but the world is just that; the world. Not heaven. ( No, I'm not saying only sedes have God, please read in the spirit of the thing ).

There is being right in your own mind, because you've smeared the competition and made it invisible, and then there is actually being right.

I think those that really try to defend SSPX almost always fall into some pretty grievous errors, especially on the limits of papal infallibility ( it goes far beyond ex cathedra statements, and that canard needs to be retired permanently ). Then there are others in SSPX who just aren't ready to say the Pope is not the Pope. That is to say, the borderline-sedes, or those for whom the sede arguments haven't fully clicked, since yes, that takes grace, as well as some skill in interpreting dense theological texts, which not everyone has.

The sedevacantists are correct about a crucial issue affecting the Church, unless you think, as many in SSPX seem to imply, that it doesn't matter if we have a true Pope as long as we have the Mass. It is only in the future, apparently, that the full pernicious reach of this attitude will become clear for most people.

That is the balanced take. It is not balanced to act as if the sede thesis is on the same level as the SSPX one, because it's not. Both cannot be right. How is it balanced to say that two opposing theories should comfortably co-exist? That's like trying to balance a seesaw with two people on the same side of the fulcrum.

Christ said you are either with me or against me. These false Popes are against Him, and the main part of restoring the Church is recognizing the problem. Eamon said elsewhere that the sedevacantist thesis is not the solution, but it is the beginning. You can't cure cancer without diagnosing the tumor first.

At a certain point, if we aren't there already, raging against sedes will almost certainly become uncomfortably akin to the Pharisees screaming for the blood of Christ. It is very apparent that many in SSPX consider sedes the real enemy rather than Joseph Ratzinger and his ilk. If I were them, this would make me worry, and not just a little.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:43:30 AM »

The right approach with those in the SSPX is to respect them as Catholics but not to respect their errors.

This is the right approach when dealing with any Catholic who is wrong about something more or less crucial to the faith.

Would you, Caminus, refrain from rebuking a Catholic who was pro-Israel, even though to be pro-Israel is not against the faith, per se? ( And certain errors of the SSPX itself, if not of every person in it, really are contrary to the faith, like their interpretation of papal infallibility ).

The SSPX attitude that wants sedes to be at peace with their error is wrong. It is dismaying to see how many sedes fall for it, also. Should St. Catherine of Siena not have tried to tell the world that they were wrong to follow the invalid line of Popes? Was St. Vincent Ferrer's line of anti-Popes just as good? No. And our time is not like the schism, since that was about who had a valid election, which most people could not have been expected to know, not having been there in Rome when the election of Pope Urban VI happened. Theology didn't really come into it.

I don't talk about this much anymore, but here is a reminder, if any were needed, that I am still sede, and I'm not going to fall into this trap of acting like I'm at peace with SSPX. I'm very much at war with it.

I figure everyone knows that already, so there is no need to harp on it. But then along you come Caminus to dig out something I said probably before I was banned. You can't let it go. Do you ever ask yourself why this is? I was content to play around with the lighter and more personal topics, because this debate, for those who can't yet hear, or don't want to hear, is merely going around in circles.

Matthew · « **Reply #33 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:46:43 AM »

Sedes are allowed on CathInfo.

What would Archbishop Lefebvre do if he were running a message board today?

I only bring him up because, in my research, I was firmly convinced of his holiness and wisdom.

The fact that so many attend the SSPX today is a testament that I am "on to something" in my assessment. Bishop Fellay is no Archbishop Lefebvre -- no offense :)

Caminus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:49:52 AM »

Quote

Because practically all you do is rebuke and upbraid, so you must be a Catholic + 30.

What does that mean? And why do you think my recommendations above are "crude emotionalism"? Don't you take these things seriously? Worse, why do you think yo are justified in trampling people's reputation because of some contrived perception regarding imputed "tactics"? Why can't you seem to take people at their word without imputing your bizarre theories? If you feel the pressure of my arguments it is because they are forceful against what I see as an error on your part -- an error just as bad as those of the conciliarists precisely because you divide traditional catholics based upon the perceived status of your opinions. I resent that very deeply. I practice the traditional catholic faith, so do you. There should be no reason why we are divided expect the fact that you can't seem resist thrusting the Pope question into the mix. If you think the position of the SSPX is difficult to reconcile with Catholic doctrine, a fortiori, it is so with the theoretical sedevacantist.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:56:53 AM »

Caminus said:

Quote

And why do you think my recommendations above are "crude emotionalism"?

Caminus said:

Quote

I resent that very deeply. I practice the traditional catholic faith, so do you."

I didn't say your recommendations were crude emotionalism. The crude emotionalism is in your second quote there, in that attitude of "Why are we fighting, we're all Catholics." As if it's insignificant whether or not Benedict is Pope, as if it's insignificant that this man is a danger to the faith and so is the entire organization he runs, and that he falsely calls the Catholic Church.

If you believe someone to be wrong about a matter pertaining to the faith, you rebuke them. It is the same for a sede who attacks the theological errors of the SSPX. Whenever you ask a sede to accept the flaws of the SSPX, the flaws inherent in its very nature, you are just appealing to the emotions, because you can't win when it comes to facts.

Caminus · « **Reply #36 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:58:08 AM »

Quote

And certain errors of the SSPX itself, if not of every person in it, really are contrary to the faith, like their interpretation of papal infallibility

Here again, you say this with bold assurance, but in reality it is based upon your own ignorance and misunderstanding of the doctrine itself or at least its practical application. You don't even weigh the words of the manualists carefully enough to consider the weight they give to their own opinions, nor do you consider that they speak only in generalities. This is just some of the basic ideas that you continually gloss over. Face it, you are attracted to the theory because it is clean and simple. But upon closer examination, it really falls apart and at most is merely an improbable opinion.

What of the fact that the opinion of the theoretical sedevacantist has literally resulted in the denial of at least one essential mark of the Church? Ironically, his theory destroys the essence of the Church to a far greater degree than any ecuмenist, for at least the latter recognizes the continued existence of the Church in its essential nature. The only difference is that they think they can extend this nature beyond the Catholic Church while you simply deny its existence altogether, for a Church that does not possess authority or apostolic succession is no Church at all.

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:59:03 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus said:
Quote
And why do you think my recommendations above are "crude emotionalism"?

Caminus said:
Quote
I resent that very deeply. I practice the traditional catholic faith, so do you."

I didn't say your recommendations were crude emotionalism. The crude emotionalism is in your second quote there, in that attitude of "Why are we fighting, we're all Catholics." As if it's insignificant whether or not Benedict is Pope, as if it's insignificant that this man is a danger to the faith and so is the entire organization he runs, and that he falsely calls the Catholic Church.

If you believe someone to be wrong about a matter pertaining to the faith, you rebuke them. It is the same for a sede who attacks the theological errors of the SSPX. Whenever you ask a sede to accept the flaws of the SSPX, the flaws inherent in its very nature, you are just appealing to the emotions, because you can't win when it comes to facts.

The identity of the Pope is not a matter of faith.

SJB · « **Reply #38 on:** March 29, 2011, 07:29:54 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

SJB, it says, "Laymen are not competent judges in matters of heresy, even as to mere questions of fact."

Yes, in matters of ecclesiastical law, laymen are neither judges of fact or law.

SJB · « **Reply #39 on:** March 29, 2011, 07:33:18 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

The identity of the Pope is not a matter of faith.

True, but the identity of the pope is not just some obsure and unimportant detail of Catholicism.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #40 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:34:19 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Yes, I remember reading that. I propose one-half hour. The graces during this time are immense and for many of us, we only receive once a week. Also, receiving Holy Communion for the sake of the conversion of sinners is a most noble practice that I can say pleases Jesus and Mary very much.

There is nothing better than maintaing peace and order within the Church, it should weigh on the heart of every traditional Catholic. To this end, I also propose an international convention of all traditional catholics, monks, nuns, priests and bishops in order to unite under a single banner, to maintain friendly relations and mutual concord and to focus a combined effort at combatting error and corruption. Hiding away in the small corner of our churches should come to an end. We need to make ourselves known and engage the enemy with vigor. Thus far, the revolutionaries have managed to marginalize and render us obsolete by silence and ignoring our presence.

I agree. And I admit that my tone has not been one of humility, for which I apologise. We as laymen cannot dogmatise our perception of the crisis, as happens so often in these times.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #41 on:** March 29, 2011, 09:05:34 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

The fact that so many attend the SSPX today is a testament that I am "on to something" in my assessment.

It is? The vast majority of the nominally-Catholic world thinks all trads are schismatic nuts. In fact, they pretty much lump us all together.

Numbers mean nothing.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #42 on:** March 29, 2011, 09:15:44 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

To this end, I also propose an international convention of all traditional catholics, monks, nuns, priests and bishops in order to unite under a single banner, to maintain friendly relations and mutual concord and to focus a combined effort at combatting error and corruption. Hiding away in the small corner of our churches should come to an end. We need to make ourselves known and engage the enemy with vigor. Thus far, the revolutionaries have managed to marginalize and render us obsolete by silence and ignoring our presence.

Sadly, the isolationism (for lack of a better word) is unlikely to change until things have blown apart altogether. There is also the problem presented by infiltrators within Traddieland. I know some may not agree with me, but, IMO, it is a given that some of the priests and laymen posing as Trads are nothing of the kind. They would do everything in their power to derail any sort of convention whose purpose is unity.

Am I saying, "Don't bother..." No, but it is wise to consider the potential obstacles, great or small. IMO, if anything like what you mention is to happen, it will require massive effort from laymen, as most priests will not move an inch unless they first see that the sheep are organized and serious (and tired of the status quo of Traddieland).

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #43 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:45:05 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

...when I was in Catholic school, the nuns taught that if a pope taught heresy, he would cease to be a pope.

When was this?