Author Topic: Good willed SSPXers and SVs (Read 4436 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #30 on:** November 22, 2012, 09:46:55 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.

No. He wouldn't have. On the other hand, we would not have denied the statement, at least, when it came to those sedevacantists who did not make sedevacantism an article of the Faith.

Based on all that I have read (I really didn't know anything about him until well after his death) it seems to me that he was neither a dogmatic sedevacantist nor dogmatic concerning occupancy of the chair of Peter. He allowed for disagreements on anything that was not absolutely certain and, at the time, the sedevacantist thesis was clearly not certain. (I am not saying that it is certain even today.)

I do wonder, however, if there is any papal action that, in theory, could cause the whole of the traditional community to declare the See of Peter vacant? Remembering that saints, doctors of the Church, and theologians have theorized on this and considered the possibility even though they were in essential agreement that such an event would never happen, I would like to know if there is any act that would cause today's SSPX faithful to change their minds.

Would official approval of women's ordination do it? How about officially extending the sacrament of matrimony to sodomites and Lesbians? An official reversal concerning the immorality of artificial means of birth control or abortion (in certain circuмstances, of course)? How about an explicit denial of the need for baptism in order for an infant to be saved? Well, no, because that line was already crossed.

Frankly, I don't think most anti-sedevacantists would change their minds if the pope converted St. Peter's Bascilica into a mosque and declared that, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Some would, but many would tell us about the political situation and say the pope is under extreme pressure and only a prisoner of the Vatican.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #31 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:01:40 PM »

Quote

Would official approval of women's ordination do it? How about officially extending the sacrament of matrimony to sodomites and Lesbians? An official reversal concerning the immorality of artificial means of birth control or abortion (in certain circuмstances, of course)?

I've already heard the excuses made. The excuse is that they wouldn't be valid actions. "The Pope doesn't have the power to do that." And try arguing then that he's a heretic: they would say exactly the same things they say now to make excuses for heretical statements.

So no, because "he's only infallible except when he isn't" - they can make any excuse, no matter how shabby.

Such a position seriously undermines the Faith, it makes the Church helpless and is really just a few steps away from the positivism of the neo-Catholics. Which is where the SSPX is headed, into blind subjection to a Bishop without jurisdiction.

If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.

No, it was not considered certain that a Pope could never lose the Faith, and moreover, invalid election is certainly possible.

Nishant · « **Reply #32 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:59:45 PM »

Okay, Ambrose, if you want to discuss things like universal consent to an election being a certain sign of its validity, a teaching of theologians about the faith, and its application today, since I think it might be off-topic in this thread, I just created another topic for the same.

TKGS · « **Reply #33 on:** November 22, 2012, 05:26:46 PM »

Sadly, I've read news articles (probably here on CathInfo) that cardinals in the Conciliar church have championed each and every one of the potential papal actions that I mentioned above that should cause one to seriously contemplate that the pope is not truly the pope.

Ambrose · « **Reply #34 on:** November 22, 2012, 09:55:23 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Ah. Ambrose, you seem to have misunderstood what I said, perhaps I was not clear, but I did not mean my response to be some sort of personal attack on John Lane or to imply that he deliberately distorts truth, not at all. You've misconstrued what was only a reply to his argument, which I thought was incorrect, as such. When I said he sometimes stretches matters, I mean he makes somewhat unwarranted inferences from facts or non sequiturs, that is all. I've said often I respect him, I think he writes good well-thought out articles, even when I disagree with their conclusion, and credited him for that as such.

Sure, we can discuss these matters ourselves here if you like. But my point above was that given that Archbishop Lefebvre often mentioned these same reasons, and mentioned how it was because of this that he did not go so far as saying that the Pope had ceased to be Pope, I think the reason Archbishop Lefebvre never became sedevacantist at least is quite clear, whether one is a sedevacantist or not. Arguably, this was exactly the line St.Athanasius followed with Pope Liberius or St.Maximus with Pope Honorius - simply to hold onto what pertains to the Faith and which is unchangeable without wavering and not to dabble in speculative matters and personal judgments which might be relatively uncertain, the latter Saint specifically refusing to make such a judgment - and which is still the position of the vast majority of non-sedevacantist SSPX Catholics at the present day.

Thank you for further clarifying further about John Lane.

To you other point, I believe most non-sedevacantist priests have not seriously examined the issue on their own. It seems to me that the Society is stuck, as the old debunked arguments seem to get endlessly recycled, and no progress has ever been made in seriously examining the position.

The latest book put out by the SSPX against "sedevacantism," titled "Sedevacantism, A False Solution to a Real Problem," is not even against sedevcantism, it is against the teachings of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers.

This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.

So, what do I mean by serious study and attention from the SSPX: First, answer the existing arguments of the sedevacantists, and stop ignoring us. Second, stop seeing sedevacantists as "bad" or "schismatic." We are Catholics who are trying to get through this crisis, and we are not the enemy. Third, stop saying stupid comment like "sedevacantism is another type of liberalism," and offering no proof about how we are liberal. Fourth, work together with us in studying the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists, and let us put our collective Catholic minds together to correctly identify the crisis, and the work on a solution to end it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2012, 01:46:18 PM »

Quote

This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.

Is that what it is or is that the best response against it they can come up with so far. IMO they simply are allowed to defend one position and they would come up with a better defense if such was possible. They have had 50 years to do it. They are the main resisters and they do have good seminary training so why can they not come up with anything substantial?

I believe the answer is clear.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 24, 2012, 07:56:18 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote

If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.

I hear this so many times from a specific Novus Ordo "friend" of mine, it is quite disheartening.

Good observation there, Tele. I think you are right on the mark with this.

Ambrose · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2012, 07:42:27 PM »

Quote

Quote from: PartyIsOver221
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote

If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.

I hear this so many times from a specific Novus Ordo "friend" of mine, it is quite disheartening.

Good observation there, Tele. I think you are right on the mark with this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sedevacantism is not a religion nor a doctrine. It is only a response to the crisis.

Ambrose · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2012, 08:12:13 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote
This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.

Is that what it is or is that the best response against it they can come up with so far. IMO they simply are allowed to defend one position and they would come up with a better defense if such was possible. They have had 50 years to do it. They are the main resisters and they do have good seminary training so why can they not come up with anything substantial?

I believe the answer is clear.

LoT,

It is my belief that the Society, if they would study sedevacantism, without a biased starting point, could produce some excellent research on this. The trouble, as I see it is that they are too focused on attacking the position and that has led to low quality work. I could cite countless examples of the SSPX creating a false caricature of sedevacantism, and then attacking the falsehood, rather than even addressing what the reputable sedevcacantists hold.

Here is an example quality research from the Society, and the excellent product they have the ability to produce if they put their minds to it:

http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/the_problem_of_the_liturgical_reform/the_problem_of_the_liturgical_reform.pdf

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:17:32 PM »

Well, Ambrose, the SSPX authorities would only reply that it must be at least a two way street. The reason the Society is sometimes harsh on sedevacantism is probably the practical reason, that sometimes those who once frequented their chapels and now become sedevacantists start condemning and attacking the Society for it's positions in an unjust manner. It's probably safe to say that if, say, someone or some group holding to an idea did the same to CMRI or say, Bp.Pivarunas, the response would be about the same.

But with regard to the more reasonable sedevacantists, who I agree should not be blamed on this account, and who are no less convinced of the truth of their position but who do not attack the Society in the same way, there is a clear difference. Witness John Lane's relationship with Bishop Fellay or Stephen Heiner's with Bishop Williamson. There are even priests, let alone several lay attendees, in the Society and its chapels who are more or less openly sedevacantist, if I remember correctly, it includes at least one District superior.

So, you can see the Society is not closed to the idea of working with sedevacantists or speaking to them respectfully as fellow Catholics as such entirely, but if as the Society genuinely believes, sedevacantism is only an erroneous theological opinion, and not at all the correct answer nor a helpful solution to the crisis, then it is within their rights not to hold it officially, and to say that it is a false opinion which they do not agree with. You may not agree with them, but there it is.

Ambrose · « **Reply #40 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:37:54 AM »

Nishant,

I understand and agree with your assessment on that. I agree that many sedevcantists maintain including priests maintain themselves within the SSPX or if they are not with the SSPX at least towards them. This is good and the way it should be. All of us Catholcis are in the same boat, whether we recognize it or not.

My point though goes a little beyond this. Whether one is holding the current SSPX position or sedevacantism, we both agree that there is currently no authority teaching and governing Catholics at the moment. In this crisis, we are on our own, and the only place we can find the answers to how Catholics can correctly react to the problem of a heretical pope, is in the writings of the Popes, Doctors, theologians, canonists, and Church historians of the past.

In my opinion, the society has created a position which confuses the idea of how to resist a "bad" pope with how to resist a heretical pope. Secondly, I do not believe they have fully grasped how the Church could give evil universal laws, evil sacraments, i.e. the Novus Ordo, and heretical teachings, and how these can be reconciled with the indefectibility of the Church, and the holiness of the Church.

There are other grave points that they have not addressed as well, but I am sure you get the point. This does not mean that I do not appreciate the Society and the work they have done over the years or bringing the Faith and the sacraments to countless souls around the world, but, this is more a plea to them, if they are reading this, to study the crisis, deal with the hard issues, and form a correct Catholic response.