Author Topic: question for Thomistic Philosopher (Read 1319 times)

soulguard · « **on:** October 19, 2013, 08:16:40 AM »

This is my question:

I may have the opportunity of joining religious life in a few years.
I think that I will still be a sedevacantist by then.
There are no sede orders where I am, only the conciliar church, and if I go abroad the only groups I would join happen to think Francis is a legit pope.

So should I conceal my beliefs about "Francis 1" to accomplish the end of living a religious life with the TLM.

Do the ends justify the means on this issue?
Pretending you think Francis is a good pope is not that bad is it?

Your thoughts...

PS: I ask you because you seem knowledgeable on this topic.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2013, 08:29:51 AM »

I think you should maybe read your OP outloud to yourself so that you can see that it's a bit on the ridiculous side. You're not making any sense.

You may be a sedevacantist, but you're not a traditional Catholic if you would be willing to live in a conciliar religious community.

The issue isn't with "pretending he's the pope" but with believing and practicing according to the Novus Ordo religion.

If there were no conciliar religious communities near you, would you join a protestant one?

This is very strange.

soulguard · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2013, 08:41:42 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I think you should maybe read your OP outloud to yourself so that you can see that it's a bit on the ridiculous side. You're not making any sense.

You may be a sedevacantist, but you're not a traditional Catholic if you would be willing to live in a conciliar religious community.

The issue isn't with "pretending he's the pope" but with believing and practicing according to the Novus Ordo religion.

If there were no conciliar religious communities near you, would you join a protestant one?

This is very strange.

To clarify: I have found some monastic communities, who say Francis is pope,
who also happen to be fairly orthodox in their Catholic doctrine, and who importantly, have the Traditional Latin Mass.

At the moment I think I would be justified if I were to join one of them, even though I don't agree with the (supposed?) papacy of Francis 1.
There might be some theological complicated reason why he is a valid pope, but I do not know it, and my post was about my uncertainty over his office. I have doubts, but where I to join, I would have to leave the question for another to answer, and not form my own opinion on it, that is the situation.

Is it acceptable for a Catholic to leave the decision to someone else as to whether Francis 1 is a valid pope?

OHCA · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:10:51 PM »

TCat,
If you are sedevacantist, then you would most certainly agree that Paul VI was an anti-Pope. How then could you join a conciliarist community which relies on invalidly ordained priests (unless they're 75+ years old) who have been ordained pursuant to a rite promulgated by an anti-Pope?

I find your entire conciliardom is all I have available (for mass, monastic communities, etc.) quite confusing in light of your stated sedevacantist leanings. Do you not see the inconsistency?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:26:19 PM »

Forget about about sedevacamtism, if you're a TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC (period) how could you join a conciliar group?

soulguard · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:56:38 PM »

The new rite of ordination, I have changed my position on, I now think that it is valid. ( I was convinced by Fr Hesse's arguments. He was a canon lawyer with something like a double PhD in theology, and I, conceding that he is more learned than I am on these matters, changed my mind, I did not assume that he was of bad will or deceiving people).

So though I don't think Francis is a pope, I think the sacraments of the novus ordo rite priests are valid. I would not go to a novus ordo mass, but I think the blessed sacrament is present there.

Strangely enough, except for holding that Francis 1 is not a valid pope, I think this is the position of the SSPX.

I was hoping that should I ever be a monk I can avoid talking about it since they wont exactly require a profession of faith in the pope from me. I don't want to be a priest, and from what I understand, if a pope's name is mentioned in a mass ( has to be TLM for me) and he is not a valid pope, there is no sin, but if he is not mentioned, and he was valid, then there is a sin. I am sure Francis 1 is a heretic, but whether he is valid I will wait until I am enlightened by others who know more about this than I do before I decide, but at the moment I don't think he is.

But this thread was about whether if in a monastery I should hide my opinion about the "pope"?

soulguard · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2013, 01:06:23 PM »

I should have said that I think the necessity for me to live in religious community overrules for me the legalistic arguments about the present claimant to the papacy. I think the new sacraments are valid because of Fr Hesse's arguments, but if anyone has other sources I will also listen to them. I am always willing to learn on this topic, because it is important to me.
Also, if they are not valid, what am I supposed to do, become puritanically sedevacantist and join the MHFM?

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2013, 12:58:57 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

I should have said that I think the necessity for me to live in religious community overrules for me the legalistic arguments about the present claimant to the papacy. I think the new sacraments are valid because of Fr Hesse's arguments, but if anyone has other sources I will also listen to them. I am always willing to learn on this topic, because it is important to me.
Also, if they are not valid, what am I supposed to do, become puritanically sedevacantist and join the MHFM?

Don't think I have not forgotten you! I am constructing a post answering some questions. I have just needed to do some digging up, you asked a very good question so it will take me some time to respond to it.

There are several things that need to be addressed, and also the practical aspects of the religious life as opposed to the common life of priest in the CMRI or SSPX. They are very different types of life, I will quote you some stuff from Dom Paul Delatte and Dom Prosper Gueranguer on this topic. I think they are relevant, and I remember some other people but I need to dig a little further. I hope that it can be useful to those who are interested in dedicating themselves in Toto to Our Lord.

Right now I am pretty pleased that +Fellay said that anti Pope Francis is a genuine modernist. He could have used much harsher language but this is enough for some that are less rigorist to clear their idea in their heads that the man can be obeyed in anything. +Fellay said that to obey him is spiritual ѕυιcιdє! God Bless him for that, I am not sure what will happen to the resistance now that +Fellay has said explicitly and openly that the talks were over since the last time he had given them the paper. He might be lying, being duplicitous who knows but I for one take a man at his word until proven otherwise. I am glad he spoke clearly for ONCE in a very long long time, the faithful definitely needed that. I was confirmed by +Fellay so I really love the man very much and it is sad to see how he has been so anti-sedevacantist. He is certainly Catholic, he is simply following to the letter of the spirit that a true sedeplenist should have... Which is why its so dangerous to take his advice on anything. I certainly only listen to him to see what is going on at the SSPX, but in so far as anything dealing with the crisis of the Church, no way. The reason why I mention this is because in the SSPX as of right now there is no danger of going back with Rome, which would be the worst thing possible. Why join a community where you are guaranteed to be in the clutches of modernists.

I am also thinking of seeing to go see some 2 hermit friends of mine, and keeping them anonymous, but if they would be willing to give me some testimony of being in the clutches of the Novus Ordo (one of them was there for 15 years, the other for quite a long time in different orders). Maybe they won't mind if I record them through audio! Hopefully they will agree so that everyone can benefit especially those souls who want to be consecrated to God, either because they feel the calling or simply desire to do penance for the sins of their past life, both are legitimate reasons.

soulguard · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2013, 01:19:13 PM »

Well for me the idea of the monastery came round because of my notion that I need to study and learn as much as possible, and then use that knowledge to craft myself into material that God desires to build His kingdom with. Part of that is trying to eradicate concupiscence in me, and living in a religious environment instead of the world is how I wanted to do it.

It will be interesting to see your replies, but know this, it is unlikely that I will be accepted into a monastery, but there is a chance. But the question remains whether I could be justified in hiding my belief in the sedevacantist position. Look forward to any audio!

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2013, 01:22:16 PM »

Soulgard,

On Oct 19, you started this thread saying that you're thinking of joining some religious order and you think you'll still be a sedevacantist when you join. Then, on the same date, you post that you think the new rites of ordination are valid.

That's a fast transition.

Are you a put on? Is posting here just a chance for you to practice your creative writing skills?

soulguard · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2013, 01:29:43 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Soulgard,

On Oct 19, you started this thread saying that you're thinking of joining some religious order and you think you'll still be a sedevacantist when you join. Then, on the same date, you post that you think the new rites of ordination are valid.

That's a fast transition.

Are you a put on? Is posting here just a chance for you to practice your creative writing skills?

Another witch hunt perhaps?
Holding the SV position doesn't mean that you hold that new rites are invalid. There might be some theological legal reason why they are not, but that is not the subject of this thread. Meanwhile if you have information on why they are not, instead of questions for me, you can pm me the information.
I don't know is the God's honest truth, and you don't know either.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2013, 01:35:54 PM »

Soulgard,

Can you pinpoint what it was in Fr. Hesse's speech that convinced you of the validity of the novus ordo sacraments? The speech was, if I remember correctly, over an hour so I may or may not get to listening to it.

soulguard · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2013, 01:40:00 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Soulgard,

Can you pinpoint what it was in Fr. Hesse's speech that convinced you of the validity of the novus ordo sacraments? The speech was, if I remember correctly, over an hour so I may or may not get to listening to it.

Erm, I don't know what the exact time in the video was, but he said that the new rites state their intention to ordain and consecrate more explicitly than the old rite, and so nothing was lost, instead it was made even clearer.
That's what he said.

Anna Maria · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2013, 02:48:36 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

This is my question: So should I conceal my beliefs about "Francis 1" to accomplish the end of living a religious life with the TLM.

Do the ends justify the means on this issue?
Pretending you think Francis is a good pope is not that bad is it?

Your thoughts...

PS: I ask you because you seem knowledgeable on this topic.

No, the end doesn't justify the means. Why would you wickedly pretend something is true that you know isn't true? You are willing to do so that you might do what you shouldn't do. And what you shouldn't do is evil. Therefore your intention is evil.

"They have spoken vain things... with deceitful lips and with a double heart they have spoken" (Pslam 11:3).

soulguard · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2013, 09:58:19 AM »

Quote from: Anna Maria

No, the end doesn't justify the means. Why would you wickedly pretend something is true that you know isn't true? You are willing to do so that you might do what you shouldn't do. And what you shouldn't do is evil. Therefore your intention is evil.

"They have spoken vain things... with deceitful lips and with a double heart they have spoken" (Pslam 11:3).

How am I speaking vain things if I do it out of necessity as I saw it to live in religion. The ends do justify the means IMO. And how do you know what my intention is? That elevates the importance of conscience above reason. "Conscience" is for liberals. I want the truth.