I can't decide whether is more humorous or depressing to read the response of bishop fellay to the three bishops, voicing his disingenuous concern that refusal to accept a purely practical deal with Rome will lead to sedevacantism.

I say disingenuous not as an ad hominum attack, but because Bishop fellay himself refuted this concern when it was levied against the Sspx by Campos after their sellout.

Perhaps His excellency needs to go back and review his own Letter of the superior General #63?

 :applause: Thanks, LordPhan,  for the hard-liner soft-liner definitions.  Very well done!

This was always the danger of the SSPX position.  That taking its inconsistent premises to their logical conclusion leads one either to embracing Benedict XVI or being a practical sedevacantist.

Of course, it's entirely unjust for Bishop Fellay to make the argument after all these years, that the other bishops are somehow sedevacantists for stating that there needs to be doctrinal agreement for a practical solution.

Not that there would be anything truly wrong with them being sedevacantists, mind you.

Quote from: Seraphim

I can't decide whether is more humorous or depressing to read the response of bishop fellay to the three bishops, voicing his disingenuous concern that refusal to accept a purely practical deal with Rome will lead to sedevacantism.

I say disingenuous not as an ad hominum attack, but because Bishop fellay himself refuted this concern when it was levied against the Sspx by Campos after their sellout.

Perhaps His excellency needs to go back and review his own Letter of the superior General #63?

Well said Seraphim. To think that refusing to accept a compromise with is somehow tied to a step in leading to SVism is an perfect example of a straw man argument. While there are people who may become sedes after this fiasco is done, it will be based on emotion, not on logic. Many sede's are such because of emotion, not logic.

At what point would the chair be empty?

Refusing to go along with Vatican II and, as the Bishop says, subjectivism.  Do we cede the point that the subjectivists are led by an authentic pope?  If Vatican II and subjectivism are errors (and I fully believe they can be nothing else but) would the pope merely be in error too?

That's my question here.  At what point do the promulgation of errors reach the necessary severity (i.e., tipping point) of apostasy to then we can with certainty say the chair is empty?  The current pope and the conciliarists are "hardline" subjectivists.  Bishop Williamson really nailed it with that phrase.  I literally paused and just gazed at the word as I was reading his missive.

I'm thinking out loud here, S2REA, so I hope someone would answer the above questions.  

Or I'll just phrase it simply:

"How is sedevacantism wrong?"  

I am going to clarify further, you cannot say "he must know what the church believes and he contradicts it thus he is a formal heretic" because that is a subjective judgement that only a superior can make.

The Pope has no Superior, so we must resist him as Paul did to Peter. It changes nothing.

Quote from: Seraphim

I can't decide whether is more humorous or depressing to read the response of bishop fellay to the three bishops, voicing his disingenuous concern that refusal to accept a purely practical deal with Rome will lead to sedevacantism.

I say disingenuous not as an ad hominum attack, but because Bishop fellay himself refuted this concern when it was levied against the Sspx by Campos after their sellout.

Perhaps His excellency needs to go back and review his own Letter of the superior General #63?

Well said Seraphim. To think that refusing to accept a compromise with is somehow tied to a step in leading to SVism is an perfect example of a straw man argument. While there are people who may become sedes after this fiasco is done, it will be based on emotion, not on logic. Many sede's are such because of emotion, not logic.

I myself was under this impression before the force of argument led me to becoming a sedevacantist (or, technically, a sedeimpeditist now).  There are certain people who, ginned up with the content of MHFM videos, indiscreetly tell SSPXers (and, well, everybody else) that they are going to Hell and so forth.  Those people always kept me away from any of the arguments and position statements of the various sedevacantist groups and fora, precisely because they seemed less than fully sane, which agreed with the typical SSPX and FSSP caricature of the sedevacantist position as an unhealthy and emotional reaction to a complicated and unfortunate situation.  That being said, the idea that Benedict cannot be the Pope on account of being an heretic and apostate is not necessarily associated with these people, and there are many affable and prayerful, thoughtful sedevacantists out there, such as at this forum and at Saint Robert Bellarmine forum.  People should be careful to separate the theological position from some of its exponents; there are even some sedevacantists here who, due to their rhetoric and bickering and often sinful behaviour amidst polemics, do no service to their position.  But people ought to make the proper distinctions between the position and some of the exponents.  There are plenty of SSPXers who are likewise unjust and repulsive in their words and behaviour, or else they are exponents of liberalism and do not realise it (which, truly, should repel us far more than any personally sinful behaviour on the part of orthodox Catholics).

I do not see how Bishop Fellay is, ultimately, wrong on this point.  Doesn't it strike any of the SSPX hardliners as strange that they are so adamantly opposed to subjecting themselves to the magisterium and authority of somebody that they believe is the Sovereign Pontiff ?  Why do they act this war towards him ?  Well, it's because they know that he is not orthodox, that he is inconsistent with the Magisterium of the pre-Conciliar popes, and, therefore, that his magisterium and that of his immediate predecessors officially teach error.  Read that last clause two more times, pause, and think about it.  The "magisterium" of Benedict and the late John, Paul, and John Pauls officially teaches doctrinal and moral errors.  Then what is the Magisterium ?  Why can orthodox Catholics be resistant to the teachings coming from Rome ?  If Catholics can disobey what they believe to be the true papal authority, who is really fit and competent to make judgments about what is orthodox and what is not ?  It doesn't make sense.  Clearly, the men in white cassocks cannot be true popes; their magisterium cannot be the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  As the various SSPX hardliners are stamped with the label of "formal schismatic" over the next few weeks and months and, in response, unapologetically embrace being in schism from somebody who is not Catholic while insisting that it doesn't mean they are schismatic from the Church Herself, these are the theological reasons that I believe will cause many of them to rightfully become sedevacantists.  These are the thoughts I and others began having, and they are likewise the thoughts the Archbishop himself was having after 1988.  I do not see how just because he never publicly adopted the position that the Vatican is not now anymore a papal house, that means that it is somehow not in his spirit to come to that conclusion.  Many things have changed since 1988 and 1991, and I imagine his thoughts on the matter would have developed, too.  He did not live to see this century, so WWALD (What would Archbishop Lefebvre do?) does not seem like the most prudent course of inquiry.  Being inspired by his spirit and example, on the other hand, does not negate the possibility of believing in the existence of the Roman antipapacy.

So, in conclusion, I do not think that it is fair to say that many SSPXers will become sedevacantists due to emotion and not on logic.  It seems like the logic is already there and, precisely, it is often times emotion that keeps them from making the clean break with Rome that they already have in their hearts, hearts that do not consist with their cognitions that, on this point at least, seem rather dissonant.  Emotion may be what drives some, but logic will drive most, just as it has driven most to the point they are at now, whereas emotion has gradually supplemented their comfort in what was -- originally, I imagine -- an uncomfortable stance.

Tele is on ignore, he doesn't understand Canon Law and makes up his own.

You can't possibly explain how a non-sede is allowed to reject certain parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law simply because it doesn't suit the purposes of controlling priests.

LordPhan doesn't understand that an open apostate can't be Pope.  You can't be Pope and publicly deny Christ.  That is an absurdity.  To say someone must be proven a "formal heretic" by a superior no matter what he says is ridiculous.

I just advice him to read the Code of Canon Law and the Summa Theologica.

I would advise LordPhan to realize he doesn't know how to use basic logic.

I also ask the Sede's to stay out of this fight.

You are going to cause those who are on the fence to join Bishop Fellay because your error is the one he is using to frighten them.

No one should frightened of not following a heretic.  It's inconsistent to say you don't want to follow a heretic, but they say one should be afraid to call him one.

At what point would the chair be empty?

Do we cede the point that the subjectivists are led by an authentic pope?  

If Vatican II and subjectivism are errors (and I fully believe they can be nothing else but) would the pope merely be in error too?

At what point do the promulgation of errors reach the necessary severity (i.e., tipping point) of apostasy to then we can with certainty say the chair is empty?

How is sedevacantism wrong?  

These are fair questions.  The fact of the matter is that the "Magisterium" of Benedict and his Conciliar predecessors officially teaches error and that error is in the Second Vatican Council.  Thus, how can one trust the Magisterium if it can, apparently, contradict itself ?  Since we believe that the visible Church will last until the end of time, are we not forced to conclude that the latter "magisterium" cannot be the Magisterium at all and, therefore, the avowed popes with whose authority such a false magisterium is endowed cannot therefore truly be popes ?  Or else what is the power and role and office of the Pope, and what about the Magisterium (yes, Phan, that is to say, "the teaching office of the Church") ?