[Matthew]

There are at least NINE active threads as of 1/3/24 arguing about the Pope question. But in my opinion, they ALL miss the point.

There is a Crisis in the Church. I think we can all agree on that point. The exact nature of what God allowed to happen to the Church, and how it will be solved, is to be found ONLY in the mind of God Himself. And if solving the Crisis deserved 100 points, I'd give THE BEST OF YOU 10 points, and that would be only for effort. As far as solving the Crisis, you get 0. No one in the past 53 years has gotten a "passing score" yet on that epic project. +ABL got a 59, the highest score of any man in the past 53 years, but that was still an F.

Furthermore, we all know what we gotta do. We're talking basic common sense: keep the Holy Catholic Faith, raise our kids Catholic, attend the Tridentine Mass with traditionally-formed priests ordained in the pre-Vatican II Rite. Beyond that, we look ONLY to books/doctrine/encyclicals before the Modernism of Vatican II, the smoke of satan, entered the Church. We stick to Traditional or pre-Vatican II books/art/music/devotions.

If we're all in agreement on this, then what is there to argue about?

Oh yeah, we have to figure out WHICH GROUP we should attend that Tridentine Mass & sacraments with, and whose bookstore we'll buy all those pre-Vatican II books/statues/devotionals/music/etc. from. Oh, and of course which Traditional Catholics we'll speak to, and which ones we'll shun.

And while we're at it, let's squabble about which particular version of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missale priests should use.

I still think the best response to all the Sedes with their "He's not the Pope" rhetoric is: "Ok, so What are ya gonna do about that specific point of "truth"?" If your answer is "nothing", then you are in PRECISELY the same boat as any other non-Sede Traditional Catholic. So what's the point? Why make "Sedevacantist" your identity, the way I make "Traditional Catholic" my identity?

If you did random checks during the week on me, my wife, and/or my children, you would find things that JUSTIFY that full "Traditional Catholic" label. "Catholic" wouldn't be enough. "American" certainly wouldn't be enough. Can you say the same thing about you, and the "Sedevacantist" label? What requires you to add that to the list of descriptors before "Catholic"? Is it the dart board in your den, which has a photo of "Bergoglio" (as you call him) on it?

When did this RANDOM MUSING, this FALLIBLE, PROBABLY WRONG OPINION become so many peoples' identity? When did "Traditional Catholic" become not good enough, or not descriptive enough?

Do I need to start calling myself a Ham Radio Trad Catholic, because I'm a Trad Catholic with a Ham license -- or is that unnecessarily specific? Am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to like Ham Radio? I think that's more reasonable. Or should I call myself a "Gregorian Traditional Catholic" because I prefer Chant to any sort of modern Classical music/hymns during Mass? Or, am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to prefer chant to polyphony/classical during Mass?

[2Vermont]

If you're against all the "arguing", then why did you start two threads (which clearly put sedes on the defensive)....and now a third?

[Matthew]

If you're against all the "arguing", then why did you start two threads (which clearly put sedes on the defensive)....and now a third?

First of all, one of those threads was basically "Who in the Sede world is even remotely as providential, great, or holy as Archbishop Lefebvre?" That was a question, not a fight. Why get defensive over such a thread? The truth shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable. I think I made a good point in that thread.

But I didn't start those 2 threads from a dead stop (a.k.a. "there was zero arguing about sedevacantism, but I just wanted to pick a fight") So let's keep it real, shall we, and not PRETEND that I did.

As Billy Joel once sang, "We didn't start the fire". Nor did I start the great Sede vs. non-Sede strife that started in the 70's and continues to the present day.

I didn't start it, but I'm sure gonna finish it!
(Seriously though, I intend to do my part to TRY to talk some reason into certain people, and calm things down as much as possible.)

And now that I graciously showed you the respect of answering your question -- though it was aimed at my person (an "ad-hominem" as it were) rather than the content of my post --

What can you say against the SUBSTANCE of THIS thread? I suppose it IS pretty rock solid and water tight...

[TheRealMcCoy]

Though I have recently begun to doubt Bergoglio's papacy  I do not identify as a SV.  If he is lawfully deposed then I would.

[2Vermont]

First of all, one of those threads was basically "Who in the Sede world is even remotely as providential, great, or holy as Archbishop Lefebvre?" That was a question, not a fight. Why get defensive over such a thread? The truth shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable. I think I made a good point in that thread.

But I didn't start those 2 threads from a dead stop (a.k.a. "there was zero arguing about sedevacantism, but I just wanted to pick a fight") So let's keep it real, shall we, and not PRETEND that I did.

As Billy Joel once sang, "We didn't start the fire". Nor did I start the great Sede vs. non-Sede strife that started in the 70's and continues to the present day.

I didn't start it, but I'm sure gonna finish it!
(Seriously though, I intend to do my part to TRY to talk some reason into certain people, and calm things down as much as possible.)

And now that I graciously showed you the respect of answering your question -- though it was aimed at my person (an "ad-hominem" as it were) rather than the content of my post --

What can you say against the SUBSTANCE of THIS thread? I suppose it IS pretty rock solid and water tight...

Yeah, because that question was not making the judgment that sedes DON'T have a great leader, right?  Not to mention how you "disqualified" the CMRI right upfront. Please. 

I never said that you started the threads from a dead stop, so let's stop PRETENDING that I was.  Seems to me you wouldn't want to even continue the arguing then.  But you did continue the arguing.

I think with this thread, the first part was fair, then you went all anti-sede again.  I know, you can't resist it though.

Actually, my first wasn't an ad hominem Matthew.  It was a question and an observation. I happen to think it was a valid one. You just didn't like it.

I'm starting to wonder whether Meg was right.

[TheRealMcCoy]

Doesn't the fact that there are 17 new SV threads going demonstrate the crisis in the Church has escalated rather than SVs are becoming more unhinged?

[ElwinRansom1970]

Thiese arguments are from the Dark One. He seeks to accuse and divide.

For the record, I am a sedeprivationist who attends an SSPX Mass. I believe that the name 'Francis' is best omitted at the una cuм, but I still attend Mass where Bergoglio is included. I find the squabbles between SGG and the RCI just as unconstructive as those between the CMRI and the SSPV, and as those between the SSPX and sedes of various opinions. It is all from the Dark One.

[Texana]

Thiese arguments are from the Dark One. He seeks to accuse and divide.

For the record, I am a sedeprivationist who attends an SSPX Mass. I believe that the name 'Francis' is best omitted at the una cuм, but I still attend Mass where Bergoglio is included. I find the squabbles between SGG and the RCI just as unconstructive as those between the CMRI and the SSPV, and as those between the SSPX and sedes of various opinions. It is all from the Dark One.

Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Could this explain why a very hard-working Catholic man appears to be sabotaging his own valuable forum?

[Matthew]

Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Could this explain why a very hard-working Catholic man appears to be sabotaging his own valuable forum?

Why would you consider a post like this self-sabotage? Did you even read my post?
ElwinRansom is AGREEING WITH ME by the way. That these divisions and arguments are from the devil. That was MY point!
If I'm "attacking" or "criticizing" anything, it's "Sedevacantism, Inc." -- where certain clerics and laymen establish that as part of their core identity -- NOT SEDEVACANTISM ITSELF.
Read my post -- at least the OP, for crying out loud -- before you jump into a thread without looking.
Because it SURE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE you read anything in my post.


There are at least NINE active threads as of 1/3/24 arguing about the Pope question. But in my opinion, they ALL miss the point.

There is a Crisis in the Church. I think we can all agree on that point. The exact nature of what God allowed to happen to the Church, and how it will be solved, is to be found ONLY in the mind of God Himself. And if solving the Crisis deserved 100 points, I'd give THE BEST OF YOU 10 points, and that would be only for effort. As far as solving the Crisis, you get 0. No one in the past 53 years has gotten a "passing score" yet on that epic project. +ABL got a 59, the highest score of any man in the past 53 years, but that was still an F.

Furthermore, we all know what we gotta do. We're talking basic common sense: keep the Holy Catholic Faith, raise our kids Catholic, attend the Tridentine Mass with traditionally-formed priests ordained in the pre-Vatican II Rite. Beyond that, we look ONLY to books/doctrine/encyclicals before the Modernism of Vatican II, the smoke of satan, entered the Church. We stick to Traditional or pre-Vatican II books/art/music/devotions.

If we're all in agreement on this, then what is there to argue about?

Oh yeah, we have to figure out WHICH GROUP we should attend that Tridentine Mass & sacraments with, and whose bookstore we'll buy all those pre-Vatican II books/statues/devotionals/music/etc. from. Oh, and of course which Traditional Catholics we'll speak to, and which ones we'll shun.

And while we're at it, let's squabble about which particular version of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missale priests should use.

I still think the best response to all the Sedes with their "He's not the Pope" rhetoric is: "Ok, so What are ya gonna do about that specific point of "truth"?" If your answer is "nothing", then you are in PRECISELY the same boat as any other non-Sede Traditional Catholic. So what's the point? Why make "Sedevacantist" your identity, the way I make "Traditional Catholic" my identity?

If you did random checks during the week on me, my wife, and/or my children, you would find things that JUSTIFY that full "Traditional Catholic" label. "Catholic" wouldn't be enough. "American" certainly wouldn't be enough. Can you say the same thing about you, and the "Sedevacantist" label? What requires you to add that to the list of descriptors before "Catholic"? Is it the dart board in your den, which has a photo of "Bergoglio" (as you call him) on it?

When did this RANDOM MUSING, this FALLIBLE, PROBABLY WRONG OPINION become so many peoples' identity? When did "Traditional Catholic" become not good enough, or not descriptive enough?

Do I need to start calling myself a Ham Radio Trad Catholic, because I'm a Trad Catholic with a Ham license -- or is that unnecessarily specific? Am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to like Ham Radio? I think that's more reasonable. Or should I call myself a "Gregorian Traditional Catholic" because I prefer Chant to any sort of modern Classical music/hymns during Mass? Or, am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to prefer chant to polyphony/classical during Mass?

[St Giles]

Traditional Catholics should be close knit buddies, or at least dedicated coworkers of a common cause, and only as much as necessity slaving for the modern world. Charity covers a multitude of sins. Assume the best of intentions. Instantly forgive and forget. Pray for those who you think are in error, and pray that you be preserved in truth and not deceived. We don't know just how difficult things may get for us through the next decade. Let us strive for perfection and humility in all things, and try to do all things thoroughly through according to necessity, prudence, wisdom, and charity. We should be thoroughly united, and thinking about how we can help each other. Imagine how much better off we might be if instead of investing in so much insurances, we put out trust in God, seeking first the kingdom of heaven, and using parish crowd funding of money, labor, and other goods to satisfy each other's needs.

[2Vermont]

Dear Matthew,
No need to yell at me, or anyone else who summons the courage to comment.  I was honestly concerned about you. Since you posted the same post on several threads, it appeared to me that you were trying to shut down productive conversations. Sorry, I will retreat to my little churchmouse's niche in the corner of the baseboard of the chapel.  God bless.

There are quite a few who don't have the courage the comment apparently.  Good for you.  

[Texana]

Thank you, 2Vermont!

[Hank Igitur]

Since I've been away from a computer for almost 24 hours, I've fallen behind on a great amount of posts in threads I've posted on myself. It's amazing how fast new info and new responses appear on threads and how fast new threads are created. Has anyone else felt like they can't keep up and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions/tips for when someone comes back to this forum after being away from a computer for 24 hours or more? Much appreciated.

[Matthew]

Dear Matthew,
No need to yell at me, or anyone else who summons the courage to comment.  I was honestly concerned about you. Since you posted the same post on several threads, it appeared to me that you were trying to shut down productive conversations. Sorry, I will retreat to my little churchmouse's niche in the corner of the baseboard of the chapel.  God bless.

I wasn't yelling at you.

[Ladislaus]

So, Matthew, your response to all sedevacantist threads is "+Lefebvre was a great man."

So?  +Lefebvre himself changed his mind over time, and nobody knows how he would have reacted to Jorge Bergoglio (which is what has spawned a renewed interest in sedevacantism, where you see many even going straight from the Conciliar Church to SVism, without any kind of stopover at R&R).  If +Lefebvre said he was a hair's breadth away from going publicly sedevacantist in response to Assisi, what would he say about Jorge's heresies, his blessing of sodomites, suppression of the Tridentine Mass, condoning of sinful cohabitation?  Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.

+Lefebvre was a great man, but was he infallible?  No.  So the appeal to "but muh +Lefebvre" does not come close to answering the theological problems involved here.  Which +Lefebvre?  Early 1980s +Lefebvre (seeking permission to make the "experiment of Tradition" in a practical agreement with Rome ... or the late 1980s +Lefebvre coming close to becoming openly sedevacantist?  Yes, yes, the situation was different in the 1980s, but the situation now is different from when he died ... over 30 years ago now.

While he did great things for the remnant faithful, he was hardly infallible and was often conflicted himself about the Crisis and he himself said that "one day the question [of whether these are legitimate popes] must be answered" and, except for in the early 1980s, stating that sedevacante was possible.

It's the same conflict we see in +Lefebvre that has played out during the entire history of the Traditional movement, with priests/faithful leaving the SSPX to the left (FSSP, Motarians, others) and with priests/faithful leaving the SSPX to the right (sedevacantists).  +Lefebvre did not definitely resolve this matter, and he himself remained uncertain or open.  In other words, to use +Lefebvre as some "rule of faith" against sedevacantism isn't even honest, since he did not leave the matter "settled" by any means, but rather as an "open question".  And it is that "open question" we're debating here.

So if +Lefebvre did not settle this controversy even in his own mind, how are you using +Lefebvre to settle it for everyone else who's debating the same things about which he himself was conflicted?  That's a dishonest abuse of the reality of Archbishop Lefebvre, attempting to turn him into a "sock puppet" who echoes your own opinions rather than his own.

We have seen this ad nauseam since the Archbishop died.  SSPX claim that THEY are the "true heirs" of +Lefebvre, the Resistance that THEY are, and each side cherry-picks quotes from +Lefebvre's different opinions at different times of his life to "prove" their case.  Well, the reason for the debate here is precisely because +Lefebvre himself was conflicted and did NOT definitely settle these matters, nor did he settle the controversy regarding sedevacantism other than to say that he felt it was "not YET time" to become openly sedevacantist.  How about now?  How about 30+ years later with Bergoglio?