I have seen it said here many times that the light of sedevacantism is the result of a profound "grace".  I'm curious, is that considered simply an actual grace, a degree of sanctifying grace or the quality of a gratis datae?  Transient or habitual?  Is it the superior working of a particular gift of the Holy Ghost or is it rather simply the industry of human investigation?  Is it a sudden light or a gradual dawning?  If it is a grace, then it must add to charity and holiness, but I wonder where the personal determination of a fact regarding Church membership adds one iota to the perfection of charity or holiness?  Does this opinion really advance one in the spiritual life?  If so, by what means does it effect this progression?  And if one were to change one's mind regarding Church membership, does one sin, lose or diminish grace in the soul or do all the graces and habits retain their former character and degree?  

Mike, Myrna, P.I.O. and others who I don't recall at the moment.  

Whoever expressed dislike for my post, I really wish they would explain why they didn't like it.  

I didn't flag it, but I don't like it either. I'm not even sure what you mean by "membership" and how it ties in with someones expression of receiving a "grace."

That is all grace in consideration of the practice of the faith and other virtues.  Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is an opinion, or judgment, rendered by free choice, that pertains to who is still an actual member of the Church.  How does this opinion pertain to the necessities of our state, duties towards God or the general practice of virtues?  From what you describe, it appears one would think that the practice of virtues would demand that we decide whether or not the See of Peter is vacant, along with every other See and diocese within the juridical framework of the Church today.  Do you see no distinction between that which constitutes the Faith and the practice of virture and willingly forming the opinion that a particular seat of authority is not occupied?  Is that a unique requirement of today, an additional grace necessary?  Obviously no such grace was ever necessary for the advancement of the interior life within the entire history of the Church.  

Additionally, the normal way in which one comes to this determination is either through intensive study of docuмents or on the authority of someone else.  But virtue has never depended on such an intensive study that involved a series of judgments that have nothing at all to do with the spiritual life.  

From what you describe, it appears one would think that the practice of virtues would demand that we decide whether or not the See of Peter is vacant, along with every other See and diocese within the juridical framework of the Church today.

Not necessarily. Yes, insofar as an individual Catholic needs the Sacraments and the spiritual direction of a Father Confessor in order to cultivate the interior life, there is a practical necessity to formulate an opinion, at least provisionally and privately, whether or not the Apostolic See is vacant or not and what that implies, because the traditional clergy to which they have recourse have made their stance on it. Even the opinion that such a question is not important is a response to the question of the Papacy that enables one to choose amongst Chapels and Priests.

Do you see no distinction between that which constitutes the Faith and the practice of virture and willingly forming the opinion that a particular seat of authority is not occupied? Is that a unique requirement of today, an additional grace necessary?

No I do not, because the "particular seat of authority" in question is the Apostolic See, the Roman Pontiff to whom Our Lord has given absolute primacy over all Christendom and infallibility in teaching faith and morals ex cathedra. The Papacy is absolutely central to the Catholic faith, and the identity of the Sovereign Pontiff is morally necessary for each Catholic to know in the present age.

There may be individual Catholics who have a certain indifference (for lack of a better phrase) regarding the question of the Papacy, and have cultivated a lofty interior life and have practice the virtues to an eminent degree. But, because they are Catholics, it can be said that there is an implicit practical stance on this issue since such a degree of perfection implies the regular reception of the Sacraments and the tutelage of a Father Confessor, the selection of which implies some sort of stance on the Pope issue.

Obviously no such grace was ever necessary for the advancement of the interior life within the entire history of the Church.

No, I cannot agree with this. The argument that has been repeated over and over again that "past generations did not know the identity of the Pope" is misleading. Catholics have the responsibility to educate themselves as much as possible regarding faith and morals. I do not understand how the identity of the Roman Pontiff can be somehow irrelevant to the understanding of faith and morals as Catholics ought to understand them.

Past generations may not have known who the Pope was, but their fidelity to their Pastors and local Ordinaries was enough to constitute the expression of loyalty to the Pope that is necessary for salvation. Nowadays, with the propagation of literacy and communication (especially through the internet) we cannot plead the ignorance of the simplest amongst our forefathers, at least not in the same way.

Additionally, the normal way in which one comes to this determination is either through intensive study of docuмents or on the authority of someone else. But virtue has never depended on such an intensive study that involved a series of judgments that have nothing at all to do with the spiritual life.

I agree, but an interior life that is not founded on solid theological foundations is not likely to withstand the obfuscation that usually accompanies the reading of polemicists' publications. This statement is completely true when it comes to many things, but not the Papacy, I think.

Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't understand how Catholics are simultaneously bound to profess the dogma of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff under pain of heresy, and yet be indifferent when it comes to identity of the Pope.

To the last I say there is a very big difference between law (abstract theory, principle) and fact (particular, singular).    

Sedevacantism has never been proven to be true, so those who say it is a grace are just stating their own opinion. One analogy would be people who think the Novus Ordo said in Latin is a "grace", when in reality it is the same "Mass" founded by freemasons and Protestants just wrapped in a more attractive coating. Sedes who think they've been given a grace only "think" they have, they don't actually KNOW they have.

On another thread Raoul stated that sedevacantism is a fact. Matthew made a good response saying that there is a difference between something we THINK is right and something we KNOW is right. Fact is, none of us really know for sure if sedevacantism is right or wrong. If God thought it was a necessity for people to know he would reveal it to us in some way. So people who are sedevacantists are not bad-willed, but contrary to what some sedes believes, those who are not sede aren't bad-willed either.

I don't spend my time telling the sedes they are wrong because none of us know for sure. That's why I think in turn sedes shouldn't tell the non-sedes that they are wrong. Not every sede here does that, but I've seen a few do it in the past.

Quote from: Caminus

To the last I say there is a very big difference between law (abstract theory, principle) and fact (particular, singular).    

The principles are applied to the facts. Getting the facts wrong is not the same as getting the principles wrong or misapplying them.

"Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope." - Cardinal Cajetan as quoted by Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 4th ed., pp. 289-290.

Right, that was my point.  No traditional catholic rejects the principle.  The concrete question of the identity of the Pope or the status of various sees is an entirely separate question, and one that I would argue is in no way pertinent to the demands of our salvation.  In fact, making such public, formal declarations is manifestly injurious to the unity of the Church, at least the better part nowadays with is where traditional catholicism is maintained.

But back to the original question.