Another sedevacantist blindspot --

"How can you, who claim to acknowledge the Pope, presume to judge him?"

That question would be MORE valid in 1970, but less so today.

Today, we have 40 years of evidence where the Novus Ordo Mass leads -- to indifferentism, feminism, sentimentality, males over 16 leaving the Church, secularism, heresy, etc.

So it would be very difficult to NOT see the evil of the Novus Ordo Mass.

Whatever positions are theoretically possible in this Crisis, I believe we have to cross off "attend the Novus Ordo Mass", since it has been PROVEN to weaken and destroy the faith of its attendants. One would have to be WILLFULLY BLIND to not see it. You would have to be choosing wealth, fitting in, friends, family, convenience, etc. to go along with such a service -- of course, claiming all the while you're doing it for different reasons.

But in saying so, I'm not making the same bold, personal judgment that someone like CM makes about everyone on this forum.

They can't point to legions of people who have left the Faith, etc. because of NFP, attending SSPX chapels, or believing in Baptism of Desire. They're making a positive, bold, personal judgment that they should not be making.

People like CM are like Howard Hughes -- OCD types who spend too much time studying, and not enough time praying. They become crazy and paranoid about germs (heresy), until they are sitting in a bedroom, alone, with jars of urine all over the place, and tissue boxes on their feet.

Matthew

Today, we have 40 years of evidence where the Novus Ordo Mass leads -- to indifferentism, feminism, sentimentality, males over 16 leaving the Church, secularism, heresy, etc.

Yes, we do have sufficient practical knowledge that the NOM is bad news.

So it would be very difficult to NOT see the evil of the Novus Ordo Mass.

The natural reply is, "How can a man reconcile such obvious evil with the express mission of Holy Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost?"

IOW, if such things can occur when the Holy Ghost is, in fact, still guiding and protecting Holy Church, what good is such protection and guidance?

Quote from: Matthew

Today, we have 40 years of evidence where the Novus Ordo Mass leads -- to indifferentism, feminism, sentimentality, males over 16 leaving the Church, secularism, heresy, etc.

Yes, we do have sufficient practical knowledge that the NOM is bad news.

Quote

So it would be very difficult to NOT see the evil of the Novus Ordo Mass.

The natural reply is, "How can a man reconcile such obvious evil with the express mission of Holy Church and the guidance of the Holy Ghost?"

IOW, if such things can occur when the Holy Ghost is, in fact, still guiding and protecting Holy Church, what good is such protection and guidance?

Two things, you are arguing from effects to causes which is precarious because the crisis can have several different causes.  Second, you forget that men can turn their backs on the assistance of the Holy Ghost and still retain their offices.  Why do some feel the need to turn to men attempting to figure out their status when the only important thing is to retain the faith both interiorly and exteriorly.  

I just don't think that a man who jumps into sedevacantism has a very realistic understanding of the Church, nor does he consider other possible causes of this disorientation.  For instance, former Cardinal Ratzinger or John Paul distorted the faith in some way by their philosophical ramblings.  The rash man will say, "See, he denies the faith."  Whereas in reality, they're not denying an article of faith, but perverting it's exposition, all the while never intending to deny anything.  It's a fact that they're determined to express the faith differently to modern man, so that's what they've tried to do.  What they don't seem to realize is that this "reorientation" is causing serious problems in the Church.  Add to this the notion that we are on friendly terms with "the world" and the life of the Church is sapped dry.  Yet, they still could theoretically retain the theological virtue of faith.  This is the more likely explanation, one that keeps the juridical structure in place but recognizing the wasteland or the "moral structure" that is the novus ordo.  

What's insane is when you cut off 99% of those "safe havens" by saying that an "Una cuм" Mass is invalid, that the 1962 Mass is invalid, that there are no priests, etc.

Just to clarify...

Few, if any, claim the 1962 Mass, or Mass offered una cuм Benedicto, is invalid.

Now THAT accuses God of giving us no options, even for those who are OF GOOD WILL and LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH. And for how many blasted years? 50? 100? The more years, the more serious the charge against God.

God's ways are not our ways.  The Babylonian Captivity lasted 70 years.  The Israelites were in bondage in Egypt for 400 years.

Prior to V2, we had clearly lost our way.  Would it really be a surprise to find out that God simply decided to take away the holy things, seeing that men might not have been using them in a spirit that was pleasing to Him?

If the Church doesn't have a pope, bishops, priests, churches, Masses, sacraments, or faithful -- what does one lose by giving up the Faith?

If the NO/V2 Church is THE Church, what does one GAIN by keeping "the faith"?

I agree that this is NOT a simple matter -- all the more reason to grant latitude to those with whom we disagree.

Matthew said:

Now THAT accuses God of giving us no options, even for those who are OF GOOD WILL and LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH. And for how many blasted years? 50? 100? The more years, the more serious the charge against God.

Careful!  No charges against God can be or are being laid, as to do so would be blasphemy.  His justice is perfect.  In The Glories of Mary St. Alphonsus cites God saying to St. Theresa, who was worrying about a similar question, "Don't worry, my child.  No one is deceived who doesn't first want to be deceived."  We are the ones who have turned our backs on God, not the other way around.

There are those who really care about truth, and those who are in love with truth as an abstract concept only.  If we had all really cared about the truth from the beginning, and from avoiding every heresy and every error, this never would have happened.   Modernism was warned against by Pius X; the warnings against Masonry go back to the reign of Clement XII in the 1730's!  No one can say there was no preparation.  They just weren't paying attention.

CM goes way over the top by saying all those would be damned for following Benedict XV, if Benedict XV were an anti-Pope.  I've asked him if he believes those who followed the wrong "Pope" in the Schism were damned, and he is shifty, but from what I've gathered he thinks some of them were in invincible ignorance but that that won't save them.  So the answer is yes, they are damned. This is the typical interpretation of decrees you see from Feeneyites, which is not "literal-minded" as I often say so much as just wrong.  Since Boniface VIII said "It is necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," he thinks that if someone is in league with the wrong Pontiff, or a false Pontiff, they are doomed, not comprehending that these people intend to do what the Church wants them to do, that they have submitted themselves to what they think is the Roman Pontiff, to a man who appears as the Roman Pontiff.  

This falls under the category of what is called a "colored title."  During the French Revolution, those who confessed to excommunicated priests, the revolutionary jureurs, not knowing that they were excommunicated, did not have to re-confess when they came back into the Church.  This is because those priests had a colored title, meaning they can validly perform functions of their Holy Orders although illicitly.  

That doesn't mean it would have been a good thing to die while attending Masses of a jureur priest.  But the way the devil gets your soul there is not by getting you to attend the Mass of an illicit priest, if you don't know he's illicit; it's by swallowing his heresies.  How many people through the last couple centuries have attended the Masses of priests who were secret Freemasons?  Now, Freemasons are automatically excommunicated, so these people were going to Masses of an illicit priest.  Does that mean they are damned?  This is where the Feeneyite logic takes you, and yes, it is OCD.  

With the VII "Popes" or even Pius XII -- because at that time heresies against EENS were rife and almost no one cared, hence Father Feeney's overreaction -- it's different, because the heresies are dressed up like Mardi Gras revelers.  They are by no means hidden.  

But it's too early for me to get into that right now.

Quote from: Matthew

What's insane is when you cut off 99% of those "safe havens" by saying that an "Una cuм" Mass is invalid, that the 1962 Mass is invalid, that there are no priests, etc.

Just to clarify...

Few, if any, claim the 1962 Mass, or Mass offered una cuм Benedicto, is invalid.

Quote

Now THAT accuses God of giving us no options, even for those who are OF GOOD WILL and LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH. And for how many blasted years? 50? 100? The more years, the more serious the charge against God.

God's ways are not our ways.  The Babylonian Captivity lasted 70 years.  The Israelites were in bondage in Egypt for 400 years.

Prior to V2, we had clearly lost our way.  Would it really be a surprise to find out that God simply decided to take away the holy things, seeing that men might not have been using them in a spirit that was pleasing to Him?

But some radicals here on CathInfo DO hold such extreme positions. The arguments vary; one I heard was that "John XXIII had his hand in it."

Those are the ones I wouldn't miss if they left. They have little, if any, of the Catholic Faith left in them. Consumed with bitter zeal, they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I would consider them casualties of the Crisis, as much as I consider my great-aunt to be one -- she attends the Novus Ordo, and no longer believes in Purgatory. As I said before, the devil doesn't care HOW he gets you. Only that he gets you.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the current situation is similar to either of those Old Testament episodes, because God hadn't reconciled with mankind yet -- were were all still under sin and the Old Law. God hadn't redeemed us with His Blood yet, nor had he set up His Church.

Matthew