Author Topic: Sedevacantist Catholic, brown-eyed Catholic, blond Catholic (Read 2042 times)

Matthew · « **on:** September 19, 2011, 10:29:51 PM »

The more I think about it, the more I consider "Sedevacantist" to be about as crucial an adjective as "brown eyed" or "curly haired".

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to say, for example:

"I want to marry a good brown-eyed Catholic girl."

Or to identify with a group of "blond-haired traditional Catholics"?

But replace those adjectives with "sedevacantist" and people do it all the time, and they're actually serious!

I mean, why not have special chapels, forums, personal identities, etc. for other disputed theological positions as well?

Why not for positions which actually affect your life, daily choices and behavior, such as "TV-watcher" and "non-TV-watcher", "Government truster" and "Government distruster", "isolationist" and "integrate-with-the-world", "home schooler" and "public schooler", etc.

Those titles sound funny, but they actually have more bearing on your day-to-day life as a Catholic striving for salvation against the forces of Satan and The World than the status of the man sitting on St. Peter's chair in Rome.

I'm not joking -- I would get along with a trad Catholic who home-schools and doesn't believe the official story about 9/11, who happens to be a sedevacantist, MUCH EASIER than I'd ever get along with a fellow SSPX parishioner who sends his children to public school and believes the hogwash story about Muslims with boxcutters.

It's funny that an issue as major as "should we trust the government?" allows people on both sides to attend the same chapel -- but the issue "Is Benedict XVI the Pope?" causes people to split up into 2 different chapels.

Heck, there was a split in the SSPX in 1984 over that one issue -- (that's how the SSPV came into being)

So who's going to start

Anti-TelevisionTradCatholicSingles.com?

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2011, 11:15:56 PM »

Quote from: matthew

Heck, there was a split in the SSPX in 1984 over that one issue -- (that's how the SSPV came into being)

If you don't buy the 9/11 story, why do you buy this one?

PereJoseph · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2011, 11:16:06 PM »

It seems that the difference in theological opinion is not so simple. It has a serious effect upon one's daily life. For instance, are these Ember Days this week morally obligatory, or is it simply virtuous to maintain the traditional custom. Would it be a mortal sin to not abstain this Friday, or would it simply be unvirtuous and arguably sinful only if one didn't give a substitute (this is for dioceses within the US) ? Is it morally obligatory to fast from midnight before receiving Holy Communion except for Masses in the afternoon, in which case it is morally obligatory to fast for three hours... or is one hour only morally obligatory, etc. ? And is one validly married, confirmed, confessed ? Has one, in the past, adored bread ? Does one revere a man who claims to be a priest or bishop, or is he a layman ? To cross oneself when passing by a NO church (for the tabernacle) or no to cross oneself ? Is doing one or the other a scandal, since it must be either one or the other ? Anyway, I think I made my point.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2011, 11:26:36 PM »

Respectfully, Matthew, it matters a great deal. Now, I'm not saying that personal communication, even deep friendship, between resisters, independents, strict sedevacantists, etc., isn't possible. This forum's success is proof of that. But the differences matter. To the resister, a sedevacantist is ostensibly violating precepts of Canon Law by personally declaring the See of Peter vacant. To many sedevacantists, resisters use a dubious liturgical rite and, more to the point, profane the altars of God by raising the name of the usurper of the Holy Seat, a gross and pertinacious heretic, there and pronouncing the Mass to be in communion with him.

These are not matters that can be disregarded as unimportant; they speak fundamentally to one's understanding and practice of the holy Catholic faith. As a matter of the faith, which the identity of the Holy Father as the focal point of religious unity and authority most certainly is, there cannot be two correct answers. The sedevacantist is wrong or the resister is wrong. Either Ratzinger is the Holy Pontiff, or nearly so dangerous enemy to faith and the salvation of human souls as him that was a murderer from the beginning. There's no middle ground and ultimately no unity, of liturgy or discipline, can exist between the two.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2011, 11:28:33 PM »

Being sedevacantist seems to matter more to non-sedevacantist trads than to sedevacantist trads. That is non sedes are more intolerant of sedes than sedes are of non-sedes.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2011, 11:30:41 PM »

Here's an anecdote to demonstrate the real impact of holding to one or another theological opinion :

Once again, this was told to my fiancée during her recent visit to France, where the SSPX is very liberal compared to how we know it in North America. She was staying with a very pious family with very well-disciplined and pious children; this family attends a non-una cuм Mass once a month but otherwise ges to the Fraternity because it is closer and less expensive. They sent their little girl there for catechism, and after class was over Father led the children into the chape for a prayer. The little girl protested that she didn't have any head covering and couldn't participate; Father replied, "Oh, it doesn't matter, don't worry about it." But her good parents taught her that she, as a girl, must always wear a head covering when praying, in a holy place, and receiving the sacraments. Naturally, she was scandalised and starting crying, thinking she was being told to sin against Our Lord and being caught between the word of her parents and the word of the Society priest. For Father, it is the traditional custom but not binding; for the family and the little girl, it is required by the Sacred Canons. This is a true problem.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2011, 10:03:45 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

It seems that the difference in theological opinion is not so simple. It has a serious effect upon one's daily life. For instance, are these Ember Days this week morally obligatory, or is it simply virtuous to maintain the traditional custom. Would it be a mortal sin to not abstain this Friday, or would it simply be unvirtuous and arguably sinful only if one didn't give a substitute (this is for dioceses within the US) ? Is it morally obligatory to fast from midnight before receiving Holy Communion except for Masses in the afternoon, in which case it is morally obligatory to fast for three hours... or is one hour only morally obligatory, etc. ? And is one validly married, confirmed, confessed ? Has one, in the past, adored bread ? Does one revere a man who claims to be a priest or bishop, or is he a layman ? To cross oneself when passing by a NO church (for the tabernacle) or no to cross oneself ? Is doing one or the other a scandal, since it must be either one or the other ? Anyway, I think I made my point.

Of course, all these items (including a couple other posts in this thread) have more to do with CHURCHvacante and PRIESTvacante than Sedevacante properly speaking.

When there's doubt about such matters, the more lenient of the two prevails.

Which sedevacantists say that you have to fast after midnight for Holy Communion?
And why is that? I thought the 3 hour fast was in use during the "last valid Pope" according to sedevacantists.

In the SSPX they advise the 3 hour fast, but technically only the 1 hour fast is binding (I personally think a 1 hour "fast" is a joke. I could "fast" for an hour and still be extremely full -- the taste of the food would still be in my mouth a mere hour later)

Most of the things you point out are non-issues; most trads I know don't eat meat on Friday. And I haven't received any sacraments in the Novus Ordo.

And is it just me, or do others think it's ridiculous to criticize Catholics for "adoring bread" -- don't you think that approximately 100% of those "guilty" believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church teaches? Let's see, last time I checked we puny humans couldn't see Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament *anywhere* -- not at CMRI chapels, not at SSPV chapels, not at SSPX chapels, not at Novus Ordo churches. OUR LORD IS HIDDEN under the species of bread in the Sacrament. Don't you suppose God understands, and looks at our intention?

gunfighter · « **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2011, 10:34:02 AM »

Matthew,

I think you are right and it comes down to a lack of humility. I am a sede, but I also acknowledge that I may be wrong. I realize that it is a difficult issue and by no means dogma.

When I state my position to other sedes, I often get responses that I must be crazy to believe that Ratzinger may be the pope. I am sure the same is true for non-sedes as well.

Given that mankind has brought the confusion upon himself, what else can we expect. Peace can only be found in God, and God his withdrawn himself in response to our infidelity.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM »

Quote from: gunfighter

Matthew,

I think you are right and it comes down to a lack of humility. I am a sede, but I also acknowledge that I may be wrong. I realize that it is a difficult issue and by no means dogma.

When I state my position to other sedes, I often get responses that I must be crazy to believe that Ratzinger may be the pope. I am sure the same is true for non-sedes as well.

Given that mankind has brought the confusion upon himself, what else can we expect. Peace can only be found in God, and God his withdrawn himself in response to our infidelity.

Do you suggest that God will be best pleased by extending that infidelity by emulating the Catholics of the 50s and 60s in not exercising our sensus Catholicus, in not coming to some decision about what, I hope any sedevacantist would accept, is an at least gravely doubtful pontiff? In such cases that the holder of an ecclesiastical office is doubtful, is it prudent or edifying to throw up one's hands and make no firm decision at all? St. Catherine of Siena didn't think so in supporting Urban VI over Clement VII, nor did St. Vincent Ferrer in choosing the latter over the former. The question of paramount importance to a sedevacantist should not be where Peter is, or from whence he shall come; that is province of Divine Providence in every kind and duration of interregnum. The question that a sedevacantist must know, ultimately with an assent of reason or faith, is where Peter is not.

gunfighter · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2011, 12:37:18 PM »

My point s that we should be charitable to each other, regardless of the flavor of Traditional Catholicism we practice. I think we should recognize that most Trads are acting in good faith.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2011, 12:49:58 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Here's an anecdote to demonstrate the real impact of holding to one or another theological opinion :

Once again, this was told to my fiancée during her recent visit to France, where the SSPX is very liberal compared to how we know it in North America. She was staying with a very pious family with very well-disciplined and pious children; this family attends a non-una cuм Mass once a month but otherwise ges to the Fraternity because it is closer and less expensive. They sent their little girl there for catechism, and after class was over Father led the children into the chape for a prayer. The little girl protested that she didn't have any head covering and couldn't participate; Father replied, "Oh, it doesn't matter, don't worry about it." But her good parents taught her that she, as a girl, must always wear a head covering when praying, in a holy place, and receiving the sacraments. Naturally, she was scandalised and starting crying, thinking she was being told to sin against Our Lord and being caught between the word of her parents and the word of the Society priest. For Father, it is the traditional custom but not binding; for the family and the little girl, it is required by the Sacred Canons. This is a true problem.

If you want to become a neocon liberal stay in the SSPX. Look at Bishop Fellay's man Max Krah. That's all you need to know.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2011, 01:10:23 PM »

Quote from: gunfighter

My point s that we should be charitable to each other, regardless of the flavor of Traditional Catholicism we practice. I think we should recognize that most Trads are acting in good faith.

That goes without saying. As Christians we are enjoined to extend charity to all people, whether they act in good faith or not, and I do not question that many Traditionalists are acting in good faith. The thrust of the original post, however, seemed to be playing off the differences between them as semantical or of no great barrier to a visible unity between the various Traditionalist groups. My response was only to point out that this, while well-intentioned, could not be further from the truth. You cannot have unity between two groups, one professing unity with, though resisting, an ostensibly valid Pontiff, and another holding that supposed Pontiff to be at least gravely doubtful by cause of heresy. It can't be done; there is a unary truth to this matter and unity is by definition a common recognition of truth.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2011, 03:15:59 PM »

Matthew said:

Quote

Which sedevacantists say that you have to fast after midnight for Holy Communion?
And why is that? I thought the 3 hour fast was in use during the "last valid Pope" according to sedevacantists.

I didn't get that either. We follow the three hour fast. Though I read what Pius XII said about that and he said that those who CAN do a longer fast should do it... That doesn't seem to be mentioned much.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2011, 04:13:55 PM »

This is one problem, in my opinion, with sedevacantists.

They take their own personal beliefs/piety/virtue/devotions and make it mandatory for everyone, sometimes even under pain of sin.

Everyone gets to choose where to "draw the line" -- who was the last valid pope, which disciplines are binding, which encyclicals prevail over which encyclicals, which customs must be kept, which optional rubrics will be followed, what kind of vestments are "orthodox" (lowercase o), etc. Not to mention moral matters like NFP, what constitutes "extraordinary means" of keeping someone alive, etc.

That's why there's a TON of variety in the sedevacantist world. There are no objective standards that every sedevacantist is held to. I'm sure they agree on 80 or 90% of things, but there's always that 10 or 20% that causes friction.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2011, 04:22:20 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

That's why there's a TON of variety in the sedevacantist world. There are no objective standards that every sedevacantist is held to.

And this is a sign of Protestantism or at least Prot thinking the sedes are falling into. All break-off sects multiply exponentially with more splinter groups. The Society has held the same consistent position from the beginning.

Sede-ism naturally sets every man up as his own pope, just as Protestantism did.