In the running for the most ridiculous thread on Cathinfo.

When it comes down to it, it seems that some sedevacantists have simply lost faith in the Catholic Church. Sedevacantism is at best an opinion only. It is not a dogma; it is arguably (especially in its 62+year/indefinite variants) a heresy directly opposed to the defined dogma of St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. Sedevacantists have forgotten what it means to say "to the best of my knowledge and judgment, such and such seems to have happened. Nevertheless, I am not infallible; and, if the Church judges otherwise, I retract my opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church, my Mother". Sedes no longer know why Roman Catholics have always spoken like this and have never held anything like sedevacantist opinions as dogma. Even Savonarola the sedevacantist was ready to retract his opinion; but modern sedes may give up on Christianity before they acknowledge that the Popes from John XXIII to Pope Francis have indeed been Roman Catholic Popes.

I'll play.  Of course, I'll start by correcting your term sede-ism, because sedeplenism is also a sede-ism.

If I became convinced with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is the legitimate Catholic pope, then I would return to full communion (to use their term) with the Catholic hierarchy while working out my understanding the New Mass and Vatican II through the appropriate lense.  I would hold the New Mass and other Sacramental Rites to be unequivocally valid.  I would still find a Traditional form of Mass to attend, e.g. FSSP, Motu, or Eastern Rite variant.  But I would return to full communion with the Church at that point.  I would continue to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to Vatican II, because I find it impossible that an Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church could contain substantial error.  In other words, I would reject the positions of both +Schneider and +Vigano who claim that there's error in a legitimate Council of the Catholic Church.  I would avoid even the SSPX, since it would be wrong to give the impression that it's OK to continue in a state of separation from the legitimate hierarchy.

Of course, I have pointed out repeatedly that neither +Lefebvre nor +Tissier nor +Williamson have held (and do hold) that it's certain with the certainty of faith that the V2 papal claimants are popes, and that is the justification for their separation from the Conciliar Church, and it is also my own.  So while they are not sedevacantists, they are not sedeplenists either.  They're sede-doubtists.

You, on the other hand, claim that it's certain with the certainty of faith that these men are legitimate Popes and somehow feel it's OK to remain supportive of an organization that is not in full communion with the hierarchy (to use the modern term).

Sedevacantism is at best an opinion only. It is not a dogma; ... Sedevacantists have forgotten what it means to say "to the best of my knowledge and judgment, such and such seems to have happened. Nevertheless, I am not infallible; and, if the Church judges otherwise, I retract my opinion and submit to the judgment of the Church

OK, but many if not most sedevacantists would agree with this.  Why do you lump all sedevacantists in with the dogmatic sedevacantists?  You're setting up a false strawman and categorically lumping all sedevacantists in with the dogmatic fringe.  Most of us realize that it's just a private opinion without any authority behind it.  In fact, Bishop Sanborn wrote an entire article condemning what he called the "opinionist" sedevacantists.

I just wrote to you what my response would be if I believed with the certainty of faith that Bergoglio is the pope.  Many/most sedevacantists would say the same thing.  You see 3 people who already responded in your poll that they would become either Indult Traditional or Conservative NO Catholics.  I voted for the latter section, but there's a blur there.  I opted for the latter, because although I would still personally prefer the Tridentine Mass, I would no longer hold that it's in any way objectionable per se to attend the NOM.

I would NOT, however, take your position, where you think it's OK to be out of full communion with the legitimate Catholic hierarchy.  Your position makes zero sense.

Only if you think there is no such thing as the “authentic magisterium “ (ie., teachings “promulgated” by those invested with office, but which are non-magisterial due to lacking universality of time; such teachings are ipso facto those of private doctors which have gained widespread assent and a counterfeit officiality by using the organs of the Church for diffusion).

Fr. LeFloch (Lefebvre’s seminary rector in Rome) predicted the error of sedevacantism back in 1926:

“The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.”

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

I assume you mean "MERELY authentic" Magisterium.  Infallible Magisterium is also authentic.  That's the wrong question, Sean.  Of course there's merely authentic, i.e. non-infallible Magisterium.  And R&R vs. sedes have been arguing the wrong issue all these years.  It isn't about infallibility in the narrow sense but about the overall indefectibility of the Catholic Church.  If we were talking about a couple minor points here or there in Vatican II that required some amendment, I'd have little issue.  But if that's what we were talking about, there would be no Traditional movement in the first place.  If the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline could go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require a Traditional movement, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have failed.  If the Magisterium, authentic or otherwise, were capable of leading souls to hell, then it's worthless and we might as well be Protestants.  This is about indefectibility and not infallibility.  By asserting that the official Church teaching (infallible or not) could fail on so grand a scale as to justify the Traditionalist response, you're undermining the Church's indefectibility.

The Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church must be considered infallibly safe:

Monsignor Fenton:

In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

In order to rebut the R&R position that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can defect, many sedevacantists have exaggerated the scope of infallibility beyond what any Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II ever held.  It's because they're arguing the wrong point and mistaking the broader indefectibility question with the notion of infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Mgr. Fenton referred to it).

Ok, interesting discussion. Ladislaus, thanks for the response. Let's get down to it, then.

So let's see if we can formulate the distinction between Indult Trad and NO Cath in a simple formula. Regarding the Sacraments, I think it would be (1) NO Cath believes both forms are equal, NO and TLM; (2) Indult Trad believes the TLM is objectively superior. The TLM is the complete and full Mass and obtains 100% of the Graces of the Mass. The NO may be valid, but it obtains and confers lesser graces. Thus, for e.g. if Holy Mass was celebrated with only the Words of Consecration, Mass would be valid, but graces would be less (as +ABL himself related, giving the e.g. of Cardinal Mindszenty, who celebrated Mass like that when in prison under Communist captors). What would follow from this Theology? That Tridentine Masses should be increased everywhere possible, in order that more Grace may be obtained for the world by the integral Mass, and that more sanctification may be obtained for all Catholics who participate, by more TLM's.

There are some doctrinal distinctions too but we will get to that in the course of the discussion. To explain my own view, I identify, as many people know, as an Indult Traditionalist and support all the Traditional groups including FSSP, SSPX, ICK and even D-TLM Priests, as well as Priests who have at least restored Altar Rails, the High Altars, Versus Deum, stopped abuses like Communion in the hand, without kneeling etc. And Priests who teach solid doctrine and do everything to promote the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus and Queenship of Our Mother Mary. I support both Abp. Schneider and Abp. Vigano and believe that is a discussion that must be had, and settled by the authorities in due time. I firmly believe (1) in the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as +ABL did. (2) in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. (3) in Mary Immaculate as Mediatrix of all Graces. Many people do not know this, but one of the (bad) choices made at Vatican II was to use merely "Mediatrix" instead of "Mediatrix of All Graces" at Vatican II, even though past Popes used the latter. Both Abp Vigano and Abp Schneider have called Her Mediatrix of All Graces. I believe this is a key doctrine toward restoring Mary's Queenship. I also believe in the Oath against Modernism including the immutability on Tradition.

Nevertheless, even those issues like Mary Mediatrix etc must be raised through the proper channels with the Magisterial Authorities. Likewise, on the Consecration of Russia, like most traditionalists (and perhaps unlike many NO Catholics), I believe the Consecration has not yet been completed; and that, when it does, Russia will return to the Roman Catholic Faith. On the Ecuмenism issue, as you know, I believe separated Christians can be in good faith; and, in Ecuмenism of Return.

In fact, Bishop Sanborn wrote an entire article condemning what he called the "opinionist" sedevacantists.

Ok. So, as I understand it, you're an "opinionist" sedevacantist. A sede-doubtist in other words, who believes neither position is dogmatically certain with the certainty of faith; as you explained, you believe defection is impossible and take the position that R&R contradicts Church indefectibility. You say Pope Paul VI could have been blackmailed, in theory, and this would save indefectibility. You mentioned that distinction between NO Catholics and Indult traditionalists etc that I discussed above. Did I leave anything out?

You and I agree to an extent, I think, on the non-infallible Magisterium. I'm surprised you would then in such a case disagree with Bp. Vigano and even Bp. Schneider. Bp. Schneider arguably is now saying what the Remnant, CFN, One Peter Five, Life Site News etc have argued for some time. I believe we agree Vatican II is non-infallible and defined no new dogma. But perhaps, as you quoted, we may disagree on how radically things have gone "off the rails" as you put it. I believe you once said that if it was only a question of Vatican II you would raise questions through the normal channels and go on with Catholic life as normally as possible. Well, I believe in something close to that. Regarding the Mass, I explained my thoughts earlier; not just a subjective preference but an objective superiority of the TLM. Your thoughts on that? 

What else? Oh yeah, DR. On Apostolicity, Msgr. Noort plainly says that both Power of Orders, by Episcopal Consecration, and Power of Jurisdiction, by Church Authorization, is required; and the entire Church cannot cease to be Apostolic is the position I hold; one on which issue John Lane agrees with me, and said so to Fr. Cekada, that his (the latter's) position was wrong; but we can discuss that more in the other thread dedicated to the subject if you wish. 

God Bless, All.

I assume you mean "MERELY authentic" Magisterium.  Infallible Magisterium is also authentic.  That's the wrong question, Sean.  Of course there's merely authentic, i.e. non-infallible Magisterium.  And R&R vs. sedes have been arguing the wrong issue all these years.  It isn't about infallibility in the narrow sense but about the overall indefectibility of the Catholic Church.  If we were talking about a couple minor points here or there in Vatican II that required some amendment, I'd have little issue.  But if that's what we were talking about, there would be no Traditional movement in the first place.  If the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline could go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require a Traditional movement, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have failed.  If the Magisterium, authentic or otherwise, were capable of leading souls to hell, then it's worthless and we might as well be Protestants.  This is about indefectibility and not infallibility.  By asserting that the official Church teaching (infallible or not) could fail on so grand a scale as to justify the Traditionalist response, you're undermining the Church's indefectibility.

The Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church must be considered infallibly safe:

Monsignor Fenton:

Quote

In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience...

Why do you quote this bit from Fr. Fenton? This, in bold, is a Fr. Fentonism, a Fr. Fenton Original, it is heresy or at least grave error, it is most assuredly not a teaching of the Church, and does, in fact, change what the Church infallibly teaches as regards the infallibility of the pope.

This Fenonism is in fact the cause of world wide iniquity via the inordinate confusion it causes and has caused among the masses, it has been the cause of damage among those who abandon their faith by claiming obedience to authority over faith and doctrine - as they are directed to do above by Fr. Fenton, and also among  those who insist this to be a teaching of the Church, then demonstrate they have absolutely zero faith in this same teaching by rejecting the pope as pope in direct contradiction of what Fr. Fenton teaches. What a mess!

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that “God has given the Holy Father a...doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense", namely, when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. That's it, that is all the infallibility he has, this was infallibly decreed by the Church at V1, there is no more to it. Only in Fentonisms will one discover an additional infallibility, one that is "distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense."

Proof that the whole idea is an innovation of Fr. Fenton is in the fact that "those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth [have been] will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience."