Author Topic: Simple reminder... (Read 906 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **on:** July 04, 2009, 04:23:20 AM »

Abp. Lefebvre spoke rather clearly about the possibility of one day declaring the See of Peter vacant. Now, if he believed such was actually impossible (as many others seem to believe), he was rather foolish to speak of it at all, no? Either he was as 'badly formed' theoologically as many think sedevacantists are, or he thought such a position was, in some way, shape or form, tenable. So, I kindly ask all representations to the contrary to cease. They help no one. God speed.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2009, 01:59:18 PM »

He also said that the New Order Mass is invalid, as are their priests.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2009, 02:19:05 PM »

Who is representing that the Sede position, in itself, is ridiculous?

I hold that the Sede position is not called-for at this time, especially since the SSPX has not come to that conclusion.

I do detest the bitterness, lack of constructive action, arguments, pride, and "prima donna" spirit that I see among many sedevacantists (some of the exceptions are on this forum).

I've seen plenty of Sedevacantists who seem to believe that charity is optional. They consider themselves Grand Inquisitor and denounce people publicly and in writing, as if it does their soul some good. They would do better to pay at least SOME attention to the spiritual life, and not just the Crisis in the Church.

But a lot of that behavior actually flows from taking the sede position when it isn't called for. I don't believe that many Sede phenomena, e.g., personality issues, arguing, sects, denunciations, slander, rash ordinations, etc. are completely accidental to the Sede position.

The Sede position doesn't cause all that chaos necessarily, but it certainly fosters its growth.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

Matthew

DeMaistre · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2009, 02:42:59 PM »

I second Matthew's point on charity. Granted that charity cannot exist without the faith, I think that many a sede has taken this as an excuse to go on a rampage of downright nasty and rude behaviour. I find it amazing that some have never even read a spiritual book or writings.

sedetrad · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2009, 03:14:16 PM »

I've seen plenty of Sedevacantists who seem to believe that charity is optional. They consider themselves Grand Inquisitor and denounce people publicly and in writing, as if it does their soul some good. They would do better to pay at least SOME attention to the spiritual life, and not just the Crisis in the Church.

But a lot of that behavior actually flows from taking the sede position when it isn't called for. I don't believe that many Sede phenomena, e.g., personality issues, arguing, sects, denunciations, slander, rash ordinations, etc. are completely accidental to the Sede position.

The Sede position doesn't cause all that chaos necessarily, but it certainly fosters its growth.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

Matthew

I have seen the exact same behavior from members of the SSPX ala Angelqueen.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2009, 03:01:40 AM »

It is everywhere, as "charity hath grown cold" - plain and simple.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:08:17 AM »

True, you can find lack of charity in all "camps" nowadays.

But what I was saying was:

The sede position is by its very nature independent, and the "groups" of sedes, insofar as they exist, will have less authority and structure as, say, an SSPX parish.

If you attend an independent chapel (usually sede), you can be much more "critical" to the chapel, and much more important, than if you attend an SSPX chapel, where many jobs are already taken and they don't "need you" nearly as much. In a smaller group, without an official position on a lot of things, you will have more disagreements with fellow parishioners.

Look at it this way:

A. Indult (I want to be approved by Rome)
B. SSPX (I don't want to compromise at all, but I'm not prepared to declare the See is vacant. I also want some structure and predictability at the parish I attend)
C. Home Aloner (There are no valid priests or bishops left, at least not in my area)
D. Other

In short, an independent chapel/Sede chapel is "D. Other" so people will make that choice for a variety of reasons.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:27:37 PM »

Your points are well taken, Matthew.

There is a poorly -supervised SSPX chapel here with a non SSPX priest. The problems are more severe than almost any parish I have seen, except the N.O. with the priest who was defrocked. But your description of the parish dynamics is very perceptive. The "critical" to running this or that function, the "importance" description is so true...

But one oddball chapel does NOT describe the SSPX as a whole. Generally, there is accountability and supervision, along with many very well-formed priests and wonderful seminarians. Our boys' souls have been so enriched by these excellant young men! Such fine examples of piety and masculinity

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2009, 01:46:47 AM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

I find it amazing that some have never even read a spiritual book or writings.

I have to ask: At 14, exactly how many such people have you come across? No offense, but I WAS 14 - and I didn't know all that many people or all that much about life. I don't know much now, either, but the older I get, the more I realize I do not know. God speed.

As for "sturcture", etc., it has its place. When all the structures have elements, large or small, that are problematic (if not downright rotten), their usefulness tends to fade - and they become lethal traps.