Quote from: Matthew

Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope")...The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.

Defining sedeplenism as the contrary of sedevacantism, we proceed:

1. What do you think about being a co-religionist with Hans Kung?
2. Do you think the fact that Mahoney and COUNTLESS others are still a part of your Church takes away therefrom?  Do you feel the incessant need to answer for their stupidity, perversity, and abominable heresy/apostasy/etc?
3. Why do you think I should be taken up with answering for those lunatic elements among those who deny BXVI?  Mathematically, you have FAR MORE in the way of lunatics, perverts, etc., on your side of the equation.  Does this make you uneasy?  Probably not.  Why do you presume I would be uneasy about the 'pope' from Mushroom Rock?
4. So, why don't you stop bringing up BS that has no application to any reasonable discussion?
ETC., ETC., ETC....

Believe me, I could go ON and ON and ON with questions for those who support V2 and the purveyors thereof.

I might have said this (to you) before --

I don't attend the NOVUS ORDO. I am a fellow Resister. I am just (in my opinion) more prudent -- less drastic -- in how I carry out my resistance.

And I'm not "embracing" OR "rejecting" the pope -- I'm merely staying put and doing nothing as regards the pope -- and since Catholics aren't normally given a choice upon joining the Church "Pope or non-Pope?" (like restaurants ask you "smoking or non-smoking?") -- I "recognize" the pope because that's the default position for a Catholic. Catholics aren't supposed to decide if they want a Pope in their life or not!

How much guidance I get from him on a daily basis is another story.

I think that's one point you miss.

If Catholics WERE normally given a choice (say, for the last 500 years) to follow a Pope or not, then your choice would simply be the inverse of mine, with no other nuances.

But that's NOT the case, because my choice also happens to be the DEFAULT position for a Catholic. A Catholic who just wants to "hold to what he knows to be true" and stay put until this mess is sorted out will acknowledge the pope, even if he's a bad one in fact.

I think the SSPX reaction to the crisis is more prudent, even if yours is more psychologically satisfying (and is easier for people to grasp).

Here is my take: In the Catholic Church today, there are (bishops, priests, laymen) who have lost the Faith, those who have mostly lost it, some who are losing it, and some who have almost miraculously kept it. Where each man stands I try not to worry about, unless it affects me and my family. I'll "let" God judge each person in His own good time. I have enough to worry about regarding my own soul and raising my children Catholic.

If I bother to discuss my Faith with a nonbeliever, I usually have to mention the Crisis in some way.

Matthew

IMO, it isn't a question of joining/belonging to what is undoubtedly the Catholic Church, Pope or non-Pope.  It is a question of Church or anti-Church.

The Pope issue is, IMO, a distraction, although an understandable one.

I agree. When it is discussed in the context of dogmatic sedevacantist vs. dogmatic sedeplentist...it is a distraction...AND NOTHING ELSE.

I think that a lifetime's worth of penance will not be able to fully expiate the utter garbage that I posted under the username "DeMaistre".

I think that a lifetime's worth of penance will not be able to fully expiate the utter garbage that I posted under the username "DeMaistre".

We all have our moments!  :wink: You will be okay, my friend.  You are not even 20, man!  There is much good ahead, although you will also make mistakes that are so "big" that they make those from your younger days look almost comedic.  Carry on, young man...

SJB, I believe I already answered that question.

I would direct him/her to the nearest SSPX chapel -- somewhere where I can vouch for the Faith being held and taught in all its purity.

Why would you go somewhere dangerous to the faith, if you could go somewhere where your faith was not in jeopardy?

I think you're confused on this point:

Saying the visible Catholic Church still exists is NOT the same as saying everything is hunky-dory, or that I would make use of any of that mainstream structure.

Yes, I do, but not because I insist that I know there's no Catholic in there.

I am not presuming you are implying that I DO think such, but, incidentally, I do not.  There ARE people trickling FROM the Novus TO Traddieland.  There must be something going on inside them where faith, grace, etc., are concerned for this to happen.

But saying there are NO Catholics in there seems wrong in my estimation.

Agreed and contrary to the evidence.