Ah, rabid downthumber, I only hope for your sake that God has more mercy on you than you have for those in the Novus Ordo who might be of good will and only in material error ... just in case you yourself have fallen into material error. If not, and you are mistaken, you should be in fear of hellfire, since Our Lord tends to judge us "with the same measure" that we judge others. I know many people in the NO who I am convinced still have supernatural Catholic faith and who in many cases are more virtuous than I myself am.
Was this directed at me? Because i haven't down thumbed any of your posts today.
I have thought about this exact same thing many times before, and i don't like it for the same reasons you list here. I get it.
Yup. Look, I truly understand where the SVs are coming from. In fact, I started out as R&R; but when I began studying Catholic ecclesiology, I simply couldn't square R&R with ANY of their principles. I became an SV myself, and about as hard core dogmatic SV as one could get. But then I came across the writing of (I believe it was) Cardinal Zubizaretta. He was writing during the reign of Pius XII and said that for any Catholic to consider Pius XII illegitimate would be HERETICAL.
Can you quote it? Or scan the pages where it appears.
That gave me pause to think. Why? That's because papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and it must be known a priori to the exercise of their Magisterium. Why? Because if you can't know with the certainty of faith that he's legitimate, then you can't know with the certainty of faith any dogmatic teaching of his either. There's a direct quote from another Catholic theologian along those lines.
What about the GWS, or any other time when there has been an antipope and a real pope at the same time? Where'e the certainty of faith there?
OK, so how do we know a legitimate pope with the certainty of faith? Legitimate election + universal acceptance = a legitimate pope known to be legitimate with the certainty of faith. On the legitimate election front, one could posit the Siri Thesis (which I consider quite credible). Nishant here has long argued the universal acceptance angle. But does anyone really feel "universal acceptance" here? I'm sorry, but I don't. And that's why you say there's a major difference between Pius XII and John XXIII (although some SVs are on the fence about J23). I've dug into universal acceptance. This isn't some abstract reference to the legitimacy of an election. This refers to the notion that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith. Who actually adheres to the V2 papal claimants as rules of faith? Certainly not the "Universal Church". You have the entire Traditional Catholic world who effectively (for all intents and purposes) reject them as rules of faith (even if they pay lip service to their material legitimacy) and then you have 80% of all so-called nominal Catholics who by their own polls REJECT one dogmatic teaching or another of the Church; they too clearly do not accept these papal claimants as a rule of faith. So where's this "Universal Acceptance"? I'm not feeling it.
I agree with this.
I also ran into an SV who rejected Pius XII ... and Pius IX. I met another who rejected Pius XI and Benedict XV and even St. Pius X (because he "altered" the breviary). So I recognized this as utter insanity and began investigating why this is wrong. I knew it was wrong but had to get to the bottom of WHY it was wrong.
Dave Landry, Franco Pagnanelli, Richard Ibranyi & co.? I bet that the one obssessesed with the St. Pius X breviary thing is someone who was or is a member in the Te Deum forum.
In fact they all got it from Ibranyi. But he's gone way beyond any of them. Last time i checked he said the last true Pope was in the 11th century.
So, at the end of the day, I am content to say that I have serious positive doubts about their legitimacy, which would justify my Traditional stance in such a way as not to involve schism, but I defer to the Church's authority to make the final determination. What's wrong with that? Even if I were to become a straight-forward SV, what in the world can I do about it? Nothing.
If all you can say when you see all the evidence is that you have "serious positive doubts about their legitimacy", and not that you think they're not even remotely Catholic, well then i don't know how you can, knowing all that you do.
You think there is remotely any chance at all that in the future it will be decreed that in the end they were all true Popes after all?
If St. Robert Bellarmine and others thought that Liberius was a heretic for merely appearing
to favour heresy, and that for that sole thing the papacy could be rightfully taken from him
, what in the world will be the verdict for these shenanigans who have instituted a new religion and destroyed everything?
Odious situation we're living in isn't it? We have no authority, but we all have to make a decision.
It makes me wonder how then can you say anything to a Novus Ordinarian who follows the Conciliar establishment, how can you fault him? What right do you have of trying to convert anyone, or of saying anything at all in public, if this is all private judgment and mere opinion?
You're right, and I in fact have little to say to these. They say, "Here's the pope. He's teaching something. I will accept it." And this is actually a more essentially Catholic mindset than R&R.
For all your rigour in the EENS issue, i don't understand how you can say this. I see this as being indifferent to their salvation. You know they're wrong and need to get out of their situation.
So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius IX and he declares the dogma of papal infallibility, and I think that infallibility is heretical, all I need to do is to say, "Aha! Pius IX is a heretic." in order to reject the dogma of papal infallibility. And so forth. That is a real problem that cannot be understated.
In the time leading up to the definition of papal infallibility, a LOT of Catholics didn't believe in it. Let's say I didn't believe in it back then. Once the Church defined it, the Catholic response must be, "Ooops. I guess I was wrong. I now believe it with the certainty of faith." Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
I don't believe this is a valid comparison at all, because papal infallibility was never condemned, nor an error etc. It was undefined. But in fact it was evident all along anyways, because of the very nature of the papacy, and i don't understand how could anyone reject it or not believe in it even before it was defined.What we're dealing with in V2 is not with undefined allowable opinions, but with things that were explicitly condemned and declared heretical, erroneous etc. all of a sudden turned around and declared orthodox. "Yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy" indeed.
There is no comparison here. None. Additionally, it is a matter of fact that all those diabologians who were silenced, suppressed, suspect, censured etc., were all of a sudden reinstated after Pius XII died and made the "periti" at V2, it's clear as daylight what happened. Congar, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger etc. they were all in the blacklist. The infiltrators got "one of theirs" apparently on the Throne of St. Peter to let it all loose, simple as that.
"The coup of the century," as Scar from the Lion King says in his anthem.
This cannot be emphasised enough. You can even compare things as simple as pre-V2 Catechisms, devotionaries FOR CHILDREN, writings of all the Saints, Popes etc. to see that what was clearly condemned was suddenly made true teaching. There is no contest. There are books that specifically condemn the idea that non-Catholics sects are means of salvation, specifically
, with those very same words, but yet V2 says the total opposite.
Besides, these infiltrators have openly declared that they have made Luther's wishes true in regards to the Mass for instance. Ever read what "Cardinal" Willebrands said about this? They have admitted the same for all the rest too. What more can one ask?
Can you point to any such example in the history of the Church? Where things that were explicitly condemned, declared heretical etc., were suddenly overturned and declared orthodox? Where the ramblings of suspect, silenced, censured theologians suddenly were accepted and incorporated into an Ecumenical Council? Is there but a single case of this happening before? I have always wondered.
But R&R clouds the issue by focusing with a very narrow perspective on infallibility. There's infallibility proper where one could argue about whether some obiter dictum in an encyclical might have been wrong. But when you're talking about an entire body of teaching on a grand scale presented authoritatively to the Universal Church, then if I believed with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are legitimate, then I would say, "I accept all that the Church taught at Vatican II. Lord, if I have therefore embraced error, then it is You who have led me into error." R&R miss the forest for the trees when it comes to infallibility. We're not arguing minutiae. We're arguing about something that would be tantamount to the defection of the Magisterium, to say that Catholics RISK THEIR FAITH by adhering to the teaching of an Ecumenical Council. That's basically blasphemous and rejects the indefectibility of the Magisterium. There just isn't any way around that.
You're right, they're totally wrong about this and have made it all up.
As for your saying that with SVism we can get people out of the NO, I don't see that, honestly. Most people in the NO look at you like you have four heads when you bring it up.
There have been thousands of converts to SV from the Novus Ordo, if not more. I was Novus Ordo and I can tell you that for me personally SV made sense to me more than anything else right from the start, as it did to you, and i was exposed to both r&r and SV from the beginning. It all made sense to think they were just imposters, usurpers, it explained it all. I never liked r&r and it never made sense to me to "recognise" authority but then do what thou wilt, it never clicked. I didn't see any way to reconcile infallibility, indefectibility etc. while holding to r&r either, and i still don't.
As an aside, what is your position on the Holy Week revisions?