Author Topic: The Serenity of Sedevacantism (Read 11856 times)

Emerentiana · « **on:** March 19, 2013, 11:23:47 AM »

Steven Heiner just posted this essay on True Restoration Blogspot yesterday.

Ive been a Sede for 45 years, and these are my sentiments exactly.

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-serenity-of-sedevacantism.html

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2013, 01:21:42 PM »

I especially like this quote he wrote in his answer to a comment on his blog. "sedevacantism may lead you into mystery but it won't lead you into contradiction"

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »

Thank You very much for this post!

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2013, 03:40:22 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Heiner

"For the sedevacantist, life is fairly simple"

This is why many people are sedevecantists; but its not why all sedevecantists are. Its also why Novus Ordites are Novus Ordites. As bishop Williamson has continually said, their error is essentially the same. Thats why you so often hear a SV say, "at least the NO'ers are consistent." They see things in the same way.

s2srea · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2013, 03:45:53 PM »

Also- Heiner also points out that the much of the 'recognize and resist' position has no precedent. He fails to mention, however that sedevecantism, as it is largely ascribed to today, is also foreign to the life of the Church.

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** March 19, 2013, 08:54:13 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Steven Heiner just posted this essay on True Restoration Blogspot yesterday.

Ive been a Sede for 45 years, and these are my sentiments exactly.

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-serenity-of-sedevacantism.html

I remember Stephen from his old "R&R days."

Quote from: Stephen's blog

We don't set up parallel churches or our own wedding tribunals (SSPX) ...

Well Stephen, many Sede clergy counsel previously married Catholics that they can in fact marry again. How that isn't a "tribunal" of sorts is somewhat baffling.

conquistador1492 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2013, 09:48:21 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Also- Heiner also points out that the much of the 'recognize and resist' position has no precedent. He fails to mention, however that sedevecantism, as it is largely ascribed to today, is also foreign to the life of the Church.

No, actually what is really foreign is a group recognizing as catholic an entity for decades which invokes a council preaching doctrines WORD FOR WORD contrary to the deposit of the faith, apostate antipopes openly praying with Jєωs in ѕуηαgσgυєs and muslims in mosques.

St. Athanassus would differ with you.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2013, 09:55:39 PM »

It's Athanasius.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2013, 10:37:45 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Heiner

In the meantime, you resist whatever parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latest version (2002) of the "Ordinary Form" (darkly humorous term) of the Mass, encyclicals, allocutions, and pretty much anything you want that would normally fall under the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and therefore would normally fall under the charism of the Church's INDEFECTIBILITY not under the charism of the Pope's INFALLIBILITY. You resist, with your free will, these legal measures and docuмents from a man you call "Holy Father," who rules the juridical body you call "The Holy See," and is the man you view as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. Yet, you fail to see how this is not protestant behavior.

Uh, yeah the same could be said of those sedevacantists who not only disobey but openly vilify and, moreover, urge the faithful to scorn, the duly promulgated decrees of the Apostolic See under the reign of Pope Pius XII, particularly the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

So, if one is to say that all "R&R-ers" should adhere to the Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Œcuмenici Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Pauli Pp. VI promulgatum, Ioannis Pauli Pp. II cura recognitum: juxta typicam tertiam (The Roman Missal restored by decree of the Sacrosanct Second Œcuмenical Council of the Vatican, promulgated by authority of Pope Paul VI, revised by the solicitude of Pope John Paul II: according to the third typical edition), then one should logically conclude that all sedevacantists who acknowledge Pope Pius XII to have reigned over the Church as Supreme Pontiff should adhere to all the decrees of the Roman Congregations that availed themselves of his authority.

Holy Week will illustrate this, as it always does: with clerics observing obsolete and abrogating ceremonies, breaking the Lenten fast at noon of Holy Saturday, selling their publications that justify such aberrations: all which, if one is to condemn the "R&R-ers" and be intellectually honest and consistent, ought to be regarded as imputable of sin and/or severe Canonical censures when it comes to the sedevacantist clerics.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2013, 10:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Heiner

Standard R&R answers (keep in mind that typically these answers will come from the mouths of people - and sometimes clergy! - who have not even read one single docuмent of Vatican II)

Uh, again: the same thing could be said of the sedevacantists.

I have seen criticisms of Vatican II by sedevacantists, both lay and clerical, that are wanting and very much so. There is so much for them to discuss but somehow they keep focusing on the same things over and over again: perhaps, I believe, because they just read other articles against Vatican II or the Novus Ordo but do not bother to look into the sources themselves.

I have never met a sedevacantist who has read the Vatican II docuмents by themselves and in their totality and has studied the texts of the Novus Ordo liturgical books. Even the title of the Missal would give them some ammo, but it's overlooked because of sloppy scholarship:

Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Œcuмenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Pauli Pp. VI promulgatum, Ioannis Pauli Pp. II cura recognitum: juxta typicam tertiam - anglice, The Roman Missal restored by decree of the Sacrosanct Second Œcuмenical Council of the Vatican, promulgated by authority of Pope Paul VI, revised by the solicitude of Pope John Paul II: according to the third typical edition.

Not Pastolaris Œcuмenici Concilii Vaticani II but Sacrosancti Œcuмenici Vaticani II.

Am I the first to point this out? If someone else out there has, let me know.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2013, 11:03:40 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Hobbledehoy
Quote from: Stephen Heiner
In the meantime, you resist whatever parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latest version (2002) of the "Ordinary Form" (darkly humorous term) of the Mass, encyclicals, allocutions, and pretty much anything you want that would normally fall under the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and therefore would normally fall under the charism of the Church's INDEFECTIBILITY not under the charism of the Pope's INFALLIBILITY. You resist, with your free will, these legal measures and docuмents from a man you call "Holy Father," who rules the juridical body you call "The Holy See," and is the man you view as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. Yet, you fail to see how this is not protestant behavior.

Uh, yeah the same could be said of those sedevacantists who not only disobey but openly vilify and, moreover, urge the faithful to scorn, the duly promulgated decrees of the Apostolic See under the reign of Pope Pius XII, particularly the liturgical reforms promulgated by the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

So, if one is to say that all "R&R-ers" should adhere to the Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Œcuмenici Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Pauli Pp. VI promulgatum, Ioannis Pauli Pp. II cura recognitum: juxta typicam tertiam (The Roman Missal restored by decree of the Sacrosanct Second Œcuмenical Council of the Vatican, promulgated by authority of Pope Paul VI, revised by the solicitude of Pope John Paul II: according to the third typical edition), then one should logically conclude that all sedevacantists who acknowledge Pope Pius XII to have reigned over the Church as Supreme Pontiff should adhere to all the decrees of the Roman Congregations that availed themselves of his authority.

Holy Week will illustrate this, as it always does: with clerics observing obsolete and abrogating ceremonies, breaking the Lenten fast at noon of Holy Saturday, selling their publications that justify such aberrations: all which, if one is to condemn the "R&R-ers" and be intellectually honest and consistent, ought to be regarded as imputable of sin and/or severe Canonical censures when it comes to the sedevacantist clerics.

No it can't - were the Pius XII changes evil? - no they weren't.

Yet the Missal-sifting polemicists write and act as if they were intrinsically evil and use all the mental gymnastics that Mr. Heiner describes (and loony conspiracy theories and presumed knowledge of future contingencies unknowable to any created intellect) to assure themselves that they truly represent Catholic traditionalism. Ultimately, this leads to a Gallicanist attitude and praxis, to say the least...

Marlelar · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2013, 11:55:08 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

It's Athanasius.

Speaking of the saint, how DID people "in the pews" handle living through the Arian heresy? Did they consider the throne of Peter vacant?

Marsha

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2013, 12:32:40 AM »

All the changes made by the liberal destroyers may not be evil, that doesn't mean we have to accept them.

Hobbles has been hamstrung by scrupulosity over minutia.

None of these scruples over theological problems can change what has happened and what is continuing to happen when manifest unbelievers put themselves forward as the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2013, 12:45:51 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

All the changes made by the liberal destroyers may not be evil, that doesn't mean we have to accept them.

Yes we do, if they are duly promulgated from the Apostolic See. A Catholic accepts things based on authority of those who have been sent by the Apostles and their successors, not on private judgment and evaluation. That is the first point that St. Francis de Sales brings up against the lapsed Catholics who allowed themselves to be seduced by the Protestant innovators.

Quote

Hobbles has been hamstrung by scrupulosity over minutia.

It is not scruples and it is certainly not minutiae. These are matters of great moment.

Quote

None of these scruples over theological problems can change what has happened and what is continuing to happen when manifest unbelievers put themselves forward as the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Perhaps not, because I am only a private person with no authority to bind the consciences of others (Deo gratias!). However, the things I have discussed properly contextualize the sedevacantist stance in the present-day reality of the dynamics of its clerics' politics: they expose the hypocrisy of those sedevacantists who condemn the "recognize-and-resist" traditionalists for the things they themselves do.

Sedevacantism is not a simple, idyllic sort of solution that will loosen the Gordian knot of the present crisis. The article of Mr. Heiner and some comments in this thread (and elsewhere) seem to give that impression to some. I believe this is not right, especially when the Resistance is being infiltrated by those sedevacantists who condemned Bp. Williamson for eschewing sedevacantism. The fact that some adherents of the Resistance are now taking Fr. Cekada as an expert liturgist (sic!) pretty much proves this is the case.

Basically, the only sede group that can act all "high and mighty" with theoretical consistency is the CMRI, because they adhere to all the reforms and legislation promulgated by Pope Pius XII. However, they don't do that: they are all the better to refrain from such nonsense.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2013, 12:53:10 AM »

Catholics don't have to be bound by liberal destroyers.

If Catholics had realized that at any time in the past (or if Catholics realize that under +Fellay) there would not be this dire of a situation.

Until they understand they don't have to accept or tolerate, much less submit to liberals, the crisis will only worsen.