Author Topic: Traditional Sedeplenism Schismatic? (Read 3010 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** December 19, 2013, 08:45:03 PM »

How would Traditional sedeplenism not be schismatic?

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circuмstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.

It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic. It meets every Traditional definition of the term schism. If you at least had a "doubt" about legitimacy, I think it's OK ... but when you say that it's certain that the V2 popes are popes, I would have to say that's schismatic. I can see saying that you'll give them the benefit of the doubt or something to that effect, and regard them as popes until the Church intervenes to decide the matter. But to just keep denouncing sedevacantism as the greatest evil since modernism seems utterly ridiculous.

We're not talking about isolated acts of disobedience to a particular positive command or two; we're talking about widespread lack of submission to everything that the V2 Popes stand for.

Mabel · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2013, 10:01:38 PM »

I'm sure someone will give you a stock answer that makes no sense.

I see it much the same way, but I have no clue about culpability in times where there is so much confusion. It is leading to a complete disregard for the office of the papacy. We all talked about how JP2 had a new version of the papacy and we talk about Bergolio's further fashioning this new papacy. However, I don't hear much about how traditionalist (mostly sedeplenists) have fashioned the papacy into something new as well.

The biggest thing that causes me to wince is the setting up of a parallel Church. If Beroglio is your pope, I don't see how you can justify setting up chapels, schools, marriage tribunals, seminaries, and so forth.

When we do get a pope again, are all of these things just going to be handed over in submission or will a true and old fashioned schism develop? I'm not sure the way this is going, with the mentality that has developed that some of these people and their groups will be absorbed back into the normal functions of the Church.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2013, 06:35:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic.

Read up on the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity:

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_1.htm

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2013, 06:53:03 AM »

I agree that, on its face, it does seem schismatic. Of course, I think it is schismatic similar to the way a Catholic in England is in schism with the Queen. He recognizes the Queen as the legitimate head of the Anglican Church but he rejects the direction she is taking that church. A poor analogy, I know.

In these confused times, I still think it possible that these people may be in a de facto schismatic state yet not be culpable of the sin of schism, though I believe that the line which allows one to hold this view is getting more and more faint.

Quote from: Mabel

When we do get a pope again, are all of these things just going to be handed over in submission or will a true and old fashioned schism develop? I'm not sure the way this is going, with the mentality that has developed that some of these people and their groups will be absorbed back into the normal functions of the Church.

I have considered this issue as well. I do believe that, when a true Catholic pope reigns again it will come in one of two ways:

1. Either the Vatican will fall so far that it becomes impossible to give it any benefit of doubt (by, for example, the consecration of women bishops and the inevitable election of a woman pope) and the remnant of traditional bishops call a conclave to elect a pope (probably called by the superior general of the SSPX), in which case there will be virtually no schism through tradition but the administration of the Church will be, by necessity, very decentralized. (Interesting that Bergoglio's desires of a decentralized Church would come about in this way.)

or

2. A Catholic would be elected through the Conciliar structures, in which case, it would take--literally--years to right the Ark of Peter, pump the bilge water from her holds, and be fully accepted by all of tradition. In this case, I think there would be pockets of schism that would develop but it would not, ultimately, be widespread. Interestingly, however, I believe that much of the Conciliar church would go into schism (as if they are not already there) and formally break ties with the Vatican.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2013, 08:04:55 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Ladislaus
It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic.

Read up on the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity:

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_1.htm

Obviously the SSPX response will be more biased than the Catholic Encyclopedia

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2013, 08:25:09 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I agree that, on its face, it does seem schismatic. Of course, I think it is schismatic similar to the way a Catholic in England is in schism with the Queen. He recognizes the Queen as the legitimate head of the Anglican Church but he rejects the direction she is taking that church. A poor analogy, I know.

In these confused times, I still think it possible that these people may be in a de facto schismatic state yet not be culpable of the sin of schism, though I believe that the line which allows one to hold this view is getting more and more faint.

Quote from: Mabel
When we do get a pope again, are all of these things just going to be handed over in submission or will a true and old fashioned schism develop? I'm not sure the way this is going, with the mentality that has developed that some of these people and their groups will be absorbed back into the normal functions of the Church.

I have considered this issue as well. I do believe that, when a true Catholic pope reigns again it will come in one of two ways:

1. Either the Vatican will fall so far that it becomes impossible to give it any benefit of doubt (by, for example, the consecration of women bishops and the inevitable election of a woman pope) and the remnant of traditional bishops call a conclave to elect a pope (probably called by the superior general of the SSPX), in which case there will be virtually no schism through tradition but the administration of the Church will be, by necessity, very decentralized. (Interesting that Bergoglio's desires of a decentralized Church would come about in this way.)

or

2. A Catholic would be elected through the Conciliar structures, in which case, it would take--literally--years to right the Ark of Peter, pump the bilge water from her holds, and be fully accepted by all of tradition. In this case, I think there would be pockets of schism that would develop but it would not, ultimately, be widespread. Interestingly, however, I believe that much of the Conciliar church would go into schism (as if they are not already there) and formally break ties with the Vatican.

Remember, you heard it here first.

A third way would be for the Catholics to take over Rome and install a Bishop. And then simply lay down the Catholic Doctrines and Disciplines clearly and concisely and show the Novos Ordo that are against the Catholic Church where the door is if they do not like the Catholic doctrines and disciplines.

The Pope would have to abolish V2 whole and entire.

Make (another) clear and definitive (perhaps dogmatic, I would solemnly define the teaching if at all possible) statement regarding the Feeneyite errors.

Lay down the protocol for attendance at una cuм heretic Masses should our current situation arise again.

Put a system in place to make sure, as much as possible, that our current situation will not arise again.

Clarify the teaching on continence in marriage.

Make sure the Catholic Bishops realize they have the mandate and full jurisdiction and then clearly explain the issue of jurisdiction during an extended interregnum where certain bishops hold fast to the faith and are considered by the replacement false Church as schismatic while their heretical and non-valid Bishops are considered the hierarchy.

Make known to all the invalid clergy that that they are in fact invalid and cannot function as clerics in the Catholic Church.

Clarify all the peripherals, no girl altar boys, no lay Eucharistic ministers, or readers or whatever else they have going on at new Church.

Clarify (again) when (the circuмstances when - pertinacious public heresy etc.) the laity should understand that one acting as Pope should not be treated as such until and unless the contrary is proven.

Make as clear as possible that the salvation of all Catholics (explaining to those of the Feeneyite tendencies of taking a statement and forcing it on everyone despite their culpability that those good willed Catholics who are not aware of the necessity to submit to all a valid Pope binds on the Church through no fault of their own are not automatically damned for their inculpable ignorance on the manner) depends on submission to all that a valid Pope binds on the Church

Officially regularize the traditional clergy i.e. make them aware of their status and clarify what their status was during the interregnum. Bar or discipline those who pose as traditional clergy but cause great scandal to the faithful.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:05:08 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: Ladislaus
It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic.

Read up on the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity:

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_1.htm

Obviously the SSPX response will be more biased than the Catholic Encyclopedia

The response was not done by the SSPX.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:11:59 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: Ladislaus
It's very difficult for me to understand how refusing submission to the man you hold for certain to be the Pope is not schismatic.

Read up on the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity:

http://archives.sspx.org/1988_consecrations_study/1988_consecrations_theological_study_part_1.htm

Obviously the SSPX response will be more biased than the Catholic Encyclopedia

The response was not done by the SSPX.

Sorry about that. I saw the link and assumed. Is it a post conciliar source?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:13:56 AM »

It was originally posted in Si si no no. Isn't that an SSPX. I see no author. Seems like an "R & R" source. So I maintain the would have more of a bias on the situation than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:27:20 AM »

I think that the question goes hand in hand with the Church's infallibility, i.e. that one can never endanger one's faith or one's soul by remaining in a state of submission to the Holy See. All pre-V2 theologians would have considered the Traditional sedeplenist position to be schismatic.

It's always granted, however, that one would not be in formal schism if the lack of submission is due to doubts or questions about a Pope's legitimacy (they usually cite the Great Schism).

As I said, I have no problem in taking a position of doubt, i.e. we're not in submission because we have doubts about who these people are, but we'll stay sedeplenist because we don't feel that we have the authority to declare the Holy See vacant. That's really in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's own thinking.

But the radical Traditional sedeplenists IMO are formally schismatic. I don't see any way around this when looked at in the light of Traditional Catholic theology.

If you look at Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Three Bishops, he actually articulates these same principles ... and his reasons are logically quite valid. Bishop Fellay cited the principle that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and therefore starts to lean (based on his sedeplenist premise) towards the direction of saying that there's no substantial error in Vatican II, etc.

In that case, Bishop Fellay should have submitted unconditionally.

On the resistance side, however, the position ignores these considerations regarding infallibility and indefectibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church.

So, in other words, neither side is internally consistent.

Only doubts about legitimacy can justify the Traditional movement. Period. If you have no doubts, then you must submit to Rome and trust in God. If you cannot submit to Rome, then you must at least entertain doubts about the papal legitimacy to avoid formal schism.

So, in the final analysis, both the Bishop Fellay position (refusing to submit unconditionally despite granting that there's no substantial error in V2) and the Resistance position (refusing submission while maintaining a radical sedeplenism) are formally schismatic.

I saw the letter of the one French resistance priest, however, that seemed to open the door on sedevacantism as a valid opinion.

Both the SSPX and SSPX SO (aka Resistance) positions due grave damage to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

On a side note, I also think that radical sedeplenism also does harm to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology and can be schismatic.

I think that the only Catholic position is the sede-doubtist position, as I refer to it tongue-in-cheek. I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier held this position. Some sedevacantists also hold it as just mere private opinion. But the radical sedeplenists and radical sedevacantists IMO are BOTH just plain wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:36:00 AM »

Of course, the dirty little secret is that 95% of Traditional sedeplenists, if you get them "off record", will secretly admit that they have serious doubts about the V2 popes. This radical sedeplenism seems like little more than public posturing.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:08:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Both the SSPX and SSPX SO (aka Resistance) positions due grave damage to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

The position of the Resistance is faithful to that of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:10:36 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It was originally posted in Si si no no. Isn't that an SSPX. I see no author. Seems like an "R & R" source. So I maintain the would have more of a bias on the situation than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Si Si No No is an English translation of the Courier de Rome. The latter does not belong to the SSPX.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:54:24 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Lover of Truth
It was originally posted in Si si no no. Isn't that an SSPX. I see no author. Seems like an "R & R" source. So I maintain the would have more of a bias on the situation than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Si Si No No is an English translation of the Courier de Rome. The latter does not belong to the SSPX.

Can you tell me what it is? Another resistance group. Are they affiliated to SSPX. I just want to know your source as the article itself does not give an author. Is it a preconciliar author, another resistence group what?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:57:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I think that the question goes hand in hand with the Church's infallibility, i.e. that one can never endanger one's faith or one's soul by remaining in a state of submission to the Holy See. All pre-V2 theologians would have considered the Traditional sedeplenist position to be schismatic.

It's always granted, however, that one would not be in formal schism if the lack of submission is due to doubts or questions about a Pope's legitimacy (they usually cite the Great Schism).

As I said, I have no problem in taking a position of doubt, i.e. we're not in submission because we have doubts about who these people are, but we'll stay sedeplenist because we don't feel that we have the authority to declare the Holy See vacant. That's really in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's own thinking.

But the radical Traditional sedeplenists IMO are formally schismatic. I don't see any way around this when looked at in the light of Traditional Catholic theology.

If you look at Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Three Bishops, he actually articulates these same principles ... and his reasons are logically quite valid. Bishop Fellay cited the principle that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and therefore starts to lean (based on his sedeplenist premise) towards the direction of saying that there's no substantial error in Vatican II, etc.

In that case, Bishop Fellay should have submitted unconditionally.

On the resistance side, however, the position ignores these considerations regarding infallibility and indefectibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church.

So, in other words, neither side is internally consistent.

Only doubts about legitimacy can justify the Traditional movement. Period. If you have no doubts, then you must submit to Rome and trust in God. If you cannot submit to Rome, then you must at least entertain doubts about the papal legitimacy to avoid formal schism.

So, in the final analysis, both the Bishop Fellay position (refusing to submit unconditionally despite granting that there's no substantial error in V2) and the Resistance position (refusing submission while maintaining a radical sedeplenism) are formally schismatic.

I saw the letter of the one French resistance priest, however, that seemed to open the door on sedevacantism as a valid opinion.

Both the SSPX and SSPX SO (aka Resistance) positions due grave damage to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

On a side note, I also think that radical sedeplenism also does harm to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology and can be schismatic.

I think that the only Catholic position is the sede-doubtist position, as I refer to it tongue-in-cheek. I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier held this position. Some sedevacantists also hold it as just mere private opinion. But the radical sedeplenists and radical sedevacantists IMO are BOTH just plain wrong.

What matters is which position is correct. The guy in white is either Pope or he is not. I'm not sure how the truth could be "radical".