Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: angelusmaria on August 20, 2022, 09:15:12 AM
-
What have the sedevacantists got right? Why we should listen to them
Fr Mawdsley
I don't know much about Fr. Mawdsley, only that he is no longer with FSSP. Good video, he shows respect for Fr. Cekada, but he doesn't address the crux of the SV position, which I understand to be mainly about Ecclesiology rather than the Papacy. Good presentation nonetheless, and am interested in hearing others' take on what is presented. A woman I am courting sent this to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VlT5RwFTyk
-
What have they got right? That we need to oppose the modern Popes and not follow/obey them. And 99.5% of the material we share in the "Traditional" package.
Arguing about Sedevacantism is a direct result of the BISHOPS/PRIESTS dividing us -- yes, just like (((them))), they keep us divided. And yes, that's doing the devil's work.
The fact is: sedevacantists and R&R are both TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, part of the classic TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT which started spontaneously everywhere immediately after Vatican II, and will continue until the Crisis in the Church is over. Some might lose heart, some might betray, some might defect -- but for all we know the Traditional Movement might turn out to be WHERE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS, EXCLUSIVELY during these dark years.
No investigation, no argumentation, is going to come up with the silver bullet at this point. By silver bullet, I mean "The One Ring" or the evidence/argument which will convince 100% (not just 99%) of those *of good will* over to said position.
See, the problem is that many mistake their own judgment, their own opinion, for that silver bullet. They therefore conclude that anyone disagreeing with them is either malicious (of bad will) or literally stupid. That is NOT true, however.
MY opinion is that only God can sort out this mess. My reasoning is rock-solid: we've been trying to solve this Crisis with human means for 52 years and counting. It hasn't worked. We have tried. We have had holy men, brilliant men, prudent men -- nothing has worked. The mystery is too deep; it must be similar to a Supernatural Mystery, where God has to reveal it because we'd NEVER work it out by ourselves. Like the Holy Trinity for example.
Back in the early days of CathInfo, around 2007-2009, some R&R had a nice discussion with a sedevacantist. I think it was my wife and the sedevacantist was Gladius_Veritatis. We asked him, "Say we, who are R&R, decided today to adopt Sedevacantism. Of what practical benefit would that be to us? We're not Novus Ordo; we're already doing all the same things you Sedevacantists do." All he could say was, "Well, you'd have the *truth* and that's something..."
But my point: there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package. By the Traditional Catholic movement, I mean the no-compromises movement that resists modernism but is pretty basic:
1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, ignore the modern Churchmen who are 99.9% presumed Modernist or tainted Modernist at this point
2. Seek out priests/bishops who will offer the traditional Mass and sacraments, who are formed in a pre-Vatican II manner (Aquinas, etc.) and will preach the pre-Vatican II, true Catholic Faith -- also who are properly ordained/consecrated.
3. No scruples about "jurisdiction" for any of the sacraments, including marriage and confession. No need to ask permission from anyone, even the Pope, to stay Catholic and/or save our soul.
4. Believe in a "Crisis in the Church" which is about the FAITH, not just the Mass.
That's it. That is what God caused to arise on earth in all places after Vatican II. Everything additional is a NOVELTY, an ACCRETION, something EXTRA. That includes all theories about the Pope. Sedes used to sit side-by-side with non-Sedes in Traditional (independent) chapels, considering the Pope question to be part of their own personal opinion only. It wasn't their identity like it is today.
But it's not just Sedes that "added" to the Traditional Movement. Indulters twisted the movement into a "Latin Mass" movement, ignoring the fact that it's a Crisis of Faith, not just the Mass. And they added "you need to be on good terms with Rome, you need to have permission, jurisdiction, etc." to the list of beliefs. That is objectively a NOVELTY, because there was no question of permission from 1970-1984 or especially 1988! What did Trads do during that period? See what I mean? Whatever is true, had to have been available AT ALL TIMES after the Crisis began, until the present day. The truth is not going to contradict itself or radically change during that time period. Either supplied jurisdiction is legitimate during a great Crisis, or it's not. If it's not, then the Catholic Faith was completely snuffed out from 1970 - 1988. NOT POSSIBLE.
And the SSPX added something as well: worship of their organization. Bishop Williamson got it right, trying to keep the SSPX humble. He compared SSPX to a fat ugly kid in a tug-of-war, the "anchor man" who holds the line, but isn't popular or pretty. He also warned seminarians in 2001 that the ONLY STRENGTH of the SSPX consisted in their uncompromised defense of the Truth, and that they could fail someday. If and when the SSPX failed, God would be fine because He didn't need them: He could raise up children to Abraham "from the very stones". But most SSPX parishioners and priests are far too proud of their organization, even putting it FIRST above the good of souls. They think they OWN the souls. They think they ARE the Church. They think the souls in their care exist for the good of the SSPX, instead of the other way around. That has been their tendency, their weakness dating back to the 80's. But it's gotten very bad in recent years. Not everyone is fully guilty, but all too many have imbibed this error to a greater or lesser degree. When you hear SSPX priests or Faithful call the Resistance "disobedient", "illegitimate", "don't attend their Masses", that's my proof right there. Come on!
-
What have the sedevacantists got right? Why we should listen to them
Fr Mawdsley
I don't know much about Fr. Mawdsley, only that he is no longer with FSSP. Good video, he shows respect for Fr. Cekada, but he doesn't address the crux of the SV position, which I understand to be mainly about Ecclesiology rather than the Papacy. Good presentation nonetheless, and am interested in hearing others' take on what is presented. A woman I am courting sent this to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VlT5RwFTyk
Good talk! Glad Father left the FSSP.
-
I'll pray for him that he can find a bishop to conditionally ordain him. Father would make a top-quality priest. Of course, he would likely be denied by neo-SSPX (given their current orientation) ... and his praise of Father Cekada would certainly do him in with neo-SSPX.
Father acknowledges that SVism is a theological opinion, right or wrong, and points out that even great saints have been confused and conflicted about the pope question (e.g. during the Great Western schism) and that it did not make them any less saints.
On the other hand, we had John Salza concluding that Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, while SVs are outside the Church, and more recently so are the SSPX. :facepalm:
-
Back in the early days of CathInfo, around 2007-2009, some R&R had a nice discussion with a sedevacantist. I think it was my wife and the sedevacantist was Gladius_Veritatis. We asked him, "Say we, who are R&R, decided today to adopt Sedevacantism. Of what practical benefit would that be to us? We're not Novus Ordo; we're already doing all the same things you Sedevacantists do." All he could say was, "Well, you'd have the *truth* and that's something..."
But my point: there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package.
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept apostates as popes.
I have a whole list of magisterial quotes that are irreconcilable with the resistance view and that is excluding the question of a heretical pope, just plain teaching on the papacy (see attachment, the list is not nearly exhaustive, of course).
So I would say that while it is possible to be R&R and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
-
Conditional ordination would greatly advance unity with FSSP and Christ the King.
A miracle maybe.
The neo SSPX parishioners believe there isn't a problem with validity. And so they have lost the "unity with Rome" argument.
They risk becoming the High church of the NWO if they refuse to return to a more cautious stance.
-
I think that there's a serious problem with the terms "R&R" and "SV", in that they're excessively broad terms and serve to confuse matters. There's a large range of opinion among BOTH these groups, and often overlap. Yet these terms, by giving the impression that there are these two and only two camps, actually tend to polarize the sides even more.
I believe that there are some flavors of R&R that are acceptable ... Archbishop Lefebvre's (defer to the Church-ism), Father Chazal's sedeimpoundism (a very solid position IMO), and the benefit-of-the-doubtists (e.g. Fr. Schmidberger of old, with his melior est conditio possidentis). But then you have dogmatic R&R types who do hold extremely problematic views regarding the nature of the Magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church.
On the other side, among SVs, you have sedeprivationists (unhelpfully categorized as SVs), whose opinions are almost identical to those of Father Chazal, the moderate SVs like Father Jenkins who do hold that there's room for doubt regarding the SV position (so analogous to the R&R benefit-of-the-doubters), and then you have the dogmatic types (whose positions are also problematic, IMO).
To circle back to what I was saying, the terms serve to polarize the sides. When Fr. Chazal had articulated his sedeimpoundist position, I was initially hopeful that this would be the beginning of forming a bridge between the "two" sides. Unfortunately, however, since "sedeprivationism" has become associated with "sedevacantism," Father Chazal recoiled at the suggestion that his position was nearly identical to that of sedeprivationism, and felt it necessary to write an entire book"Contra Cekadam" to distance himself from it. Here again is where lumping everything into either R&R or SV caused harm. In reality, sedeimpoundism and sedeprivationism are nearly identical with only a nuanced difference perhaps in emphasis, but recoiling at the notion of being "like" some sedevacantists became an obstacle for further pursuing common ground.
-
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept apostates as popes.
I have a whole list of magisterial quotes that are irreconcilable with the resistance view and that is excluding the question of a heretical pope, just plain teaching on the papacy (see attachment, the list is not nearly exhaustive, of course).
So I would say that while it is possible to be R&R and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).
I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.
So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
-
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept apostates as popes.
I have a whole list of magisterial quotes that are irreconcilable with the resistance view and that is excluding the question of a heretical pope, just plain teaching on the papacy (see attachment, the list is not nearly exhaustive, of course).
So I would say that while it is possible to be R&R and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
I checked the attachment and read it until I found the first error, which is to say I stopped right after the beginning where it states: "...Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith..." which literally, makes no sense compared to: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith..."
I went on a little further and saw more inconsistencies and where it leads, so I stopped.
I am totally onboard with Matthew's; "there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package..."
-
Anyone who thinks the Crisis has been completely or adequately explained, much less solved, by their limited and flawed "side" or solution clearly doesn't understand the gravity or depths of the Crisis in the Church.
If Roland Emmerich made a disaster movie about the Church, he couldn't destroy or cause confusion within the Church like we actually have today with the Crisis in the Church. You know what they say about R.E. -- that he has a vendetta against the earth. He can't destroy enough stuff in his movies. Watch "The Day after Tomorrow" or "2012". Now apply that kind of chaos and destruction to the Church -- and consider that the Crisis in the Church is actually much worse.
I'm dead serious. If you could SEE spiritual destruction, if errors were collapsing skyscrapers, if souls losing the Faith were people dying, if heresies were cities sliding into the ocean or erupting volcanoes, then Vatican II would be worse than any Roland Emmerich disaster movie. We are NOT in normal times. The Crisis in the Church is offered as an excuse for a lot of things these days, but FOR GOOD REASON.
In the "universe" portrayed by the Emmerich films, don't you suppose "Crisis in the Climate" was brought up as an excuse literally millions of times worldwide for why people couldn't come to work, pay their bills, fulfill various agreements and obligations, etc.? Of course it would be. They can't show all these interactions of the common man on-screen or the movie would be 150 hours long. But you can imagine the hundreds of millions of times the Crisis in the Climate would be used, sometimes without words, to justify all kinds of non-standard behavior and consequences. AND EACH AND EVERY TIME, THAT EXCUSE WOULD BE WELL JUSTIFIED.
But worst of all is the CONFUSION element -- it's not just destruction that happened at Vatican II. You heard of the confusing movie "Inception"? That movie where you had dreams within dreams within dreams? Imagine that kind of confusion thrown in for good measure.
-
What is "sedeimpoundism"?
-
When I hear someone complaining about this or that position on the Pope being schismatic or heretical
1. I realize that they mean "during normal times" (though they don't always verbalize that -- I know that's what they are thinking)
2. If they don't outright deny the Crisis, then they at least vastly scale it down: from a Tyrannosaurus Rex down to a Chihuahua.
3. They are objectively as foolish as a man in the movie "2012" calling an employee in L.A. and complaining that they didn't show up for work -- despite the fact that L.A. just had a 10.5 earthquake and parts of the city slid into the ocean earlier today.
-
What is "sedeimpoundism"?
That the Pope is still the Pope but manifest heresy prevents him from legitimately exercising his magisterial authority. Therefore, he is "impounded" from acting as Pope. I think it comes from John of St. Thomas.
It's basically the same as sedeprivationism except it presupposes that the Pope is legitimate, rather than a "Pope-elect". The problem I've come to have with sedeimpoundism is that it appears to contradict Vatican I by separating the Office from its Power. Which was condemned.
-
I checked the attachment and read it until I found the first error, which is to say I stopped right after the beginning where it states: "...Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith..." which literally, makes no sense compared to: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith..."
I went on a little further and saw more inconsistencies and where it leads, so I stopped.
I am totally onboard with Matthew's; "there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package..."
That's a direct quote from Vatican I :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
What are you now finding errors in Vatican I?
Potato-potato if you find the translation imperfect.
-
That's a direct quote from Vatican I :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
What are you now finding errors in Vatican I?
Potato-potato if you find the translation imperfect.
Well, Stubborn has gone on record rejecting the 19th and 20th century theologians.
-
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).
I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.
So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
I would like to see the list.
And your parody doesn't work because you don't actually believe that there is a magical threshold where the Church defects after a certain period. 3 years? 5? 10? 12.65? 60.2?
In addition, some theologian with an imprimatur said even if during the Great Western schism there were no popes there was no problem. Cdl Manning or O'Reilly maybe.
-
Well, Stubborn has gone on record rejecting the 19th and 20th century theologians.
He just wants an excuse not to read a few pages of magisterial docuмents completely shredding his position. The beauty of it is I don't even have to interpret them it's plain as day what they mean and it doesn't even touch on the question of a heretical pope, just uncontested doctrine.
-
I checked the attachment and read it until I found the first error, which is to say I stopped right after the beginning where it states: "...Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith..." which literally, makes no sense compared to: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith..."
Prima salus est, rectae fidei regulam custodire.
rectae, non vere
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Give me a break Stubborn, you don't even check the original Latin before criticizing my more faithful translation.
Honestly, what a petty excuse.
-
Well, Stubborn has gone on record rejecting the 19th and 20th century theologians.
The problematic Spirit of Vatican I, eh?
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
-
What have they got right? That we need to oppose the modern Popes and not follow/obey them. And 99.5% of the material we share in the "Traditional" package.
Arguing about Sedevacantism is a direct result of the BISHOPS/PRIESTS dividing us -- yes, just like (((them))), they keep us divided. And yes, that's doing the devil's work.
The fact is: sedevacantists and R&R are both TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, part of the classic TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT which started spontaneously everywhere immediately after Vatican II, and will continue until the Crisis in the Church is over. Some might lose heart, some might betray, some might defect -- but for all we know the Traditional Movement might turn out to be WHERE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS, EXCLUSIVELY during these dark years.
No investigation, no argumentation, is going to come up with the silver bullet at this point. By silver bullet, I mean "The One Ring" or the evidence/argument which will convince 100% (not just 99%) of those *of good will* over to said position.
See, the problem is that many mistake their own judgment, their own opinion, for that silver bullet. They therefore conclude that anyone disagreeing with them is either malicious (of bad will) or literally stupid. That is NOT true, however.
MY opinion is that only God can sort out this mess. My reasoning is rock-solid: we've been trying to solve this Crisis with human means for 52 years and counting. It hasn't worked. We have tried. We have had holy men, brilliant men, prudent men -- nothing has worked. The mystery is too deep; it must be similar to a Supernatural Mystery, where God has to reveal it because we'd NEVER work it out by ourselves. Like the Holy Trinity for example.
Back in the early days of CathInfo, around 2007-2009, some R&R had a nice discussion with a sedevacantist. I think it was my wife and the sedevacantist was Gladius_Veritatis. We asked him, "Say we, who are R&R, decided today to adopt Sedevacantism. Of what practical benefit would that be to us? We're not Novus Ordo; we're already doing all the same things you Sedevacantists do." All he could say was, "Well, you'd have the *truth* and that's something..."
But my point: there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package. By the Traditional Catholic movement, I mean the no-compromises movement that resists modernism but is pretty basic:
1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, ignore the modern Churchmen who are 99.9% presumed Modernist or tainted Modernist at this point
2. Seek out priests/bishops who will offer the traditional Mass and sacraments, who are formed in a pre-Vatican II manner (Aquinas, etc.) and will preach the pre-Vatican II, true Catholic Faith -- also who are properly ordained/consecrated.
3. No scruples about "jurisdiction" for any of the sacraments, including marriage and confession. No need to ask permission from anyone, even the Pope, to stay Catholic and/or save our soul.
4. Believe in a "Crisis in the Church" which is about the FAITH, not just the Mass.
That's it. That is what God caused to arise on earth in all places after Vatican II. Everything additional is a NOVELTY, an ACCRETION, something EXTRA. That includes all theories about the Pope. Sedes used to sit side-by-side with non-Sedes in Traditional (independent) chapels, considering the Pope question to be part of their own personal opinion only. It wasn't their identity like it is today.
But it's not just Sedes that "added" to the Traditional Movement. Indulters twisted the movement into a "Latin Mass" movement, ignoring the fact that it's a Crisis of Faith, not just the Mass. And they added "you need to be on good terms with Rome, you need to have permission, jurisdiction, etc." to the list of beliefs. That is objectively a NOVELTY, because there was no question of permission from 1970-1984 or especially 1988! What did Trads do during that period? See what I mean? Whatever is true, had to have been available AT ALL TIMES after the Crisis began, until the present day. The truth is not going to contradict itself or radically change during that time period. Either supplied jurisdiction is legitimate during a great Crisis, or it's not. If it's not, then the Catholic Faith was completely snuffed out from 1970 - 1988. NOT POSSIBLE.
And the SSPX added something as well: worship of their organization. Bishop Williamson got it right, trying to keep the SSPX humble. He compared SSPX to a fat ugly kid in a tug-of-war, the "anchor man" who holds the line, but isn't popular or pretty. He also warned seminarians in 2001 that the ONLY STRENGTH of the SSPX consisted in their uncompromised defense of the Truth, and that they could fail someday. If and when the SSPX failed, God would be fine because He didn't need them: He could raise up children to Abraham "from the very stones". But most SSPX parishioners and priests are far too proud of their organization, even putting it FIRST above the good of souls. They think they OWN the souls. They think they ARE the Church. They think the souls in their care exist for the good of the SSPX, instead of the other way around. That has been their tendency, their weakness dating back to the 80's. But it's gotten very bad in recent years. Not everyone is fully guilty, but all too many have imbibed this error to a greater or lesser degree. When you hear SSPX priests or Faithful call the Resistance "disobedient", "illegitimate", "don't attend their Masses", that's my proof right there. Come on!
Come on Matthew. It is common knowledge that there are people within different camps (SSPX, Sedes, Resistance, yes even Resistance priest and folks!) redlighting the other Masses. Trying to be fair here.
-
That's a direct quote from Vatican I :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
What are you now finding errors in Vatican I?
Potato-potato if you find the translation imperfect.
My quote is from V1, your quote cannot be from V1 as it does not make any sense at all. I call that an error, whether done on purpose or by mistake we cannot say, but it is what it is, an error.
-
Well, Stubborn has gone on record rejecting the 19th and 20th century theologians.
Not all of them, only certain ones of the last few centuries, some of the ones who are respected and most often quoted. The ones who've led faithful Catholics to believe that their opinions as theologians are in fact de fide teachings of the Church, which in turn fuels the sedeism idea to go from a personal opinion to indisputable fact in the minds of sedes. I reject those theologians' opinions.
-
He just wants an excuse not to read a few pages of magisterial docuмents completely shredding his position. The beauty of it is I don't even have to interpret them it's plain as day what they mean and it doesn't even touch on the question of a heretical pope, just uncontested doctrine.
No, you are wrong here, since this crisis began I've read quite a bit more than only "a few pages" and debated this subject many times. It amounts to doing what I did - read until the first error, no need to read further. Same tired old argument.
My guess is you copied at least some of that material from sede sites, if not, you could have.
-
Interestingly, Bishop Williamson said at 1:00:17, that the bishops "have lost their authority, because they have lost the truth"... perhaps he will apply this principle to the "Bishop" of Rome? https://mobile.twitter.com/rtf_media/status/1557729218133340160
:incense:
-
Interestingly, Bishop Williamson said at 1:00:17, that the bishops "have lost their authority, because they have lost the truth"... perhaps he will apply this principle to the "Bishop" of Rome? https://mobile.twitter.com/rtf_media/status/1557729218133340160
:incense:
I think he does, but he undoubtedly means that in the moral sense, where they've lost their moral authority, the requirement for people to obey them.
-
In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).
I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.
So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.
I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.
Agree. Bold is basically my problem with sedevacantism. I attend the SSPX mass by the way. Still this crazy situation worries me and I'm afraid of being wrong, I pray daily for God to restore the Church and show the right path clearly.
-
That objection regarding the "disappearance" of the hierarchy had been addressed 100 times, nor is it even issue with the sedeprivationist position any more than it is with Father Chazal's sedeprivationism. Very simply, a material vacancy does not constitute a formal cessation of the office or the power of the office. Again we are dealing with the simplistic and (therefore false) bifurcation of the debate into two discrete camps.
SVs on the other hand have just as many quotes from the Magisterium and Fathers and theologians that repudiate the core principles of R&R.
And yet Sedeprivationism and Sedeimpoundism resolve both sets of difficulties.
Sure, great, we have a guy traipsing around Rome in a white cassock. What does it even matter if said guy is corrupting the faith and leading souls to hell? That defeats the very raison d'etre of the office in the first place. And at that point, we'd be better off without this guy leading people into error under the false pretenses that he has some kind of authority to "bind".
This video here solidly address and the refutes regarding a material cessation of office:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xYLg0M2LY
-
Sure, great, we have a guy traipsing around Rome in a white cassock. What does it even matter if said guy is corrupting the faith and leading souls to hell?
This is what I think of every time I hear this:
"Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him."[Ecclesiasticus 15:18]
As adults, nobody, but nobody can be led to where they do not want to go. Which is to say that those who follow, do so because they already want to go to the place they're being led to. Which means those who follow, bear some guilt or culpability for following. The more they know or knew, the greater their culpability and the greater will be their punishment if they don't get back on the narrow road - as many trads have done.
After all, those who do not want to go, i.e. all trads, do not follow. Many may end up going in some other wrong direction on their own, or by choosing to follow some other man or group, but if they don't want to go to where the pope and conciliar church is leading them, then they do not follow.
This is something that is most often completely overlooked in this crisis. Some portion, I think a big portion of the blame for this crisis falls on those who have and still follow. After all, if all of the faithful did what what they're supposed to do, which is what trads did, then no one could say that the popes are "leading souls to hell."
Just a thought.