Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

You and Raoul keep saying that both sides can't be right. But actually, that is wrong on two accounts.

Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, Raoul will not respond to our comments. He comes in with his psycho-prophetic words, then disappears so he has to defend nothing. He acts as if Zionists are attacking him through this forum. Its sad actually.

You admit you're a "novice", yet you seem to have strong opinions about those who are obviously better read than you. Those two things usually go hand-in-hand.

Myrna knows what is right and wrong too, yet she makes a lot of errors in her comments, just like you do.

To Spiritus I must respond to his words "I used to be a Novus Ordite and converted to being a Traditionalist. Now all of a sudden it doesn't mean squat unless I become a sedevacantist?"

You resent my post because why?  

Sedevacantist means the Chair of Peter is empty from a Catholic pope sitting there.  What you are saying is, I reject  being a Novus Ordite but will defend its pope.  How can you reject the religion the pope is the head of?

Someone posted God doesn't care what we believe about the pope, so then why spend all your energy defending the heretic?  

I didn't know him before he left, but I cant imagine some of his comments being much worse. What I don't get is he seem to have a lot of knowledge, yet doesn't see that taking his viewpoint too far is heretical. He also has the mentality of pitting traditionalist against each other which is also very grotesque.

This seems to be the mentality of most who I've met who attend CMRI- I don't know if its the spirit of those who attend or their priests pushing this idea on the laity; I do feel its a combination of both which is most likely the case from people I've spoken with. Unfortunately, though they are valid, I'm finding it harder and harder to support the CMRI.

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Whoa!  Disagree with her comment all you like, s2s, but calling the words you quoted HERESY is a wee bit over the top, amigo...

As is your incorrectly asserting that various statements of the post-conciliar popes are heresy.

1. The SSPX position is a legitimate position to hold. The Church has not pronounced, it is a disputed matter. We have certitude regarding sedevacantism but we cannot impose this on those that differ. We must treat them as fellow Catholics that we see hold an erroneous position. We are the ones if you like, that appear to have gone out on a limb, compared to normal times, and to sedeplenists look as if we are not subject to the Sovereign Pontiff.
 
2. Sedevacantists that condemn the SSPX and treat them as less than fellow brethren are not simply holding an erroneous position, on a disputed matter. How we are to treat fellow Catholics, including those that we see hold erroneous positions on matters not judged by the Church has never been a disputed matter. It is clear that we are to retain the bonds of unity and charity with fellow members of the Mystical Body. This is Christianity. This is what perturbs me so much about these hardline sedes. What they are doing is not actually legitimate.
 
3. It does not follow from holding the sedevacantist position that sedeplenists are not Catholic. However, we should be able to understand that for those that do hold the sedeplenist position, it is possible for some to think of sedevacantists as not Catholic. And we have to see that this would be indeed the right thing to do in ordinary times, the Catholic position, as Catholics must be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff, and those that are not subject would be schismatics. Fortunately, there are few out there that take this extreme position by being so unforgiving in these confusing times, as they too make allowances. These sedeplenists that do not take the hard line position are those that have a broader mind, in the good sense, and can see why we hold to the sedevacantist position, even though they think it erroneous, and therefore they apply Christian principles and treat us as fellow Catholics, albeit ones in error. Such as all the SSPX priests I have ever met, and laypeople, bar one perhaps.
 
So, whilst we have to refrain from making uncharitable judgements for either party, it is perfectly legitimate to feel repelled and to speak out against what we see is a position in contradiction with undisputed teachings on how we are to treat our fellow Catholics. If we have faith without charity we are as "tinkling cymbals". And if we breach charity with fellow Catholics and trangress Christian principles will our faith remain intact?
 
The are only two excuses I can think of for sedevacantists treating the SSPX as less than fellow Catholics.
 
1. If they hold that sedevacantism is not a disputed matter, but something that must be believed to be Catholic. If this is the case, then they are elevating their judgements to those of the Church, which is an incredibly arrogant, proud thing to do in addition to being super erroneous. They do not know their faith as well as they think they do. They would need to prove that the sedevacantist opinion is not an opinion but a dogma. This position would indeed lead to schism eventually I believe.
 
2. If they hold the position that the SSPX are schismatic. And if this is the case, then they had better have good evidence, as they will be judged as they judge. And I am not prepared to risk that judgement nor give any excuses for it either without solid evidence. It must be proven according to Catholic teachings and leave no room for dispute.
 
Further, if a sedevacantist hold neither of the above two propositions then he has no excuse for breaching the bonds of unity and charity with the SSPX.
 
So, to sum up - The hardline sedevacantist who casts others out of the church or severs communion with SSPX sedeplenists cannot be defended, as opposed to the SSPX sedeplenist because the former's actions are a transgression against the bond of unity we must keep with fellow Catholics so as to retain our membership in the Church. Whereas the latter's position, whilst erroneous, is permissable, and does not result in a breach against the bond of unity with fellow catholics. The sedevacantist that severs communion with the SSPX or any traditional Catholic for that matter or treats them as schismatics is in fact in danger of schism themselves.
 
John, please give me your thoughts and let me know if I am wrong on any of this.
 
Sincerely,


_____________________________________________________________


Dear X,

I think that is almost all exactly right.

But, we must note, I think, that it is possible legitimately to avoid other Catholics even though one recognises them as one's fellow Catholics, for several reasons. For example, if their errors, no matter how innocently held, constitute, in our judgement, a danger to ourselves or our children. Of course, this is all a question of prudent judgement formed with appropriate reluctance whilst considering the almost incalculable good of that peace which Our Lord commanded us to keep.
 
One thing that bothers me about this whole willingness to condemn and cut off communion is that the spirit of the old traditional Catholics of the 'seventies and 'eighties was to highlight principles and issues, and not so much persons. So we would be concerned with whether the priest we were thinking of approaching was genuinely ordained, or only "ordained" in the new rite. It was a question of principle. Some persons would fall foul of it and we would avoid them. But the spirit of this new situation feels schismatic. It's like the SSPX is now regarded as a monolithic institution with an openly heretical or schismatic agenda to which all of its members subscribe, and which must therefore be avoided per se. If that is true, then let those who think it say so without dissembling, and then prove it properly, as you've said in your email. And if it isn't true (which it isn't, in my view) then these fellow Catholics of the SSPX must be treated with kindness and every possible excuse made for them in those points where we differ with them. There is no third (Catholic) way.

As for "schismatic" sedevacantists being indefensible - I think perhaps that is a little strong. One could, for example, point out in their favour that they may be motivated by a genuine zeal for the unity of the Church and they may not be well-instructed on the things you mention. It's ironic, and one of the paradoxes of our era, that a zeal for unity may even lead to a kind of practical schism. !
 
Thank you for such a lengthy and interesting email on this question. It's the best thing I've seen on it for some time!
 
Yours in Christ, King of our intellects and wills,
John Lane.