Author Topic: Why isnt RR or SV victorious yet? Been 45 years! (Read 6651 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 14, 2014, 03:40:42 PM »

The Sedevacantist side has its arguments, docuмents, quotes from the saints, private revelations.

The Recognize & Resist side has its arguments, docuмents, quotes from the saints, private revelations.

Both sides claim quite a following, though the SSPX (before it started dropping the "Resist" part) -- representing the R&R position -- was much larger.

At any rate, in the past FORTY-FIVE YEARS* neither side has managed to put together a convincing enough case to absorb the other side or reduce it to a small, stubborn, sect of bad-willed people.

It hasn't been for lack of trying! Every day, men on both sides come forward, trying to be the hero that will discover the Holy Grail of this Crisis buried deep inside some Patristic writing, Scripture, private revelation, Vatican archives, and/or the laws of Logic.

But it appears to me that the case is NOT open-and-shut as some would have us believe.

Which makes sense to me (and others). A crisis of this magnitude has never happened before. No, the Arian crisis wasn't this bad. No, the Great Schism wasn't either. Those crises were faint foreshadowings of our current Crisis. And as far as I know, Our Lord hasn't appeared to anyone to definitively rule on the Sede vs. R&R debate.

Since we still have these 2 sides, one explanation is that either the R&R side or the Sede side is filled with ignorant and/or bad-willed people. I reject that hypothesis.

Even if you restrict yourself to the well-educated and well-informed on both sides, I wouldn't be willing to admit that 100% of either side is bad-willed.

So we have this stalemate.

Apparently each side has some very powerful arguments, against which the other side hurls its arrows and countermeasures in vain. My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church. It all depends on which dogma you're going to focus on.

I think it bothers each side that the other side exists -- the R&R Catholics feel like timid fence-sitters next to the Sedes, and the Sedes feel like imprudent or simplistic hotheads next to the R&Rs. They both have that little voice asking them, "Are you sure you're right?" so the more argumentative among them spend hours of their time every week (or even every day!) on polemics to try to crush the other side.

Both sides certainly have things to be embarrassed about in the past 45 years regarding their members, leaders, even the official policies of some of their adherents. I need not going into detail here. If you honestly aren't aware of these embarrassments, I can enlighten you.

But after 45 years, here we are.

* counting from 1969 -- this date is just picked out of thin air -- most Sedes say the interregnum began earlier than that. So replace 45 years with 52 years or whatever. If the number is greater, my post is just all the more true.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2014, 03:59:26 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church.

I agree with your conclusion. Now... how to we get unity out of the Traditional clergy?

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:05:15 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Matthew
My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church.

I agree with your conclusion. Now... how to we get unity out of the Traditional clergy?

I do too, but how do we get a group that recognizes Francis etal as pope and a group that does not recognize Francis etal as pope to unite?

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:05:15 PM »

When you stop and think about it, that we've been having this debate for 45+ years, you understand why some supporters on either side embrace the notion that their opponents are

bad-willed
and/or
stupid

But I don't think it's that simple. An honest Catholic can look at the persons involved and quickly see that isn't the case.

Don't get me wrong; each side has its "shame" (embarrassing priests/leaders) which its opponents love to keep pointing out. Kicking them where it counts, as it were.

But there's no way you can eliminate *all* the opponents as stupid or bad-willed. There are still those good, intelligent Catholics who have come to the opposite conclusion you have (whatever that might be).

A quick read over dozens of threads on CathInfo alone proves the existence of good-willed Catholics on both sides of the debate. Plus there are plenty more holy men and women *completely offline* which give the lie to the belief that one or the other side is populated by "the idiots" and/or "the evil".

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:07:35 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Matthew
My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church.

I agree with your conclusion. Now... how to we get unity out of the Traditional clergy?

I do too, but how do we get a group that recognizes Francis etal as pope and a group that does not recognize Francis etal as pope to unite?

Uniting completely might be extremely difficult. What we MUST do, however, is remain Catholic and charitable, or we will be called on the carpet by the Just Judge and might even lose our souls, finding our Trad selves right next to a pedophile priest for eternity in Hell.

What good will our Trad-ness gain us then? There is more than one way to lose your soul. The devil is well aware of this.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:08:13 PM »

Well, I think the fact that there is no more divisive issue among Catholics today and that no authority has stepped in to settle the matter is a further proof that there isn't a pope, since one of the main responsibilities of a pope is to settle doctrinal disputes. Not that this is an argument in and of itself, but to be taken in context with the rest of them. The ongoing "battle" between these positions without the intervention of an authority suggests that there is no authority to intervene. This isn't 1395 or even 1930 where information travelled slowly. You think Francis or Benedict or JPII were unaware that traditionalists are habitually at each others throats about this, denouncing their fellow Catholics as heretics?

Anyways, I'm not so sure that your argument can't be turned around to shed doubt on traditionalism itself, since after 45 years the Novus Ordo still outnumbers us substantially and still has arguments against the traditional position (hermeneutic of continuity).

I wouldn't say those who remain unconvinced of one thing or another (if we're only counting those who are inclined to investigate the issue and capable of understanding it*) are of bad will necessarily, because I think one can be stubborn without being of bad will, and a careful approach is always the best approach, so just because someone hears a great argument today doesn't mean they'll actually adopt it by tomorrow; due investigation is needed and such a person would probably sin by rashly accepting something without actually being convinced of it. This has more to do with that person's personality than it does the actually efficacy or soundness of the argument they're swayed by.

*I don't think there's anyone incapable of forming a sound judgement on the issue, only that there are those who say or think they aren't, and then proceed accordingly by not looking at the issue. I don't have a problem with this person's course of action, though I do disagree that they are incapable of understanding the issues. It's the same principle of personal judgement that they've already applied to the Novus Ordo and the new doctrines with a different object (the legitimacy of X, Y or Z papacies).

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:12:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Matthew
My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church.

I agree with your conclusion. Now... how to we get unity out of the Traditional clergy?

I do too, but how do we get a group that recognizes Francis etal as pope and a group that does not recognize Francis etal as pope to unite?

Uniting completely might be extremely difficult. What we MUST do, however, is remain Catholic and charitable, or we will be called on the carpet by the Just Judge and might even lose our souls, finding our Trad selves right next to a pedophile priest for eternity in Hell.

What good will our Trad-ness gain us then? There is more than one way to lose your soul. The devil is well aware of this.

For sure. I guess there's a part of me that wants to believe that if we actually united that something would change. I also recognize that I'm probably dreaming.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:13:45 PM »

I think the key is to remember that the Pope question is a prudential decision and nothing more.

"Which chapel offers me and my family the best chance to maintain the Catholic Faith and grow in the love and knowledge of Christ?" That should be our only goal. We shouldn't have deep "brand loyalty" for any group more specific than the true Catholic Church itself.

I was a devout SSPX-supporter for years. But thanks to Bishop Williamson, I never got over-patriotic about that organization. I followed them only insofar as they were faithful, and without too much difficulty detached myself from them (emotionally, etc.) once they betrayed and headed back towards Modernist Rome. If it weren't for that psychological preparation, I might have ended up following them back to Modernist Rome as we speak (as many unfortunately are!)

None of us has any certainty in the matter, regardless of apparent external confidence or bluster. No matter how vehement you are, even if you add imprudent oaths, it doesn't change the fact that you still don't have any proof from God that you are doing the right thing objectively speaking.

If we could all remember this, there'd be a lot less uncharitable bickering, and a lot more humility.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:19:48 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Anyways, I'm not so sure that your argument can't be turned around to shed doubt on traditionalism itself, since after 45 years the Novus Ordo still outnumbers us substantially and still has arguments against the traditional position (hermeneutic of continuity).

I disagree.

The case for the novelty and revolutionary nature of the Novus Ordo is quite clear-cut. The evidence is legion for anyone aware of any Church History, history of Vatican II itself, knowledge of Modernism, etc.

So therefore anyone still in the Novus Ordo is either ignorant or malicious. Remember, though, malicious doesn't necessarily mean "evil" -- it can be just a culpable ignorance (like when you suspect something is sinful, so you don't go for the Catechism book to find out). I think plenty of Novus Ordo Catholics suspect that the Trad way is "harder" so they "don't go there".

And for most, it's probably a combination of ignorance and malice. However, we'll never know what proportion, and so we have to leave God to be the judge of each soul still attending the Novus Ordo today.

We must be patient, charitable, and do our best to instruct them.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:26:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Anyways, I'm not so sure that your argument can't be turned around to shed doubt on traditionalism itself, since after 45 years the Novus Ordo still outnumbers us substantially and still has arguments against the traditional position (hermeneutic of continuity).

I disagree.

The case for the novelty and revolutionary nature of the Novus Ordo is quite clear-cut. The evidence is legion for anyone aware of any Church History, history of Vatican II itself, knowledge of Modernism, etc.

So therefore anyone still in the Novus Ordo is either ignorant or malicious. Remember, though, malicious doesn't necessarily mean "evil" -- it can be just a culpable ignorance (like when you suspect something is sinful, so you don't go for the Catechism book to find out). I think plenty of Novus Ordo Catholics suspect that the Trad way is "harder" so they "don't go there".

And for most, it's probably a combination of ignorance and malice. However, we'll never know what proportion, and so we have to leave God to be the judge of each soul still attending the Novus Ordo today.

We must be patient, charitable, and do our best to instruct them.

Not all of us were raised in Tradition, or stayed in it. Many came from the N.O. in one way or another.

For those who have found Tradition after the Novus Ordo, it isn't *that* simple or clear-cut. It is once you understand the issues, sure, but let's not pretend like going to one TLM after time in the N.O. is a profound moment of epiphany whereby the N.O. is forever abandoned as being non-Catholic. It doesn't work that way, even though it is clear in retrospect. It's remarkably clear for traditional Catholics, and becomes even clearer as time goes on.

Ditto to the current spat between SV and R&R. IMO, anyways.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:35:27 PM »

You presume we must treat the Novus Ordo as non-Catholic at some point.

Let's focus on the positive -- the embracing of Tradition.

And yes, there's an "epiphany" moment when a N.O. Catholic realizes that Tradition isn't the bad guy, and becomes favorable to it.

What they think of the Novus Ordo at that point is beside the point.

At that point, they just have to integrate that new belief in with their life (their spouse and family who might not have arrived there yet, their geography which might not have good options for the TLM, etc.) That will explain the differences among "converts to Tradition".

As the malice and/or ignorance melts away, they will become more favorable towards Tradition.

My point, again, is that Tradition is the correct position. The Catholic Faith itself is inherently Traditional. We can all prove this. So unlike the R&R/Sede debate, the Tradition vs. Novus Ordo debate is very clear-cut.

There is no Novus Ordo side that can fight toe-to-toe with the Traditional position. They are the losing side, period.

History, the Fathers, Scripture, Tradition, the Popes, and Catholic Doctrine are all solidly and conclusively on our side.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:37:44 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Matthew
My conclusion: Each side is a "valid" response to this Crisis in the Church.

I agree with your conclusion. Now... how to we get unity out of the Traditional clergy?

I do too, but how do we get a group that recognizes Francis etal as pope and a group that does not recognize Francis etal as pope to unite?

Excellent OP Matthew! :applause:

2Vermont, unity among all trads must be possible without the pope. I say this only as an opinion, not a fact, because if Catholic unity without a pope is impossible, then we're all done for because for all intents and purposes, whether SV or R&R, we may as well have been without a pope since John XXIII yet we still, as always, know what it takes to be united in the core beliefs.

So the way to start to get a group united, is for everyone to start at the very foundation and work our way up, start at the very heart and soul of our faith and our religion, something(s) every Catholic believes, something every Catholic must believe completely, something strictly Catholic which is the very foundation of our faith. If we can all agree on what that is and be 100% united in believing and promulgating it, THAT will be a start - and we go from there.

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:43:05 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

You presume we must treat the Novus Ordo as non-Catholic at some point.

I treat the Novus Ordo as non-Catholic. Though I believe it is possible to remain a true Catholic within the Novus Ordo, the official religion of the Novus Ordo is non-Catholic.

ggreg · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2014, 04:47:42 PM »

Perhaps God wants no human camp claiming "victory", so we are all forced to recognize that victory over Satan belongs to His mother and Her alone.

That is my theory anyway.

I think that when the chastisement comes we will ALL be humbled.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2014, 05:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Matthew
You presume we must treat the Novus Ordo as non-Catholic at some point.

I treat the Novus Ordo as non-Catholic. Though I believe it is possible to remain a true Catholic within the Novus Ordo, the official religion of the Novus Ordo is non-Catholic.

I agree with this. However, I do think it is much harder to be a true Catholic in the NO since typically you are unaware of the true teachings of the Catholic Faith when you are entrenched in the NO.