Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Most novus ordites view the church as something to do on Sunday morning (when they feel like it) or as a early kick off to a big family event.
I did attend some lectures at a novus ordo temple near my home and there was a potluck before hand and I will admit that there was plenty of good food and people who had known each other all their lives sitting around talking about their jobs, about some TV show, about some sports event or even about a rock concert.
I think "social event" or "family gathering" is a perfectly fine description.
-
I've pointed out on several of the SV vs. R&R threads that both sides have some valid points, but both sides have significant flaws. That's why neither of these sides can WIN out. That's why I do not consider myself either one of these, but rather what I call "sede-doubtist" and "anti-defectionist". SVs can point out the very real problems with R&R and thus remain convinced of their position; and vice versa. Meanwhile, each side remains attached to the valid points of their position. At the end of the day, however, and this is painfully obvious on this forum, very few people are willing to honestly examine the evidence and the arguments with an open mind and have emotional attachments to their positions.
That's why, Matthew, it was refreshing to see you change your opinion on the geocentrist issue, not because I happen to be a geocentrist myself, but because upon examining the evidence you were willing to go where the truth led you. That's a rare thing to see.
-
It is precisely BECAUSE the shepherd has been struck that the sheep are scattered.
-
There will never be an actual solution to the crisis because as st. Paus states, heresies must exist. God allows it. The current heresy the Church is fighting is Modernism, starting about 200 hundred years ago but Modernism will be surely defeated, just as Arianism was defeated. Our Lord permits heresy in the Church, that those who are aproved may merit by combating it.
Truth is an epic confrontation between Good and Evil, between Darkness and the Light. The Church has power on Her Own, which the parasites that infests Her will never be able to completely extinguish. Here, is the Church in all her splendor, laboring, (such as she did under the arians) but far from dead. In the very struggle between Herself and all the heretics that opress Her, she moves, breaths and has Her life.
-
What took you guys so long. I know of a independent priest who told me 20 years ago that he thought that lay people had correctly understood, "the informal unity" you suggest, better than most clergy.
-
I've pointed out on several of the SV vs. R&R threads that both sides have some valid points, but both sides have significant flaws. That's why neither of these sides can WIN out. That's why I do not consider myself either one of these, but rather what I call "sede-doubtist" and "anti-defectionist". SVs can point out the very real problems with R&R and thus remain convinced of their position; and vice versa. Meanwhile, each side remains attached to the valid points of their position. At the end of the day, however, and this is painfully obvious on this forum, very few people are willing to honestly examine the evidence and the arguments with an open mind and have emotional attachments to their positions.
That's why, Matthew, it was refreshing to see you change your opinion on the geocentrist issue, not because I happen to be a geocentrist myself, but because upon examining the evidence you were willing to go where the truth led you. That's a rare thing to see.
Yes - and you and I both know this post to be true better than most posters here can either dream or imagine. Intellectual honesty has always been your strong point !
Who was it who once said that a great many people think they are thinking when they are in point of fact only rearranging their own prejudices.
-
It is precisely BECAUSE the shepherd has been struck that the sheep are scattered.
Yes ! And that doesn't result in either position excluding the other per se as we both agree.
-
I guess my opinion on this doesn't amount to a hill of beans but here goes anyway. The driving factor behind one's position with respect to R&R vs. SV is the position of your primary priest. More or less. Of course, the fact that you are a traditional Catholic is a pure grace. And generally, I find that almost all traditionalists are primarily concerned about worshipping God in a manner that will be pleasing to Him. The theology behind it all is secondary for most of us. Raise your hand if you diligently worked out the theology first and then sought out a priest or a chapel which conformed to your position. I doubt we will see many hands although I'm sure there are a few whose study did influence their choice of chapel.
I was baptized Catholic as an infant prior to the promulgation of any of the docuмents of V2 but I was raised and "catechised" in the post-Conciliar era. Like the vast majority of my peers I fell away from the Church. But by the grace of God I was inspired by the funeral of my best friend's father to start going back to Church (Conciliar). By the grace of God, I decided to put my heart into it. I was fortunate to find others who were also putting their heart into it but it was a mixed bag. First I fell in with some charismatic renewal types. They were sincere and they were devoted to JP2 and obedient to the Conciliar authorities but I was never comfortable around that type of thing. I gravitated to more conservative groups. I ended up going to a Conciliar seminary. It was conservative and obedient to JP2 but nevertheless I was there when the sex-abuse crisis came to light in the early 2000s. I was disillusioned by that and I was starting to have my doubts. I never saw any kind of overt ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the seminary but there sure were a lot of very effeminate men there. By the grace of God I was fortunate to have had a strong desire to learn from the saints so I read a lot of books on the lives of the saints (God bless Thomas Nelson and his TAN books company!). I became frustrated that the seminary seemed to be blocking me from imitating the saints. So I left. The first thing I did was go to a traditional Latin Mass (ecclesia dei indult Mass). Within 10 minutes I knew I was home. By the grace of God, someone was leaving old Remnants and Catholic Family News issues in the back of the Church and the pastor of the Church was a laissez faire kind of guy so I started sponging up all the information contained therein and it started to dawn on me that the reason the Church was so screwed up was V2. Then Cardinal O'Malley closed my indult Church (he didn't care that from a tiny little parish of no more than 300 people came more vocations than any other parish in the entire archdiocese -- those vocations didn't count because they were traditional vocations). That made me very angry and I started looking around for somewhere else to go. Around the same time the SSPX committed to a greater presence in Boston. I started going to Mass there. It was great. I started to learn about the problems with the validity of Conciliar sacraments. I was conditionally confirmed by Bishop Tissier. I made retreats in Ridgefield. It was great! My faith was getting stronger. And then in 2012 Bishop Fellay decided to do the unthinkable and make a deal with neo-modernist Rome. I was alarmed. I started following what Bishop Williamson was saying as well as going to Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko and Fr. Chazal. I split my time between the Resistance and my local SSPX chapel. The Resistance was only having 1 Mass/month so the other weeks I continued to go to the SSPX chapel. I was hopeful that the SSPX would stop the nonsense. But then Benedict resigned and Francis rose to power. I immediately knew this guy was a bitter enemy of tradition. Ever since I started going to the SSPX chapel I thought there was a good possibility that a future pope might declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes but I never seriously looked into the SV thesis. But when Francis said "there is no Catholic God" I was beside myself. I couldn't believe that this man could be the ultimate authority of the Catholic Church. I started seriously looking into the SV thesis and I was very surprised to find that it was rock solid. I knew that SV was considered a super-heresy in the SSPX. Any time Bishop Fellay wanted to cow someone into line he would accuse them of an SV-mindset. But I thought maybe SV would be tolerated in the Resistance. Alas, those hopes were dashed late in 2013 by some statements from the Resistance priests. So I started going to the local CMRI chapel and a Church in Lawrence, MA (Sacred Heart) associated with Bishop McKenna and Bishop Morello. I am happy to be freed from the threat of being absorbed into the Conciliar Church. I can rest assured that the sacraments are valid. I am also very pleased that I have found the CMRI because almost from the very beginning of my return to the Catholic faith I had a strong devotion to Our Lady. I wear the brown scapular and pray the Rosary daily. I'm hopeful that Our Lady will obtain a final victory for me.
The way I see it, the R&R position is becoming instinct. The vast majority of R&R is going towards the FSSP position with Bishop Fellay leading the way. Many of the remaining R&R folks are at the very least sympathetic to the SV position. Many of them at the very least think that a future pope could declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes. As the Conciliar popes become less and less Catholic (I foresee women deaconesses on the horizon), more and more of the remaining R&R folks will lose confidence in the R&R position and join the SV camp. I think Pete Vere is right about that. I think a big factor pushing people to the SV position is the doubts about the validity of the Conciliar sacraments. Once you admit that the Conciliar episcopal consecration is very doubtful it is hard to justify R&R. Who are you recognizing? Laymen pretending to be priests and bishops?
-
My story is very similar to the above post. Novus Ordo to SSPX to Resistance to Sedevacantist. I supported the Resistance, but became disappointed but grateful that they 'woke me up'.
-
From the Gospel of Matthew; (Matt: 16:17-19)
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
and again; (Matt 28: 18-20)
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
I don't know about anybody else but the Catholic church is't going anywhere until the end of time.
-
Hello, and salutations.
My name is William, and I am new to this forum.
The main reason for me joining this was actually this reason (granted I have only been non "Novus Ordo" for the greater part of a year); it just seems after so much review and after reading so many articles, it is no wonder that some people like to label these movements as schisms and go as far as to say that it is a "proof" that (God forbid) the "Novus Ordo" is the true Church! Kyrie eleison.
It would be nice to see for once, a gathering of traditional minded people against our true enemies-those who are in more of a position to be declared so- instead of barraging ourselves with questions that take a manifestation of the Ss. Peter and Paul to resolve (it seems).
I have my thoughts on subjects; I have my views, but as far as certain topics are concerned, I am fairly open minded. I also keep in my mind the very fact that I could be a heretic. Right now, I could be a heretic. I hope to our Lord Jesus Christ that I am not, but in all reality, it is a possibility. However, I do my best to remain obedient to the teachings of the Church and the traditions of the Fathers.
I guess my point is that there are bigger fish to fry, for lack of a better term.
So as a general introduction, I generally do not favor argumentative stances, I am more rhetorical and definitely like to view both sides of a story. This is not to say, that I consider the opinions of declared heretics. God forbid!
Thanks for listening.
William
-
I have my views, but as far as certain topics are concerned, I am fairly open minded.
We should all be careful about being "open minded". I have an oral catechism recorded by Father Fulton Sheen in which he notes that the liberals are so open minded their brains fall right out on the floor.
We should be open to reasoned arguments, but close minded about attacks against the faith.
-
We have to concern ourselves with truth without compromise and without tarnishing due to sensibilities of the unlearned or those easily offended when their ignorance is manifest.
A starting point to work from is as follows.
A public heretic cannot be Pope.
Where do we go from there?
Further a valid Pope would not have approved
Vatican 2
The Novus Ordo Sacraments
The Novus Ordo Mass
The Novus Ordo Canon Law
And some of the Novus Ordo Saints
Where do we go from there?
We have to agree on the above undeniable facts as those who discuss abortion must agree that a human person is what is being aborted before they can proceed.
-
Have SVs correctly understood the meaning of "that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy"?
Have R&Rs correctly understood the meaning of "that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error"?
Yes, it seems we do have a stalemate.
-
Have SVs correctly understood the meaning of "that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy"?
Have R&Rs correctly understood the meaning of "that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error"?
Yes, it seems we do have a stalemate.
Not for much longer. Sedes have been steadily gaining strength at the expense of the R&R, particularly the Resistance.
My guess?
Time is on the side of the sedes right now. They will eventually absorb the Resistance.
-
Have SVs correctly understood the meaning of "that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy"?
http://sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html
Have R&Rs correctly understood the meaning of "that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error"?
They only understand this when it is convenient not when it proves SV correct.
Yes, it seems we do have a stalemate.
Please read the below in regards to perpetuity
http://sedevacantist.com/oreilly.html
-
I agree with this:
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.
But I do not agree that this necessarily follows:
So therefore anyone still in the Novus Ordo is either ignorant or malicious.
This ignores those who "Recognize" and believe (a belief well-founded, I may add) that to "Resist" is grievously sinful. Perhaps it's because I spent 40 years in the NO. But I fully understand this predicament. Think about the many people who attended the NO until the motu circa 2007--who are still within the diocesan framework. Some of these, of course, are just smells & bells Catholics. But a significant number of them are very sincere and of very good will. And many of similar good will are in parishes still far away from indult/motu and attend NO.
Btw--I am not taking a shot at the R&R position--that's the "official" stance of my chapel. But I cognitively understand "Recognize & Obey" too.
I have up-thumbed several of your posts in this thread. I fully agree that true Catholics should stop being divisive among themselves over issues that nobody on earth knows with certainty. I don't believe the current claimant is pope--I doubt all of them since Pope Pius XII. But I am not 100% sure.
-
I agree with this:
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.
But I do not agree that this necessarily follows:
So therefore anyone still in the Novus Ordo is either ignorant or malicious.
This ignores those who "Recognize" and believe (a belief well-founded, I may add) that to "Resist" is grievously sinful. Perhaps it's because I spent 40 years in the NO. But I fully understand this predicament. Think about the many people who attended the NO until the motu circa 2007--who are still within the diocesan framework. Some of these, of course, are just smells & bells Catholics. But a significant number of them are very sincere and of very good will. And many of similar good will are in parishes still far away from indult/motu and attend NO.
Btw--I am not taking a shot at the R&R position--that's the "official" stance of my chapel. But I cognitively understand "Recognize & Obey" too.
I have up-thumbed several of your posts in this thread. I fully agree that true Catholics should stop being divisive among themselves over issues that nobody on earth knows with certainty. I don't believe the current claimant is pope--I doubt all of them since Pope Pius XII. But I am not 100% sure.
I agree with you to some extent, but I believe the majority of "Recognize & Obey" as you say, have access to a diocesan TLM. For those who do not even if they're not ignorant of the problems with the NO, they are naive to think the NO is not damaging their Faith and that of their families. (I might exclude single adults from this, but if they're capable of attending the NO without damage to their Faith, they're also capable of staying home and keeping their Faith.)
-
OHCA, it depends on how you define "Recognize and Resist".
Who or what do they resist? The Pope? Or the Modernism of Vatican II? The latter is mandatory once you are not "ignorant".
Or what do you mean by "Recognize and Obey"? Indult? Conservative Novus Ordo? Or both?
Because strictly speaking a "Recognize and Obey" Catholic would attend the Novus Ordo to follow the Pope, would they not? And isn't that destructive of the Faith, as well as disobeying the Catholic doctrine that a doubtful Rite can never be licitly preferred to a sure Rite?
And if they aren't aware of that Catholic doctrine, then my statement about ignorance stands.
An Indult Catholic, which is technically a licit path for a Catholic to take, would at least have to "Resist" as much as possible the spirit of Vatican II and Modernism -- anything that distorts the Faith, morals, or Catholic practice.
I have a hard time conceiving of any "conservative Novus Ordo" Catholic without a huge helping of ignorance and/or Human Respect (caring what others think; social considerations)
I don't think there's a very solid case for "conservative Novus Ordo". I would boil that choice down to ignorance, human respect and/or malice.
Anyone who thinks we have to OBEY the Pope (whatever that means) even as the latter tears down the Church with his teeth and both hands is ignorant at best.
They don't have reality on their side at all; in fact they are running from it and living in la-la land. They just need to open their eyes. Look at the statistics of the past 50 years if they have any doubts.
I spoke with one "conservative" a few months ago and he was still optimistic about Pope Francis. Nothing will wake up these people. They are willfully blind, for whatever reason.
But you can't place them on the same footing as those with both eyes open, looking at reality, trying to pick the best or safest path. Some go R&R, others go Sede, and they each have good principles and doctrine they can reference to justify their position.
-
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).
Except, dear Mith, Mathew was slightly off in his calculations of years. He was, we are assuming, only counting those years in which an open sore had festered, and battle marks were showing. If he had counted the years of the "traditionalists", it would have been at least since 1909, or 104 years. more properly, though, the years of the "True Faith " fight we are in is 2,000 years-- whereas the Modernists of "hermeneutics of continuity gang" as you call it, still has only fifty years. Yes, as argument CAN be made that Bugnini and the Liturgical revolution really started in the 1940's-- but, at that point, they were well undercover.
-
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.
Thank you for starting this thread.
You will note that as things worsen in the Church - as the heresy of the wolves in rainbow colored ecclesiastical robes becomes more and more incontrovertibly in-your-face - the only response from Tradition is an increase in internecine, inter-fratricidal warfare.
It's positively sick.
Unfortunately, +W is leading the charge in this progeneration of division and mental illness by beating people over the head, week by interminably boring week, with useless ruminations about 'positions' that amount to so much navel gazing, while the errors (and the number of souls falling into hell) are allowed to proliferate exponentially and without any contrapunctal thrust!!!!
This is a senseless and gross provocation of the wrath of God.
-
But after 45 years, here we are.
These two positions apparently contradict each other, but they produce the EXACT SAME fruits in the practical theatre.
They produce an absolute (excluding the new Menzingen the Clown riff of SSPXBrand) disengagement from the conciliar superstructure.
They produce a reductionist defense of the Faith which amounts to 'cafeteria traditionalism.' Pet errors are weakly combatted while huge errors are absorbed into the Catholic paste by a policy of deliberately ignoring them and/or publicly espousing them.
They produce division inside the ranks of the Defenders of the Faith.
Wherefore we must stop wasting precious time and energy in focusing on the apparent differences (the contraception that satan wants us to commit until we perish from the face of the earth); we must identify, for once and for all, the common and erroneous principle which governs both positions and produces such rotten fruit; and we must abjure this principle in toto, whilst adopting the correct principle in order to move forward.
What is the correct principle?
Attack the errors - ALL OF THEM - and ignore the heretics, letting God sort out the authority problem in His own good time.
45 years of wandering aimlessly in the desert is proof positive that the authority problem is God's to solve not ours.
The defense of the Faith, however - something Tradition stinks at (go figure) - is squarely on our own shoulders.
-
Another issue with the Conservative Novus Ordo/Indult/"Recognize and Obey" position: It presupposes and parasitically thrives off the R&R position.
If it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre the R&R, there would be no "R&O" position.
The FSSP was created to compete with the SSPX, and indeed the whole Ecclesia Dei structure was created in the aftermath of the 1988 Consecrations by +ABL.
And the recent Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм was released in response to the ongoing growth and success of the SSPX.
So the Indult only gets their "have their cake and eat it too" position thanks to the blood, sweat, tears and sufferings of the real soldiers.
That is why I'm not giving them the same respect as the other two positions (R&R and Sede).
Conservative Novus Ordo is just stupid and naive. The statistics and reality itself are against the feasibility of that position. And the Indult position is a parasite of the R&R position.
How did Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics learn and keep the Faith during the past 45 years? From classic Catholic works published by TAN for example? Well, again, Thomas A. Nelson is a Traditional Catholic with a capital T. Since the 1970's, he has attended an independent chapel that he established and runs.
However you look at it, the only resistance to Modernism ultimately comes from SOME kind of resistance -- either Recognize and Resist or Sedevacantist.
-
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.
What both sides have in common is the presumption - explicit or implicit - that we have no pope.
Presupposing that John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, BXVI, and Bergoglio are validly elected popes, yet we must say that we have no pope.
Within the practical order, all traditionalists affirm - implicitly by deed and/or explicitly by speculation - that there is no pope; and this because we all apprehend - whether we consciously admit it or not - that we have not had a Catholic sitting on the Chair of Peter for decades.
Only a Catholic can legitimately govern the Church.
All of the actions (practical order) of the clergy on both sides of the debate are grounded in this fundamental apprehension of reality: There is no pope.
And this is how we may unite. The bottom line is the same in the practical order. Wherefore we unite by the unity of our praxis.
The cause of division is within the speculative order. And it is a chimera. There are so many doctrinal errors that call for combat. Why do we neglect the indispensable combat against God's enemies and instead war incessantly on His friends, and over a question the solution of which is not necessary to determine action in the practical arena?
The true obstacles to unity inside the ranks of Tradition?
Mammon, greed, pride, hunger for power, i.e., original sin.
We are a shameful lot.
-
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?
There is no authority to intervene if R&R is correct.
There is no authority to intervene if SV is correct.
We are all smart enough to see this.
Why then do we allow this stalemate to get the better of us?
Why don't we simply concentrate on combating the enemy and growing the Church by identical praxis?
Why do we allow our enemies to exploit this situation so adeptly?
Why don't we consecrate more bishops?
Mammon, pride, greed, lust for power, is the answer.
A shameful lot are we.
-
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?
There is no authority to intervene if R&R is correct.
There is no authority to intervene if SV is correct.
We are all smart enough to see this.
Why then do we allow this stalemate to get the better of us?
Why don't we simply concentrate on combating the enemy and growing the Church by identical praxis?
Why do we allow our enemies to exploit this situation so adeptly?
Why don't we consecrate more bishops?
Mammon, pride, greed, lust for power, is the answer.
A shameful lot are we.
Shameful lot indeed, but woefully misled by our clerics who keep us in this limited field of skirmish and are not at all motivated to lead us into direct conflict with the enemies of our souls.
Being locked between two gatekeeper positions out of view of the encroaching
darkness and lost within endless distractive debate.
-
Mythrandylan,
The ongoing "battle" between these positions without the intervention of an authority suggests that there is no authority to intervene.
Who can, with certitude, say that this could not be the case?
-
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?
There is no authority to intervene if R&R is correct.
There is no authority to intervene if SV is correct.
We are all smart enough to see this.
Why then do we allow this stalemate to get the better of us?
Why don't we simply concentrate on combating the enemy and growing the Church by identical praxis?
Why do we allow our enemies to exploit this situation so adeptly?
Why don't we consecrate more bishops?
Mammon, pride, greed, lust for power, is the answer.
A shameful lot are we.
Shameful lot indeed, but woefully misled by our clerics who keep us in this limited field of skirmish and are not at all motivated to lead us into direct conflict with the enemies of our souls.
Being locked between two gatekeeper positions out of view of the encroaching
darkness and lost within endless distractive debate.
Indeed.
-
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).
The mystery of iniquity, perhaps?
Also the wrath of God.
I told my mother yesterday that we are square in the middle of God's wrath upon His friends for their infidelity to Him.
And when He has exhausted His wrath upon us, He will turn it on His enemies:
We have sinned with our fathers: we have acted unjustly, we have wrought iniquity. Our fathers understood not Thy wonders in Egypt: they remembered not the multitude of Thy mercies: And they provoked to wrath going up to the sea, even the Red Sea. And He saved them for His own name' s sake: that He might make his power known . . . And he saved them from the hand of them that hated them: and he redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.
And they believed His words: and they sang His praises. They had quickly done, they forgot His works: and they waited not for His counsels. And they coveted their desire in the desert: and they tempted God in the place without water.
And they provoked Moses in the camp, Aaron the holy one of the Lord.
They made also a calf in Horeb: and they adored the graven thing. And they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass.
They forgot God, Who saved them, Who had done great things in Egypt, Wondrous works in the land of Cham: terrible things in the Red Sea. And He said that He would destroy them: had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach: To turn away His wrath, lest He should destroy them.
And they set at nought the desirable land. They believed not His word, And they murmured in their tents: they hearkened not to the voice of the Lord.
And He lifted up His hand over them: to overthrow them in the desert; And to cast down their seed among the nations, and to scatter them in the countries.
They also were initiated to Beelphegor: and ate the sacrifices of the dead. And they provoked Him with their inventions: and destruction was multiplied among them.
They provoked him also at the waters of contradiction: and Moses was afflicted for their sakes: Because they exasperated his spirit. And he distinguished with his lips. [They did not destroy the nations of which the Lord spoke unto them. And they were mingled among the heathens, and learned their works:
And served their idols, and it became a stumblingblock to them. And they sacrificed their sons, and their daughters to devils. And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan. And the land was polluted with blood, And was defiled with their works: and they went aside after their own inventions.
And the Lord was exceedingly angry with His people: and He abhorred His inheritance.
And He delivered them into the hands of the nations: and they that hated them had dominion over them. And their enemies afflicted them: and they were humbled under their hands:
Many times did He deliver them. But they provoked Him with their counsel: and they were brought low by their iniquities.
And He saw when they were in tribulation: and He heard their prayer. And He was mindful of His covenant: and repented according to the multitude of His mercies.
And he gave them unto mercies, in the sight of all those that had made them captives.
Save us, O Lord, our God: and gather us from among nations: That we may give thanks to Thy Holy Name, and may glory in Thy praise.
-
The above post is filled with truth and beauty. Again, I am prevented from giving CD a "thumbs up".
-
I think the key is to remember that the Pope question is a prudential decision and nothing more.
The pope question belongs to the speculative order, and yet has nothing to do with the determination of correct praxis.
This is evident from the observable fact that the two contradictory speculative conclusions nevertheless arrive at the exact same praxis: They both refuse to place themselves under the authority of heretics.
As this is the case, we must conclude that one need not arrive at the correct answer to the pope question to remain Catholic and save one's soul. This question is one, therefore, where Catholics have liberty until the Church rules definitively.
On the other hand, there is a speculative question that Catholics are bound to get right in order to remain Catholic and save their souls. This is the question of whether or not the pope, the cardinals, and the novus ordo bishops are Catholics who uphold and defend the Faith. This is THE question that drives praxis everywhere and in every camp: in novusordoland, in indultland, in SSPXLand; in R&Rland, and in SVland.
Both R&R and SV answer the question in the negative. This is THE principle in which the two position converge. Only the R&R position, the shamelessly dishonest of the two, does not readily and publicly admit this very first principle of its own praxis.
R&R is a flagrant phony; wherefore it has absolutely no claim to anyone's sympathy.
The infighting is shameful, but what is totally mind-boggling is this: SSPXBrand no longer answers the sine qua non question in the negative. They are now alongside the novus ordo and the indult, in affirming that these heretics are Catholic. This affirmation is still mostly implicit, but it will become explicit in a very little while.
And here's the rub: The shame of R&R is its duplicity. Because it refuses to boldly affirm that They Ain't Catholic, all the while acting in accordance with that conclusion; it is capable of hiding all manner of infidelity in its subtle, ambiguous, diplomatic expressionism. The evidence for this assertion lies in the fact that Menzingen had no trouble hiding its modernism behind R&R for well over a decade.
Where do the positions converge?
They converge in this first principle of post-conciliar true Catholic praxis: They Ain't Catholic.
Wherefore we must shed the division over a non-determinative speculative question, and throw off the mask that hides all duplicity.
As long as R&R shamelessly and deceitfully refuses to affirm, They Ain't Catholic, Catholics will keep killing Catholics with friendly fire.
We are killing each other because our leaders do not say the truth.
Only the truth will heal the divisions.
-
The above post is filled with truth and beauty. Again, I am prevented from giving CD a "thumbs up".
As you say of late: Bella premunt hostilia: Our foes press hard FROM INSIDE.
-
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!)
Indeed.
We must remain Catholics in the face of an avalanche of pressure - and soon to become wholesale sacramental blackmail - to surrender and become mere organizational rubes.
-
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.
Yup.
-
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.
Yup.
-
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.
Yup.
Stats showing the almost universal denial of transubstantiation is evidence of this; and points to the reality of widespread invalidity of administered 'sacraments,' due to inability on the part of the minister to conceive the correct intention.
-
That's why, Matthew, it was refreshing to see you change your opinion on the geocentrist issue, not because I happen to be a geocentrist myself, but because upon examining the evidence you were willing to go where the truth led you. That's a rare thing to see.
It's an awesome thing!
Quite edifying!
-
I guess my opinion on this doesn't amount to a hill of beans but here goes anyway. The driving factor behind one's position with respect to R&R vs. SV is the position of your primary priest. More or less. Of course, the fact that you are a traditional Catholic is a pure grace. And generally, I find that almost all traditionalists are primarily concerned about worshipping God in a manner that will be pleasing to Him. The theology behind it all is secondary for most of us. Raise your hand if you diligently worked out the theology first and then sought out a priest or a chapel which conformed to your position. I doubt we will see many hands although I'm sure there are a few whose study did influence their choice of chapel.
I was baptized Catholic as an infant prior to the promulgation of any of the docuмents of V2 but I was raised and "catechised" in the post-Conciliar era. Like the vast majority of my peers I fell away from the Church. But by the grace of God I was inspired by the funeral of my best friend's father to start going back to Church (Conciliar). By the grace of God, I decided to put my heart into it. I was fortunate to find others who were also putting their heart into it but it was a mixed bag. First I fell in with some charismatic renewal types. They were sincere and they were devoted to JP2 and obedient to the Conciliar authorities but I was never comfortable around that type of thing. I gravitated to more conservative groups. I ended up going to a Conciliar seminary. It was conservative and obedient to JP2 but nevertheless I was there when the sex-abuse crisis came to light in the early 2000s. I was disillusioned by that and I was starting to have my doubts. I never saw any kind of overt ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the seminary but there sure were a lot of very effeminate men there. By the grace of God I was fortunate to have had a strong desire to learn from the saints so I read a lot of books on the lives of the saints (God bless Thomas Nelson and his TAN books company!). I became frustrated that the seminary seemed to be blocking me from imitating the saints. So I left. The first thing I did was go to a traditional Latin Mass (ecclesia dei indult Mass). Within 10 minutes I knew I was home. By the grace of God, someone was leaving old Remnants and Catholic Family News issues in the back of the Church and the pastor of the Church was a laissez faire kind of guy so I started sponging up all the information contained therein and it started to dawn on me that the reason the Church was so screwed up was V2. Then Cardinal O'Malley closed my indult Church (he didn't care that from a tiny little parish of no more than 300 people came more vocations than any other parish in the entire archdiocese -- those vocations didn't count because they were traditional vocations). That made me very angry and I started looking around for somewhere else to go. Around the same time the SSPX committed to a greater presence in Boston. I started going to Mass there. It was great. I started to learn about the problems with the validity of Conciliar sacraments. I was conditionally confirmed by Bishop Tissier. I made retreats in Ridgefield. It was great! My faith was getting stronger. And then in 2012 Bishop Fellay decided to do the unthinkable and make a deal with neo-modernist Rome. I was alarmed. I started following what Bishop Williamson was saying as well as going to Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko and Fr. Chazal. I split my time between the Resistance and my local SSPX chapel. The Resistance was only having 1 Mass/month so the other weeks I continued to go to the SSPX chapel. I was hopeful that the SSPX would stop the nonsense. But then Benedict resigned and Francis rose to power. I immediately knew this guy was a bitter enemy of tradition. Ever since I started going to the SSPX chapel I thought there was a good possibility that a future pope might declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes but I never seriously looked into the SV thesis. But when Francis said "there is no Catholic God" I was beside myself. I couldn't believe that this man could be the ultimate authority of the Catholic Church. I started seriously looking into the SV thesis and I was very surprised to find that it was rock solid. I knew that SV was considered a super-heresy in the SSPX. Any time Bishop Fellay wanted to cow someone into line he would accuse them of an SV-mindset. But I thought maybe SV would be tolerated in the Resistance. Alas, those hopes were dashed late in 2013 by some statements from the Resistance priests. So I started going to the local CMRI chapel and a Church in Lawrence, MA (Sacred Heart) associated with Bishop McKenna and Bishop Morello. I am happy to be freed from the threat of being absorbed into the Conciliar Church. I can rest assured that the sacraments are valid. I am also very pleased that I have found the CMRI because almost from the very beginning of my return to the Catholic faith I had a strong devotion to Our Lady. I wear the brown scapular and pray the Rosary daily. I'm hopeful that Our Lady will obtain a final victory for me.
The way I see it, the R&R position is becoming instinct. The vast majority of R&R is going towards the FSSP position with Bishop Fellay leading the way. Many of the remaining R&R folks are at the very least sympathetic to the SV position. Many of them at the very least think that a future pope could declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes. As the Conciliar popes become less and less Catholic (I foresee women deaconesses on the horizon), more and more of the remaining R&R folks will lose confidence in the R&R position and join the SV camp. I think Pete Vere is right about that. I think a big factor pushing people to the SV position is the doubts about the validity of the Conciliar sacraments. Once you admit that the Conciliar episcopal consecration is very doubtful it is hard to justify R&R. Who are you recognizing? Laymen pretending to be priests and bishops?
Daggone interesting post, CM!!! I loved reading it. Your life parallels mine quite a bit.
I find myself in a very real place of limbo.
I spit on R&R and crush it under my feet.
I do not embrace SV because I do not need to embrace SV in order to remain Catholic.
I suppose my position is TRUTH:
- THEY Ain't Catholic.
- To submit to THEM is a mortal sin against the Faith.
- The pope question is a speculative matter which the Church has not pronounced on yet; ergo Catholics have liberty to speculate on possible solutions. They have absolutely no power or authority to be dogmatic about their conclusions.
- To refuse to publicly affirm that They Ain't Catholic is, in the objective order, the mortal sin of scandal, as this refusal to clearly state the truth leads souls away from Christ and into perdition.
-
"I find myself in a very real place of limbo" (CD)
I believe that many of us are in that place. Of late, I have likened my position to that of Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimithea when they were condemned to enter the oarless, rudderless, and sail-free boat. They had the Holy Faith and a Holy Hope in God Amighty to provide a safe harbor (hoping they would not become lunch for a school of sharks along the way!)
I have requested a small corner and have taken refuge in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and pray, pray, pray with as much confidence as I am able to muster: "Star of the stormy sea of my mortal life, may your light shine upon me so that I do not stray from the path that leads me to heaven." (prayer taken from the Testament of Mother Mariana of Jesus Torres in regard to Our Lady of Good Success)
-
I find myself in a very real place of limbo.
...
I spit on R&R and crush it under my feet.
I do not embrace SV because I do not need to embrace SV in order to remain Catholic.
The big problem with trying to be agnostic with regard to the SV vs. R&R approach (or I guess in your case, Cantate, you would be agnostic only about SV) is that it limits your response. If you are SV you should believe that the next pope will come from the ranks of traditional clergy. Whereas, if you are R&R you have to believe that the next Catholic pope will come from the Conciliar Sect. This is somewhat of an oversimplification but it is a very important difference. There will be another Catholic Pope. The only question is how will we get one? Will we wait for the Conciliar Sect to produce one or will we work to elect a traditional bishop? One's position will dictate the direction of one's efforts to resolve the crisis.
-
"I find myself in a very real place of limbo" (CD)
I believe that many of us are in that place. Of late, I have likened my position to that of Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimithea when they were condemned to enter the oarless, rudderless, and sail-free boat. They had the Holy Faith and a Holy Hope in God Amighty to provide a safe harbor (hoping they would not become lunch for a school of sharks along the way!)
I have requested a small corner and have taken refuge in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and pray, pray, pray with as much confidence as I am able to muster: "Star of the stormy sea of my mortal life, may your light shine upon me so that I do not stray from the path that leads me to heaven." (prayer taken from the Testament of Mother Mariana of Jesus Torres in regard to Our Lady of Good Success)
Beautiful words!!!
Much wisdom!
Faith. Hope. Charity.
-
Dear Clemens Maria,
Our Lady of Fatima stated: "Only I can help you." She will resolve this unprecedented crisis after we have suffered according to the measure we so richly deserve. Kyrie Eleison.
-
I find myself in a very real place of limbo.
...
I spit on R&R and crush it under my feet.
I do not embrace SV because I do not need to embrace SV in order to remain Catholic.
The big problem with trying to be agnostic with regard to the SV vs. R&R approach (or I guess in your case, Cantate, you would be agnostic only about SV) is that it limits your response. If you are SV you should believe that the next pope will come from the ranks of traditional clergy. Whereas, if you are R&R you have to believe that the next Catholic pope will come from the Conciliar Sect. This is somewhat of an oversimplification but it is a very important difference. There will be another Catholic Pope. The only question is how will we get one? Will we wait for the Conciliar Sect to produce one or will we work to elect a traditional bishop? One's position will dictate the direction of one's efforts to resolve the crisis.
Question for you, CM: Do you hold that one must proclaim SV in order to be Catholic, remain in a state of grace, and save their soul?
If this is not required of Catholics, then it is impossible for anyone to be 'agnostic,' with regard to this question. My conviction is that I am not at all obligated to take a position on the pope question; whereas I will go to hell if I refuse to take a position on the question of whether God exists.
As for where the next pope comes from - I know that God can do all things, can make a son of Abraham out of a rock. As St. Martha said to the Lord with perfect faith: But now also I know that whatsoever Thou wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee.
God can make Bergoglio a Saint.
Where the Catholic Pope we await comes from is God's secret and God's mighty work.
I only pray and wait for it.
-
Dear Clemens Maria,
Our Lady of Fatima stated: "Only I can help you." She will resolve this unprecedented crisis after we have suffered according to the measure we so richly deserve. Kyrie Eleison.
Yup.
-
The big problem with trying to be agnostic with regard to the SV vs. R&R approach (or I guess in your case, Cantate, you would be agnostic only about SV) is that it limits your response. If you are SV you should believe that the next pope will come from the ranks of traditional clergy. Whereas, if you are R&R you have to believe that the next Catholic pope will come from the Conciliar Sect. This is somewhat of an oversimplification but it is a very important difference. There will be another Catholic Pope. The only question is how will we get one? Will we wait for the Conciliar Sect to produce one or will we work to elect a traditional bishop? One's position will dictate the direction of one's efforts to resolve the crisis.
You see, posts like this bolster the assertion (made by myself and Sean Johnson, among others) that Conclavist Sedevacantists are the truest specimen of SVs. They are the most consistent.
If you're not "waiting and seeing" like the rest of us, then you are a conclavist. And conclavists don't have a great track record; they end up with results like Pope Michael -- rightly ridiculed by the whole world.
-
Dom Gueranger, in his Liturgical Year for the Fourth Sunday After Easter (Today):
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2mcx8p.png)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2463xj9.png)
The novus ordo 'hierarchy' is schismatic. It neither holds, teaches, or professes the Catholic Faith, nor does it minister the Divinely instituted Sacraments of the Church.
It amounts to a man made religion with concomitant artificial 'rites.'
It claims to be the Catholic Church, and it occupies, as in a siege, the structures of the visible Church. But it refuses submission to Peter by refusing submission to Christ, to Divine Revelation, and to Sacred Tradition.
Now it is absolutely impossible for Catholics, as individuals and as a corporate body or bodies, to be in supernatural union with the novus ordo hierarchy because it does not belong to the supernatural order.
Wherefore, in placing itself under submission to the novus ordo hierarchy, Menzingen makes SSPXBrand a sect.
-
Dear Clemens Maria,
Our Lady of Fatima stated: "Only I can help you." She will resolve this unprecedented crisis after we have suffered according to the measure we so richly deserve. Kyrie Eleison.
Our Lord said to Sister Lucy that the consecration would be done but it would be late. Maybe it will be late because too many traditional Catholics were waiting for Our Lady's next move when they should know that the ball is in our court. The consecration is the duty of the next Catholic Pope. But how do we get a Catholic Pope? We have to elect one. Do you want to guess how likely it is that modernists are going to elect a Catholic Pope? On the other hand, it is highly likely that if traditional Catholic bishops convene a council, they will elect a Catholic Pope. It seems like common sense to me.
-
The big problem with trying to be agnostic with regard to the SV vs. R&R approach (or I guess in your case, Cantate, you would be agnostic only about SV) is that it limits your response. If you are SV you should believe that the next pope will come from the ranks of traditional clergy. Whereas, if you are R&R you have to believe that the next Catholic pope will come from the Conciliar Sect. This is somewhat of an oversimplification but it is a very important difference. There will be another Catholic Pope. The only question is how will we get one? Will we wait for the Conciliar Sect to produce one or will we work to elect a traditional bishop? One's position will dictate the direction of one's efforts to resolve the crisis.
You see, posts like this bolster the assertion (made by myself and Sean Johnson, among others) that Conclavist Sedevacantists are the truest specimen of SVs. They are the most consistent.
If you're not "waiting and seeing" like the rest of us, then you are a conclavist. And conclavists don't have a great track record; they end up with results like Pope Michael -- rightly ridiculed by the whole world.
Agreed. However, that is not a good argument against trying to elect a pope.
-
Question for you, CM: Do you hold that one must proclaim SV in order to be Catholic, remain in a state of grace, and save their soul?
No. I believe that even the Ecclesia Dei folks have the faith although I believe their sacraments are questionable since I don't think the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid. But they are not modernists. But that doesn't mean they are right. They are Catholics who are in error about the status of the Conciliar pope's claims to the papacy.
You won't go to hell for having an erroneous opinion about who the pope is but there is always the danger of falling into schism against a true pope or following a false pope into schism. I don't think Our Lady will let anyone who is truly devoted to her remain in error up to the moment of death unless they are guilty of some other mortal sin. But just because you pray the Rosary and wear the Brown Scapular doesn't mean you can relax and remain aloof from these controversies. I am certain that Our Lord and Our Lady are expecting us to prove our love and that means being engaged. No parent in their right mind would be content to take a neutral position with regard to controversies involving their own children. Neither should we be content to remain neutral about controversies concerning the Church. Of course, we have to recognize that traditionalists are not the enemy. Just like a bumbling corporal in the army is not the enemy. But he could still get someone killed. This is serious business even if at times it seems like it is nothing more than a chaotic joke.
Yeah, God can make Balaam's ass talk but what he really desired was that Balaam do the right thing. Don't think that this whole thing is on someone else. It's on us too. Let's not hide our talents. Let's not pretend that there is nothing we personally can do. We need to put our hearts into resolving this crisis because even if our own soul's are not at risk, there are billions of souls who truly are at risk. We can help according to the talents that God has given us and let's not undervalue our talents. It would be a form of presumption for a Catholic to be content with saving only his own soul.
I personally believe that it will be necessary to elect a Catholic Pope before the consecration of Russia will be done. This Catholic Pope will consecrate Russia and Russia will be miraculously converted and the world will have a period of peace. By this sign we will know with certainty who the true Pope is. And it will only be after Russia is consecrated that the Church will be restored. But it all begins with the election of a Catholic Pope. There is no prophecy anywhere that I have ever heard of that prophesied that a heretic Pope would be converted. The beginning of the resolution of this crisis is going to be the election of a Catholic Pope.
-
This OP is a bit of a misnomer and fails to see the whole point.
Why isn't Molinism triumphant against Thomism? Just because one side can still have a legitimate opinion (i.e. they can have their opinion with a guarantee that they will not be heretics if they hold the opinion). This is similar to the day before Vatican I solemnly defined the truth's about the Infallibility of the Papacy, sure in the other side of the spectrum there were many intelligent people who thought "they were right." However, we know that they were absolutely wrong without a question of a doubt, this is kind of the whole point of having St. Peter confirm the sheep. There are situations where even the force and power of reason is not enough to make intellects BOW DOWN (i.e. under pain of mortal sin you must assent in your intellect), not because of the lack of force in the arguments shown but as of RIGHT now the whole SV or R&R camp have not been definitely settled, it is that simple.
I can guarantee you this is not because a lack of force in our arguments. We are absolutely correct in our conclusions, but just consider that even to this day one can be able to be a Catholic and hold some of the tenets of Molinism. Now tell me which theologian out there is a Molinist with regards to any topic, free will, predestination etc... It has never had any official approval of hte Church, no serious saint has ever taken it seriously etc... No one cares about Molinism that simple, because it is not a doctrine of the Church. We don't see in the 18th, 19th or 20th century a "rise in Molinism." NO theologians took it seriously, you can take that to the bank, JUST because an idea is not condemned does not mean it is necessarily true. Thomism is DE FACTO the winner, period. There are certain reasons why His Holiness during that time decided to close the debate on a certain topic, it is not for us to decide the why or how this happened. This is where Catholic obedience takes its place and assents, because this is truly true obedience that is demanded of us.
So you can go and think that because you have one real sole defender "in your position" such as Suarez (the only consistent one that does not contradict himself after every sentence). Suarez is famous for differing with St. Thomas on MANY many topics, this is why he is not as good. If the Popes tell you, "ite ad Thoma" repeatedly for 9 centuries then there is by necessity something special in the Thomist method of exegesis. If you read Cajetan, he completely self-refutes himself in the Pope heretic thesis, same goes with John of St. Thomas etc... In the near future when I finally get some time (so busy at the moment) I will post precisely what I mean. So yes, I will readily admit you are not a heretic for holding to the thesis that a pope can be a heretic and still hold his office. Is it reasonable? Logical? Absolutely no, but for the time being you can still get away with that silly opinion that makes absolutely no sense. Are we absolutely for sure correct in our thesis? Yes, we are. We stand by the doctrine of the Church, our conclusions are as certain as there is a God in heaven. Just because certain intellects are incapable of understanding it for whatever reason (pre-conceived notions or bias or lack of education) it does not make it any less true. Just look at how many smart individuals have erred when we look at the history of the Church, the Conciliarist heresy was condemned and there was many pious abbots, superior generals, cardinals, bishops who held to this particular heresy. At the end of the day this question will be settled in God's good time, in the meanwhile we just do our best to ensure that we do our part. We have already been convicted of our position, the debate is over. There used to be some interesting discussions in the past, but we have had a whole paradigm shift from anti B XVI to Mr. Bergoglio. Many of the strongest points are no longer true, the whole conversation has completely changed. It is in your face anti-Catholicism...
_______________________
Now not to derail the thread, but I believe the topic is most relevant to this specific question of why certain tenets or ideas just "take a life of their own." You see the same attitudes, and thinking being repeated over and over by different individuals. So that we don't keep having these wicked hydra heads popping out of no where, lets get to the root of the problem.
A recent poster "Cantarella" made one of the most ridiculous statements ever about St. Pius X being an anti-pope or Pius XII, assuming that if they were right then they are heretics (if our position is correct), or if they were wrong then we are wrong about SV'ism: "Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904). As it has been explained AD nauseam there are over 300 different types of excommunications in canon law, over 95% of them are medicinal in nature. So there your cleverness only showed how flawed your understanding of the specific topic at hand is. Divine law supercedes ecclesiastical law, so no heretics are not ever going to be "validly" elected to the Pontiicate, AS ALL theologians (http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/) teach that you need be a Catholic to even be a valid elector. Read that Father Cekada article I linked, it is one of his personal best so far on the topic. When we mean unanimous on this specific topic, it is truly 100% unanimous no canon lawyer has ever argued to the contrary (one that has not been excommunicated or censured).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). " Have the humility and simply admit when you are wrong, many of us have been wrong before and sometimes it takes a long time to realize it, but when that moment ever does happen we should do our best to remedy the damage done. If it is even possible, the bad thing about the internet once something is posted, its out there pretty much for eternity. It is also very easy to just write anything, about everything. Before some sort of thought had to be put into writing a book, getting it published or even worse writing it by hand and doing copies of that by hand etc... It took hard genuine effort, and this helped to give more mature thoughts on different topics rather then off the cuff remarks and daily useless thoughts. Give an honest effort to write your thoughts that have matured a bit more in your head. If it takes you 3 days to make a daily post so be it, you will see how much more you will avoid common errors and pitfalls. This is also why I like Bellarmine Forums, even though it is not as active it tends to have higher quality stuff because people there take some thought into what they write.
Now I love it when individuals are so clever as to come up with questions THAT NO ONE ELSE has ever thought of. This is what I call supreme stupidity, and I hate to be so frank, but some people should really be told that some questions really are stupid. Its not because no one else ever thought of your clever insight, its because you are completely MISREADING like you always will whatever it is you read. No, your "question is not interesting in the least." It just shows how pride completely blinds you, and you fail to see the most basic answer is in front of you. Now someone can sincerely ask a question without really knowing the answer and they are genuinely curious about finding the truth. What I see is rather "creative" minds at work just trying to find anything despite it making no sense whatsoever. What is really the worst thing, is that it is always the SAME method of exegesis that does this. It is ALWAYS and in EVERY case, the same semi-protestant Sola Denzingerites that are so "clever" that they always find out everything by themselves, and how "no one" has been so clever as them to see this amazing awe inspiring discovery. Just look at how sometimes MHFM always tries to point out how it "was they" who first said this or that, "no one else" has pointed out their super clever awe struck deep insights. Our Blessed Lord will respond to your wicked perverted self-asborbed minds, "You have received your reward." These are the same individuals that will argue AD NAUSEAM that EVERYONE who believes in a licit BOD/BOB opinion are a bunch of heretics. Even supposing that you are correct, we have been GUARANTEED in previous centuries that our opinion at the very least is a Catholic one at worst, and at best the correct one. Sure there have been many recent innovations that are heretical with respect to that camp, but these are finer distinctions that the laity should simply stay away from. Just like certain topics tend to make heretics of smart individuals like predestination, free will etc... Take the Jansenist for example who stubbornly clinged to Augustines doctrine on Free Will against that of the Church.
If you happen to fall guilty of what I am saying, then start re-examining your life. You live in a dangerous mindset, while not wholly protestant you arrogate to yourself a semi-infallibility and rob the Church of her authoritative magisterium. Don't be a genius and think so hard, simply read and submit. Chances are if your clever thoughts have not been speculated, even in speculative theology then there are some serious problems. Chances are 99.9999999999999999% it will mean that you are misreading the text.
+Pax vobis+
-
Good to see you again TP!