I appreciate an honest reply:
If I am wrong about sedevacantism, I want correction.
TKGS, while I'm having a hard time aligning myself with Matthew's post, I am still not a sedevecantist. While I don't think that this is a correction, as I am far too unlearned for that, but this is how I see the answers to your questions.
But the only explanations I ever see is that I don't have the "authority" to judge the pope...
Well, do you? Do we?
No. And of course, if he's not the pope, I'm not judging the pope.
... and he's suffering from mental illness. But why can I (as do all traditionalists) judge that the Novus Ordo is deficient somehow if the pope says it's a perfect expression of the faith?
Well the Novus Ordo isn't a person. Yes, it's a bastard rite of the Catholic Church, but it contains no soul we are unable to peer into. We can look at it, and determine that it is deficient because there is nothing more to it than that; we can all be intimately familiar with it, and even hold it in our hands; study, question it intensely and completely, and get responses to it that would leave no further questioning. The pope, on the other hand, is a human being, and infinitely more complex. While what he says may be heresy, the authority to question him, the proper official authority. I can only judge his exterior actions. Yes, I think he's a heretic.
So, we're back to the heretic is still Catholic. Please identify the theologians the magisterial docuмents through history that have ever agreed that the heretic is a Catholic. I don't think anyone can find one.
Why can I (as do many traditionalists) judge so many actions and statements from the Vatican as heretical (Bishop Fellay described a few in his talk in Kansas City two years ago) but then have to accept that those who say them can't be heretics?
Agreed.
Will sedevacantists still be condemned when the Conciliar church approves through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith the ordination of women? Before saying, "That will never happen!" consider all of the other things "conservative" Catholics used to say would never happen but have. I have, after all, already read a conservative Catholic suggestion that the ordination of women, at least as Deaconesses, is may only be a matter of discipline and not doctrine. (Sorry that I can't provide a reference but it was written close to a year, maybe two years, ago.)
Lets pray that the conversion and purification happens before this point.
Of course Traditional Catholics reject Islam, Mormonism, and countless other errors. But that's not the point of sedevacantism. Sedevacantists aren't talking about Traditional Catholics.
Well I think this is the point Matthew was trying to make. The problem, it seems, with many sedevecantists, is that what develops is a tendancy to become very condescending with those who do not hold their views; this is not true for all of them (certainly not for you), but for those who do fit this idea, they are very visible, and almost seem to make themselves as visible as possible. Are they good willed, I think most of the time yes. They're trying to correct other Traditional Catholics of their 'error'. Or to let others see that that they have been 'given graces', or at least didn't reject the grace they were given. I think its these whom stir all the problems, and give those sede's a bad name. But would this ever be said of you? No. Of Hobbledehoy? And many others who don't find the need to waste their energies 'converting unbelieving' traditional Catholics.
Frankly, I think I can say precisely what you said here about sedevacantists about anti-sedevacantists. They are generally very dismissive and want us all to praise Benedict 16 whenever he does or says something remotely traditional. The problem is that he's a true liberal and believes that there is room for tradition in his view of the Church. The problem is that there's not room for liberalism in the Church as countless popes through history have taught us. Frankly, why did Pope St. Pius X write so extensively about Modernism if we're not going to use his writings to protect ourselves against them?
You seem to subscribe to the error that Sedevacantism is about the Pope. It isn't . It's about THE CHURCH. Most sedevacantists are CATHOLICvacantists -- they think the "official" or "mainstream" Catholic Church has ceased to be Catholic. That's a much bigger step than "calling a spade a spade" and saying the Pope has lost his office (or never had the office).
You can say this or that about the Pope; he's just one man. But how can you generalize about tens of thousands of priests, bishops, cardinals? Isn't even ONE of them Catholic? If you say "no", you've really gone off the deep end. And that's the position of countless Sedevacantists. How can you JUDGE so many people, with no special intellect, spiritual gifts, or preternatural powers?
I think you misunderstand me. I don't judge all people who claim to be Catholic. But I do judge what they say and do when thier words and actions are presented to me (which is generally the case with the movers and shakers in the hierarchy).
There are absolutely Catholics, that is, people who hold the Catholic Faith as taught in the Catechisms, within the Novus Ordo structure. I do not doubt this includes priests, bishops, and cardinals. I don't know them or what they teach so I cannot judge whether or not I should resist them or not.
But I think you are wrong to attribute this attitude to "countless sedevacantists", most of whom came from the Novus Ordo themselves. We remember when we were trying to defend John Paul 2 or Benedict 16 and we were uneasy about it. We've also come to the realization that it doesn't make sense to continue to do so. Just because the Dimonds are so vociferous, don't make the mistake of thinking they speak for anyone but themselves. Don't think that because Gerry Matatics can speak a mile a minute that he speaks for anyone but himself.
For the sake of peace on the forum, however, I will stop reading topics when the title indicates that Benedict has, once again, said something Catholic unless it appears in the Crisis sub-forum since discussion of his claims is not welcome there. In return, I would like honest criticisms in the Crisis sub-forum to be made and debated--and not ignored by the anti-sedevacantists (has has been suggested is what happens, though I think anti-sedevacantists on this forum seem to complain even when sedevacantism is discussed in the Crisis sub-forum).
Topic: Why Sedes are so "welcome" everywhere (Read 2430 times)