I didn't say one has to be sedevacantist-- you even quoted me and what you quoted did not say that one has to be a sedevacantist to be a traditional Catholic. I said that I think, by definition, a traditional Catholic has doubts about the legitimacy of the conciliar claimants.
R&R means recognize and resist. It's an accurate label that most convicted non-sedevacantists who hold to the R&R position are pleased and proud to be identified with.
Hey buddy, you might want to check yourself-- I don't mind a heated discussion and I don't even mind polemics, but if you're going to be comparing sedevacantist Catholics wholesales to leeches, you'd better thicken your own skin while you're at it. So if these are the tactics you want to employ, don't get your undies bunched up when they're returned to you, eh?
The entire reason that ++Lefebvre waited so long to consecrate bishops is because he appreciated the gravity of such an act without a papal mandate if, in fact, JPII was true pope. Throughout his entire life, he appreciated the serious problem of simultaneously recognizing and resisting.
The point is, ++Lefebvre did NOT share the entrenched anti-sedevacantism position that the SSPX adopted after his death. He admitted to the real possibility, behaved as if it were a reality (especially at the consecrations).
So, Archbishop Lefebvre said "the pope's" mass is a bastard mass, he didn't adopt the new calendar, he didn't erect his chapels under the local ordinary, he didn't follow the new code of canon law, he was suspicious of the annulment tribunals, he didn't venerate the new saints, he didn't teach his seminarians the new doctrines. Sounds to me that he judged all of these things to be breaks from the Catholic faith and behaved according to that judgement.
How then, is Archbishop Lefebvre's judgement on all of these matters acceptable, but adding one more matter (judging conciliar claimant N. to be an anti-pope) not?
Catholics make private judgements all the time. Traditionalists do especially, in fact it is what sets them aside from the Novus Ordo milieu. Explain then how we are free to judge all of these novelties to not be of the Catholic faith, but we cannot judge that these "popes" are really "nopes." And do keep in mind that we're only speaking of private judgement here, not a judgement binding on the consciences of others (yet). We're talking about the exact type of judgement that traditionalists (sedevacantist or not) have applied to the Novus Ordo religion.
I'm not really sure what you're asking or what your point is. +de Lauriers was one of the most renown and adept theologians of the twentieth century, was personal confessor to Pius XII and helped formulate Munificentissimus Deus. If anyone was capable of judging the validity of episcopal consecration as a consecrand, it would have been him!
Whether or not a pope is a valid pope has nothing to do with whether or not ++Thuc is a valid bishop, though rest assured he was. He was consecrated by +Drapier far before the rites of consecration were tampered with. Pius XI even gave ++Thuc a special mandate to consecrate bishops without an apostolic mandate.
Political and selective logic, that's what we have here.
Explain how no "rightful authority i.e Cardinals or future pope" is required to reject the Novus Ordo mass, the new doctrines, the new calendar, the new saints, the local ordinary, the new sacraments, etc. etc., but such an authority is required to regard these men as anti-popes. You're out at sea, friend.
a. OK then, we are agreed then, without ambiguity, that you do not have to be a sede to be a Traditional Catholic. Enough said about that. So a Catholic can accept the Pope is Pope, or can accept the Pope is not Pope Mmmmm I see, yippee everyone is right???? We can accept error.
b. Thank you for this explanation. As I said I tried to get an answer before and got a response about ‘CoolAid’ . ‘Recognise and resist’, if it entails what Our Lord said in the garden of Gethsemane “Watch and pray that you be not led into temptation” then I don’t have a problem with that. It is our duty to recognise and resist what will jeopardise our salvation. The Church in Tradition sets out the guidelines. Anyway I am just a Roman Catholic. All these labels remind me of Jєωιѕн tactics.
Have there not been sufficient examinations on the position of sedevacantism and answers resolving that it is inappropriate to head in that direction. Not for one who wants to justify their stance/ conscience. Obviously there have been for those following SSPX/Resistance, which is why they are here. So what you are saying is through private judgement on your part ++Lefebvre was a Sede although he did not know it which gives you the right to hijack a SSPX/Resistance forum to help us realise the truth of the SSPX/Resistance. Mmmmm I see for about twenty years after the death of the Arch bishop we have been fooled.
c. I am referring to sedes on a SSPX/Resistance site “having an argumentative opinion”. When did most of them start to take an interest in SSPX… when they saw the variances in views since the Doctrinal Preamble and following events. Unless it is to influence and shunt members from the track they are on onto your own train line, what does it achieve? You can usually find these infiltrators by finding out when they joined a blog, most times it is around 2012/13. As I said mere distractions. Just tell this SSPX/Resistance mob you will wipe the dust of their heresy-supporting views off your sandals. So Buddy whilst I straighten out my undies and work on thickening my skin, you can work on tanning my hide.
d. Then pray tell why did he EXPEL the priests who wanted him to go sede or had sede views? As Our Lord said, by their actions you shall know them, and he certainly did act.
What did the Archbishop say after the Consecrations of 1988: “communion with false religions”, an “adulterous mood dominating the Church”, “this spirit is not Catholic”. For twenty years we have tried to patiently and firmly make the Roman authorities understand that they need to return to sound doctrine and Tradition for the renewal of the Church, the salvation of souls, and the glory of God.
Note, he still called them the Roman authorities and the Pope, Holy Father and required their return. He did not preach that the correct authority would materialise from some unknown spectrum in the future.
e. Firstly, Archbishop Lefebvre judging on the matters listed by you was not using his personal judgement (likes and dislikes). SSPX/ Resistance do not quote him as a demigod who can do no wrong, but as one who could see as the events rolled out whether they were in line with the teachings of the Church or not. In each instance he used the infallible judgements of previous Popes to judge and refute the actions of the recent ones. There may yet come a time when we have to declare a current Pope in heresy, but sedes don’t get it! The heresy has to be “FORMAL” denial of a truth that has been held infallibly by the Church through the ages.
Secondly, I don’t understand how when you group as a congregation and the bishops and priests preach that the seat of Peter is vacant etc. this can be called a ‘private’ judgement.
f. The point I am making in that you raised the point of Archbishop Lefebvre’s referral of Fr. Revas to Archbishop Thuc, to imply that Archbishop Lefebvre was not anti-sede. My response was that Archbishop Thuc was NOT publicly sede till 1982 so I couldn’t understand your use of it to justify Archbishop Lefebvre’s support of sedes. Whereas Fr Lauriers has been expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre for his sede views. The nine priest who were ordained and took the Oath to be loyal to the SSPX, and walked out some soon after ordination!
g. My concern is not really with Archbishop Thuc. It is with Archbishop Lefebvre and his stance on sedevacantism, and hence the reference to his questioning the validity of sede Bishops and therefore priests.
h. As I said before, Archbishop Lefebvre declared these things based not on his personal judgements, but on the infallible writings of previous Popes. Where there were contradictions he chose not to follow. For example, the use the ’62 Missal but required the second Confiteor to be re-instated.
When you judge on your own and without the backing of the Pope’s infallible teachings is when you are out at sea, without a paddle. So till a current Pope tries to teach infallibly what is against Church teachings of all time, i.e he is in formal heresy, then he is Pope.
As far as I am aware, I am not in heresy if I reject what is against the previous teachings of the Popes, as long as I can cite those teachings, or some generous soul like Archbishop Lefebvre has done the research to cite them for me. On the other hand I am in schism if I disconnect myself from the Papal lineage that Our Lord has placed at the head of the Church without having a formal heresy to support such a stance.
What is the formal heresy? At what point did the seat become vacant? Sedes are not even united on this because they cannot pinpoint one. Some are sede from the time of Pius XII because he was a weak diplomatic Pope to let in Bugnini. Some from John XXIII because he opened the windows of the Church to the world. Others Paul VI, others JPII, now Francis. Which is the “FORMAL” heresy, and who has declared it? Don’t hang your eternal salvation on the string of one hypothetical quote by the good Archbishop!
a. No traditional Catholic accepts the VII claimants, though. The most you'll get is vain lip service from them (inserting the title "pope" before his name) and an insertion of his name at the canon.
Traditional Catholics:
1) Don't worship according to his liturgy; in fact they refuse to
2) Don't believe his doctrines (VII); in fact they refuse to
3) Don't venerate his saints
4) Don't use his calendar
5) Don't follow his canon law
6) Don't worship at the places he's approved for worship
7) Don't attend the liturgies celebrated by priests he sent
8) Don't particpate in the sacramental rites he's approved
9) Don't follow the fasting and abstinence laws approved by him
10) Don't follow the indulgences he's approved
11) Don't even pray the same rosary
I could go on. One does not treat a man whose legitimacy they are certain of as if he had no legitimacy. Inserting the title "pope" in front of his name does not supply for a whole-sale rejection of his religion; that is not what the theologians mean when they speak of accepting a pope. The pope is the proximate rule of faith from whom Catholics
learn the faith. Traditional Catholics actually go out of their way to NOT learn their faith from these men.
b. The recognize part of R&R does not mean that one recognizes that something is false and rejects it, it means that one recognizes that N. is pope and resists him. Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist; that does not mean sedevacantism is not true, since he said it might be and was unsure yet, at least not sure enough to take the SSPX in that direction. After his death, the SSPX took for granted, as a matter of policy, that sedevacantism was false. So in a matter of speaking, yes-- the laity have been fooled by the SSPX in this regard since his death. There was always division and disagreement on this issue in the SSPX and elsewhere, but after ++Lefebvre's death the contra-SV side won out.
c. This is a huge forum, I doubt you'll learn a whole lot based on when someone joined. CI has always allowed sedevacantists, so you might want to take that up with Matthew. That there are more sedevacantists than ever before would seem to have more to do with the current pretender than anything else. has less sedevacantists, though; perhaps you'd like to check it out. :D
d. Read the letter of the nine:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48&catname=12In fact, you don't even have to read the whole thing. Just press ctrl+f and begin typing in the word "sedevacantism" to jump to the part of the letter where they talk about it.
e. Sedevacantists do not believe the conciliar claimants are false popes because they dislike them, they believe that they're false popes because they are public heretics and because they have, in the name of the Church, done things which the Catholic Church could never do (canonize heretics, create a protestant mass out of thin air and impose it on the Catholic world, teach error together with a moral unanimity of bishops, etc.).
The same principles ++Lefebvre applied to the new doctrines in identifying them as not of the Catholic Church (their irreconcilable novelty when compared to the already received deposit of faith) is what the sedevacantists are doing as well, except to the actual men who impose these novelties.
The heresy need be public, and it is. A pope cannot claim ignorance against the first commandment, which all of these men have doubted or denied publicly.
[f&g omitted]
h. See, this is why I said you really don't understand or know the sedevacantist position. While you do not quote any authorities in your "argument" if you read sedevacantist tracts nearly
all you will find (from the respectable ones) are quotes and citations from pre-conciliar theologians, men who were deputed to teach and explain the faith
before there was a crisis. In other words, they hadn't a "horse in the race."
Suffice to say, the sedevacantist position is very much based on Catholic principles, most famously the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and foremost authority on the papacy, the bull of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, the incorporation of these teachings into the 1917 CIC (esp. Canon 188) so on and so forth.
I can only imagine you are unaware of this to make such a silly claim as this position not being supported by the already received teachings of the Church, her popes saints and theologians.
Topic: Will the resistance go sede? (Read 19074 times)