Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: dxcat40 on September 25, 2022, 03:50:49 PM
-
This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.
Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.
-
This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.
Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.
I don’t care at all about the Traditional Catholic movement but I do care about the Catholic Church. A Pope would be helpful.
-
If Catholics could concentrate on passing on that which was given, I'm in.
Don't want anything tainted with NO questions. Just the Catholic Faith. Life is hard enough without having to figure out validity because of sketchy background.
-
This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.
There is too much in fighting and bickering. We become like the protestants and their sects.
It should be enough to be of good will, reject Vatican II, and follow authentic Catholic Tradition without expecting others to agree or even dare to burden themselves with coming to conclusions on other nuanced positions.
"But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
-
This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.
Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.
Will never happen. There is too much pride involved.
-
Jesus told us there will be a quiz at the pearly gates.
Will He ask us, "Tell me. Who is the valid pope?"
(meanwhile, back to my sins)
-
Will never happen. There is too much pride involved.
Yes, it really is just that. And the modernists like it that is way. A scattered flock.
That said, I do wish it were possible to work together in a meaningful way.
-
This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.
Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.
Unity was obliterated in the 60s by false doctrines with the perpetration of the NO and by the wolves who entered the Church and came out of hiding.
Since the wolves have entered the Church it is enough, nay, it is more than we deserve just to have true priests, the Mass and sacraments - God is good and merciful and sends priests to feed His sheep.
Snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen.......
"...you will remember that Our Lord uses the same expression in His parable, His allegory of the Good Shepherd. You remember that He says that the wolf enters among the sheep and he kills and he scatters. The wolf is the false teacher, the heretical preacher, the false prophet. And he introduces into the Church destruction and disunity. Because his doctrine is false there is bound to be disagreement among the Lord’s flock as to what is the true doctrine and what is the false.
This is what we have seen in our generation due to the Second Vatican Council. There is now in the Catholic Church, grievous, and apparently irremediable disunity. There is no agreement any more as to what the true doctrine of Christ is, what the Apostolic tradition is, what we must believe for salvation, or even that we must believe for salvation.
The wolves have entered into God’s Holy Church, and they have not only set about destroying souls by the ravaging of the faith, but they have caused grievous, most harmful disunity, so that nowadays the people don’t know what priest to trust." - or what to believe.
I like to reference Jeremias 23:1-4 in regards to all of this...
[1] Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. [2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. [3] And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. [4] And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.
-
Unity was obliterated in the 60s by false doctrines with the perpetration of the NO and by the wolves who entered the Church and came out of hiding.
Vatican I clearly teaches that unity of faith is guaranteed by adherence to the See of Peter, something that R&R deny.
Nevertheless, there's unity and there's unity. Church history is replete with theological disputes among various schools. So a certain amount of contention is unavoidable, and might even be good in the long term, as the debate tends to clarify certain doctrinal matters.
But, to take the classic example of the Thomists vs. the Molinists, regarding predestination and free will, the debate continued, as the Church would not step in to take sides or to resolve it, yet the Church did forbid the two sides from denouncing one another as non-Catholic heretics for adopting the opposing position.
Among the various Traditional groups, we have many examples of disputed questions that are elevated to the level of certainty, resulting in the effective excommunication of those who do not agree with them ... such as, questions regarding the validity of the +Thuc line, the validity of NOM Holy Orders, the status of the NOM, the status of NO annulments, etc. Trad priests are not even pastors, much less do Trad bishops have jurisdiction. Their only role is to make the Sacraments available to the faithful on a emergency basis. So it's extreme over-reach for the various groups to refuse Sacraments to people who disagree with them. If I were a priest who, say, felt the +Thuc line was doubtful or that NOM annulments were bogus, I might advise the faithful that "It is my opinion that you are putting your souls at risk [in one of these areas]." But, that having been said, it would not be my place on impose this view on the consciences of others and refuse them the Sacraments on those grounds.
SSPV and some of their derivatives are particularly notorious for this kind of behavior.
Now, this does not mean that there aren't SOME questions that bear directly on Catholic faith that has in fact been decided by the Church, such as if there were "Trads" who rejected Vatican I or the legitimacy of Pope Pius IX (and consequently, papal infallibility and also the Immaculate Conception). But the vast majorit of these issues have not been adjudicated by the Church and so the Trad clergy have no authority to impose them on the faithful. Someone like a John Pontrello or Richard Ibranyi should in fact be refused the Sacraments as notorious manifest heretics.
You also have the SSPX who have traditionally tried to impose strict obligations of "obedience" both on the part of the priests and the faithful, excoriating priests who, say, leave the SSPX, as guilty of disobediece. Yet they have no actual authority that could bind them to obedience, and this is dangerously close to schismatic to pretend that they have an authority structure outside of and in opposition to the Church. So it's OK for them to disobey the Vicar of Christ, but not OK for a priest to disobey an SSPX "superior" who has no actual authority?
-
But, to take the classic example of the Thomists vs. the Molinists, regarding predestination and free will, the debate continued, as the Church would not step in to take sides or to resolve it, yet the Church did forbid the two sides from denouncing one another as non-Catholic heretics for adopting the opposing position.
I'm not trying to turn this into the R&R Thread 2.0, but to instead seek solutions here. It would be great if we could achieve this kind of cease-fire in the quote above, though perhaps unrealistic.
-
I'm not trying to turn this into the R&R Thread 2.0, but to instead seek solutions here. It would be great if we could achieve this kind of cease-fire in the quote above, though perhaps unrealistic.
There are two obstacles here.
1) Church has not ruled, so the dogmatic extremes of the two sides, dogmatic SVs and dogmatic R&R, they each hold that the other side is heretical.
2) Pride, ego, stubbornness, desire to be popes in their little ponds.
So if both sides could rally around a sedeimpoundist/sedeprivationist type of perspective, that could definitely bridge the gap for #1 ... except that #2 pervents some from even looking at it, much less seriously considering it.
I myself have been confused with a dogmatic SV for holding that some articulations of R&R are heretical. But I'm not a dogmatic SV, but a dogmatic indefectibilist. I believe that some flavor of R&R are nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaged Old Catholicism, and that they absolutely gut Catholic ecclesiology and the Catholic papacy ... so those are intolerable.
But if someone has a theory without that particular implied principle, I have no problem with it at all. If someone wants to hold Montini and the others were replaced by doubles, more power to them. I might disagree, but I don't have any theological or doctrinal problem with it. After all, it's clear that they did replace Sister Lucy, and using doubles is in fact a known favorite Communist go-to tactic. And the Communists tend to reuse the same bag of tricks over and over again. There's actually some solid evidence that Montini was an active sodomite, and so blackmail is a possibility as well. So, as far as I'm concerned, go for it. Just don't try to tell me that the Church and the Papacy, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit, can corrupt the faith and the Church's public worship so badly that we are forced to break Communion with the Catholic hierarchy.
-
So if both sides could rally around a sedeimpoundist/sedeprivationist type of perspective, that could definitely bridge the gap for #1 ... except that #2 pervents some from even looking at it, much less seriously considering it.
I actually do have Contra Cekadam and it really is closer to sedeprivationism than Fr. Chazal would like to admit. I wrote you privately and I will write here that I do agree with you that it represents the best chance of working together. Whether or not that is enough to undo the second problem, I don't know. More of these older entrenched priests are dying, and while that may represent an opportunity, there may not be enough time to reorganize in a meaningful way before global conflict.
-
If Catholics could concentrate on passing on that which was given, I'm in.
Don't want anything tainted with NO questions. Just the Catholic Faith. Life is hard enough without having to figure out validity because of sketchy background.
Yes, The Faith is the one thing all trads have in common. The Modernist New Order can't take that from us.
-
Yes, The Faith is the one thing all trads have in common.
I would dispute this.
Even within this forum there are all kinds of splinters of the Faith. Many have declared themselves theologians or, in essence, the pope. Many say you don't have to believe this or that dogma and yet are still considered Catholic.
-
I would dispute this.
Even within this forum there are all kinds of splinters of the Faith. Many have declared themselves theologians or, in essence, the pope. Many say you don't have to believe this or that dogma and yet are still considered Catholic.
Well, it's understandable considering the neverending flow of scandals and false/heterodox teaching coming out of Rome.
The Enemy loves a scattered flock. Modernists love it as well.
No non Catholic will ever lurk a trad forum, or a forum such as Catholic Answers for that matter, and say "look at how they love one another".
I have pretty much stopped keeping up with news out of Rome or political news. Imo, there is no spiritual benefit from it. But that's just me.
-
Yes, The Faith is the one thing all trads have in common. The Modernist New Order can't take that from us.
I would dispute this.
Even within this forum there are all kinds of splinters of the Faith. Many have declared themselves theologians or, in essence, the pope. Many say you don't have to believe this or that dogma and yet are still considered Catholic.
Catholics have always had disagreements. Ladislaus already pointed out a bitter disagreement that continues to the present day:
But, to take the classic example of the Thomists vs. the Molinists, regarding predestination and free will, the debate continued, as the Church would not step in to take sides or to resolve it, yet the Church did forbid the two sides from denouncing one another as non-Catholic heretics for adopting the opposing position.
A Pope told them they couldn't call each other heretics, even though both sides thought the same about the other. It's possible for there to be disagreement among members who hold the common Catholic faith. I believe even a lot of the people who fight on the forum would drop their disagreement in an instant if a true Catholic authority ordered it or clarified a disputed doctrine (e.g. Baptism of Desire).
Now, how to get around the problem of groups binding their members to their preferred interpretations is related but still different.
-
Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.
I sense a false ecuмenism in this thread. We can only have true unity by submitting docilely to the See of Peter.
In the meantime, a humble and charitable but uncompromising approach should be taken by all.
That is to say, both sedevacantism and R&R should not be considered heretical in themselves and all their followers non-Catholic, however, if one persistently denies a truth of faith in his position he must be denounced for it according to our consciences.
As Ladislaus keeps pointing out, those who show contempt for the See of Peter by constantly insulting and ridiculing the man they consider Pope and by caring not one bit whatever he says, to the point it seems if Bergoglio titled his next encyclical "Christ is not God", they would say encyclicals are worth nothing and only the extraordinary magisterium is infallible and carry on.
Such a position is obviously blasphemous to the spotless bride of Christ and heretical. It unfortunately seems to me that is what most R&Rs position amounts to, but fortunately most seem not to take their position to this logical conclusion but still retain some respect for the papacy.
As I'm sporadically looking into BoD more and more I find it the most difficult theological issue I've ever faced and I honestly can't bring myself to blame anyone on either side. However, those who are quick to shout heretic on either side are sorely mistaken in my opinion as the issue is legitimately confusing.
With regard to all the other stupid discussions such as dogmatic una cuм, Thuc validity, no jurisdicton, it is very obvious what is the correct position and I can't help but feel there is only bad will on the side of those denying sacraments to faithful because of these three positions.
In conclusion... what is the conclusion? Nothing new. The question is more of a nice idea than a plan of action. Should we take a vote on which positions are hereafter acceptable in order to foster unity? Saying, why doesn't everyone just get along is very nice but ultimately meaningless.
If you want unity, I've outlined above what I think are acceptable positions which would make things better but ultimately true unity can only be brought by a true pope.
-
..
Now, this does not mean that there aren't SOME questions that bear directly on Catholic faith that has in fact been decided by the Church, such as if there were "Trads" who rejected Vatican I or the legitimacy of Pope Pius IX (and consequently, papal infallibility and also the Immaculate Conception). But the vast majorit of these issues have not been adjudicated by the Church and so the Trad clergy have no authority to impose them on the faithful. Someone like a John Pontrello or Richard Ibranyi should in fact be refused the Sacraments as notorious manifest heretics.
Mark my words, I am not defending his positions in toto, nor do I adhere to his movement, but how is Richard Ibranyi a "notorious manifest heretic"?
This may have to be an "explain it to me like I'm five" scenario, and heaven knows I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through RJMI's massive, and I do mean massive, corpus of writings, but where is the heresy? I am thinking it could possibly be his Jansenist-like tendencies, but his extreme rejections of the various papacies going back centuries puts him into a "painting himself into a corner" scenario of careening back to before 1054 (if he's not already there) and becoming, for all practical purposes, a variation on the theme of "Western Rite Orthodox". He admits the concept of the papacy (I guess...) but says that we may not have had valid popes for almost a millennium. (I don't know who he would say the last "valid Pope" was, but I know he goes way back, and even rejects Aquinas and Scholasticism.)
He makes the Dimonds look like Modernists by comparison.
-
Mark my words, I am not defending his positions in toto, nor do I adhere to his movement, but how is Richard Ibranyi a "notorious manifest heretic"?
This may have to be an "explain it to me like I'm five" scenario, and heaven knows I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through RJMI's massive, and I do mean massive, corpus of writings, but where is the heresy? I am thinking it could possibly be his Jansenist-like tendencies, but his extreme rejections of the various papacies going back centuries puts him into a "painting himself into a corner" scenario of careening back to before 1054 (if he's not already there) and becoming, for all practical purposes, a variation on the theme of "Western Rite Orthodox". He admits the concept of the papacy (I guess...) but says that we may not have had valid popes for almost a millennium. (I don't know who he would say the last "valid Pope" was, but I know he goes way back, and even rejects Aquinas and Scholasticism.)
He makes the Dimonds look like Modernists by comparison.
He openly calls post 1130 Catholic councils and dogmas heretical.
-
I sense a false ecuмenism in this thread. We can only have true unity by submitting docilely to the See of Peter.
Get your sensors calibrated because I am not an ecuмenist. I'm not even a tradcuмenist. I posted this on a Resistance forum with a heavy sedevacantist presence. Make of that what you will.
-
There are too many isms in the trad world imo. The only thing that is certain and safe to cling to is CatholicISM.
-
He openly calls post 1130 Catholic councils and dogmas heretical.
Indeed, Ibranyi denies many centuries of defined dogmas. I'm not sure how far back Pontrello goes, but he's basically Eastern Orthodox in his theology. So when we call these guys heretics, we really mean that they're heretics.
-
There are too many isms in the trad world imo. The only thing that is certain and safe to cling to is CatholicISM.
Nah, as long as the -ism doesn't imply a different religion. There have always been "-isms" to describe various schools of thought within the Church, e.g. Thomism vs. Molinism. Is Thomism not Catholic?
-
Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.
I sense a false ecuмenism in this thread. We can only have true unity by submitting docilely to the See of Peter.
In the meantime, a humble and charitable but uncompromising approach should be taken by all.
That is to say, both sedevacantism and R&R should not be considered heretical in themselves and all their followers non-Catholic, however, if one persistently denies a truth of faith in his position he must be denounced for it according to our consciences.
As Ladislaus keeps pointing out, those who show contempt for the See of Peter by constantly insulting and ridiculing the man they consider Pope and by caring not one bit whatever he says, to the point it seems if Bergoglio titled his next encyclical "Christ is not God", they would say encyclicals are worth nothing and only the extraordinary magisterium is infallible and carry on.
Such a position is obviously blasphemous to the spotless bride of Christ and heretical. It unfortunately seems to me that is what most R&Rs position amounts to, but fortunately most seem not to take their position to this logical conclusion but still retain some respect for the papacy.
As I'm sporadically looking into BoD more and more I find it the most difficult theological issue I've ever faced and I honestly can't bring myself to blame anyone on either side. However, those who are quick to shout heretic on either side are sorely mistaken in my opinion as the issue is legitimately confusing.
With regard to all the other stupid discussions such as dogmatic una cuм, Thuc validity, no jurisdicton, it is very obvious what is the correct position and I can't help but feel there is only bad will on the side of those denying sacraments to faithful because of these three positions.
In conclusion... what is the conclusion? Nothing new. The question is more of a nice idea than a plan of action. Should we take a vote on which positions are hereafter acceptable in order to foster unity? Saying, why doesn't everyone just get along is very nice but ultimately meaningless.
If you want unity, I've outlined above what I think are acceptable positions which would make things better but ultimately true unity can only be brought by a true pope.
Below I am talking about faithful Catholics who've been in this crisis for a while, not neoconverts who have yet to learn their faith, purge their errors and live the faith.
Yes, a BOD and perhaps a few other points of doctrine can be disputed and is a cause for arguments and strife between Catholics, and among Catholics there are many sources of disunity since V2. One of the reasons that disunity is brought about is by having different interpretations on teachings and doctrines of the Church aka a BOD, another reason for disunity is when anything new is introduced.
When you bring in sedeism and R&R, you are pointing out one source of disunity among the faithful. Although the idea of sedeism is not necessarily new, as the Church has always considered the idea to be schismatic, what this means is by it's very nature sedeism is divisive - which is why the Church has always considered the idea schismatic.
It is because of this idea of sedeism, which some few trad priests introduced after V2, that the sedes split from original trad groups and established their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses and so on. So to deny it's divisive nature is to misunderstand the only purpose it actually serves.
As we all know, we are to obey God first, which means since V2 we can neither obey the pope in his errors, nor accept the heretical teachings of V2, nor attend their sacrilegious Mass without offending God, whatever the status of the popes are in this is irrelevant.
This is the course of action that was taken for years by the faithful in the late 60s before they found out in the early 70s that it was the pope who perpetrated this crisis, his status did not matter then, when they maintained the faith without knowing "who done it", nor for us does his status matter now. Which is to say there is no reason whatsoever for sedeism today anymore than there was a reason for it back then. Back then, the new religion was the source of disunity, these days we have that plus sedeism.
-
Below I am talking about faithful Catholics who've been in this crisis for a while, not neoconverts who have yet to learn their faith, purge their errors and live the faith.
Yes, a BOD and perhaps a few other points of doctrine can be disputed and is a cause for arguments and strife between Catholics, and among Catholics there are many sources of disunity since V2. One of the reasons that disunity is brought about is by having different interpretations on teachings and doctrines of the Church aka a BOD, another reason for disunity is when anything new is introduced.
When you bring in sedeism and R&R, you are pointing out one source of disunity among the faithful.
The things you speak of are not the sources of disunity, but disunity itself. The source of disunity is as Christ says: "Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." There is no Pope to preach the True faith and that is the one and only source of all disunity. If we had a valid traditional Pope all of these disputes BoD, R&R, una cuм, etc. would be quickly resolved. Do you agree?
Although the idea of sedeism is not necessarily new, as the Church has always considered the idea to be schismatic, what this means is by it's very nature sedeism is divisive - which is why the Church has always considered the idea schismatic.
As we all know, we are to obey God first, which means since V2 we can neither obey the pope in his errors, nor accept the heretical teachings of V2, nor attend their sacrilegious Mass without offending God, whatever the status of the popes are in this is irrelevant.
So which is it my incoherent friend? Is the Vicar of Christ irrelevant or is rejecting a wolf in sheep's clothing schismatic?
Let me give you a couple of hints:
Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..."
~ Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol vii, n. 398
· "Nor is there any schism if......one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state."
~ Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
· "Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao]."
~ de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
Please retract your statement that disobeying the Pope due to legitimate suspicion of his validity is schismatic.
Notice that these canonists never wrote that disobeying the Pope because he teaches heresy is not schismatic, they only allow disobedience in case of lack of authority, i.e. invalid election.
It is because of this idea of sedeism, which some few trad priests introduced after V2, that the sedes split from original trad groups and established their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses and so on. So to deny it's divisive nature is to misunderstand the only purpose it actually serves.
And what other group was quick to establish their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses and so on? Ah yes, the SSPX. So to deny it's divisive nature is to misunderstand the only purpose it actually serves.
I guess we should all go back and join the Novus Ordo since we obviously don't want to be "divisive".
-
The things you speak of are not the sources of disunity, but disunity itself. The source of disunity is as Christ says: "Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." There is no Pope to preach the True faith and that is the one and only source of all disunity. If we had a valid traditional Pope all of these disputes BoD, R&R, una cuм, etc. would be quickly resolved. Do you agree?
As I prefaced my post, I was speaking to those Catholics who've been in this crisis a while. You do not have understanding of the simple and universal principle in my sig.
Because we already know the truth, we know when the pope is preaching error. Error is error no matter who preaches it. Knowing this, there is no reason to decide the popes' status, doing away with the whole idea is to do away with a source of disunity.
So which is it my incoherent friend? Is the Vicar of Christ irrelevant or is rejecting a wolf in sheep's clothing schismatic?
Let me give you a couple of hints.
Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..."
~ Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol vii, n. 398.....
....
Please retract your statement that disobeying the Pope due to legitimate suspicion of his validity is schismatic.
Notice that these canonists never wrote that disobeying the Pope because he teaches heresy is not schismatic, they only allow disobedience in case of lack of authority, i.e. invalid election.
First, see my second paragraph above.
Your quotes are opinions of theologians and they do not reflect the idea of sedeism. The idea of doubtful elections is a false premise, which means that the conclusion is false.
And what other group was quick to establish their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses and so on? Ah yes, the SSPX. So to deny it's divisive nature is to misunderstand the only purpose it actually serves.
I guess we should all go back and join the Novus Ordo since we obviously don't want to be "divisive".
Here again, in your zeal to defend your opinion you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of what was explained to you in my post. The sedes left the already growing trad groups in order to establish their own churches. They divided themselves along with the faithful that followed, from what was already a growing traditional Catholic movement. They turned themselves into a splinter group - that is divisive whether you understand that or not.
-
Here again, in your zeal to defend your opinion you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of what was explained to you in my post. The sedes left the already growing trad groups in order to establish their own churches. They divided themselves along with the faithful that followed, from what was already a growing traditional Catholic movement. They turned themselves into a splinter group - that is divisive whether you understand that or not.
False. https://www.truerestoration.org/history-of-the-traditional-catholic-movement-is-sedevacantism-something-recent/
-
These posts by Stubborn demonstrate very clearly why there won't be unity until we have a Pope. He can't even acknowledge sedevacantism isn't schismatic.
-
False. https://www.truerestoration.org/history-of-the-traditional-catholic-movement-is-sedevacantism-something-recent/
I lived it and witnessed it first hand.
Your link starts right out of the gate with a lie....
Over the History of the Traditional Catholic Movement (1960-1990): this movement of opposition against the Second Vatican Council has considered since the beginning the possibility of the Holy See being vacant; the sedevacantist position, therefore, is not something of recent appearance.
It is not a movement of opposition at all, that's the lie the enemy has trumpeted since the beginning. It's a movement to preserve and persevere in the true faith.
Heck, no one even knew the pope perpetrated it for the first few years, longer in some places.
Don't read that crap.
-
These posts by Stubborn demonstrate very clearly why there won't be unity until we have a Pope. He can't even acknowledge sedevacantism isn't schismatic.
I don't know if it is or isn't schismatic, if you read my post, I said: "the Church has always considered the idea to be schismatic, what this means is by it's very nature sedeism is divisive."
What I say is that there is absolutely zero reason for sedeism.
-
Nah, as long as the -ism doesn't imply a different religion. There have always been "-isms" to describe various schools of thought within the Church, e.g. Thomism vs. Molinism. Is Thomism not Catholic?
Ok, fair enough. That's a good point
-
Your link starts right out of the gate with a lie....
My friend, that is the thesis that is supposed to be proven in the article...
How could you misunderstand something so simple?
-
I don't know if it is or isn't schismatic, if you read my post, I said: "the Church has always considered the idea to be schismatic, what this means is by it's very nature sedeism is divisive."
I understand now. The difference between you and me is that when I realize the Church considers something to be heretical or schismatic I consider it as well, while you don't.
I somehow assume people obey the supposed teaching of the Church but I guess you can't assume that with Old Catholic Lefebvrites.
-
My friend, that is the thesis that is supposed to be proven in the article...
How could you misunderstand something so simple?
Because I lived it, I understand it quite clearly.
-
I understand now. The difference between you and me is that when I realize the Church considers something to be heretical or schismatic I consider it as well, while you don't.
Right, that's why you're a sede. :facepalm:
-
The Catholic clergy must first "work together".
-
This is a really good point. If we don’t put aside our differences and our bickering, we’re going to split into one sect for every believer just like the Protestants. I hear this is a big reason young Catholics of both sexes have trouble finding spouses; they’re too picky about the things that divide us but have little to do with our daily lives (position on the Pope, on who is and isn’t saved, etc.).
-
The rejection of Vatican II and anything to do with the Novus Ordo must be a baseline.