Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Raoul is essentially correct, because the understanding of the present crisis as it relates to the Papacy which has been adopted by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and that espoused by the sedevacantists is ultimately mutually exclusive. It is only to be expected that such be the case because the question of the Roman Pontiff is absolutely central to the identity of the individual Catholic. The Roman Pontiff is to be the unity of the Catholic Church, as the Pope has been granted absolute primacy by Our Lord in the person of St. Peter.

However, traditionalists of good will who follow either persuasion find themselves agreeing on fundamental principles regarding faith and moral and the application thereof in the present age. As time goes on, the question of the Roman Pontiff will ineluctably become more and more complex for those who seek to attain to an understanding of the current crisis. History will eventually show to the future generations the accuracy of the claims of the traditionalists of either camp.

The chief reason why there much disunity amongst traditionalists nowadays is to be explained by the despicable trend of canonically unfit and untrained clergymen who have poisoned and deluded a generation of confused Catholics. Men who out of autolatrous pride and simoniac ambition have sought to attain to Sacred Order despite the admonitions of Fathers-Confessors and without the spiritual and academic training required by Canon Law.

Canonically unfit and untrained clergymen are the cancer that is killing us. The fastest way to be damned is to take such a charlatan for a Father Confessor and Spiritual Guide.

In the end, the problem of disunity is ultimately a spiritual problem. The earnest cultivation and proper exercise of the acquired moral virtues would be the beginning of a solution in individual cases and in communities at large.

My thoughts, better than I could have expressed them in this    forum.

Same here.

Because the SSPX and the sedes can't both be right.

 

I would add the FSSP and like groups, but this pretty much sums it up.

StevusMagnus said:

Objectively speaking dogmatic Sedes are schismatic as they refuse to recognize the Pope and deny his authority and deny communion with those who follow him (Catholic Church)."

What does this say again, I'm sure you have seen it a million times.  cuм Ex Apostolatus, ex cathedra:

"6. In addition, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"

 
Even if you don't believe that Ratzinger fell into some heresy before his elevation, this shows you that it is by no means schismatic to reject someone's claim to be Pope in all cases.

By your logic, St. Bernard was "schismatic" when he set about trying to prove that Anacletus II wasn't Pope, someone who didn't even have a fraction of the proof against him that JPII or Benedict do.

Do you understand that just saying he's the Pope doesn't make it so?  You can buy yourself some ruby slippers and click away, it's still not going to make it so.  

StevusMagnus said:

This is the very definition of schism. Subjectively, individual Sedes have varying degrees of culpability for this. The term is not a slight but a theological reality.

What are your credentials in theology again?  I thought you were a lawyer?  This site is not some jury that's going to be impressed by a lot of grandstanding and waving of arms.  There is no substance to your arguments.  

Give us your proof, quote something that says that, because Benedict poses as Pope, that he must necessarily be Pope.  Prove that a heretic isn't ipso facto deposed from the papacy despite what a sainted theologian taught, along with many others, not to mention canon law itself.

stevus,

What gave/gives you the "authority" to "judge" that the NOM is a problem?  How do you know V2 is problematic, or is not what JP2 said it is?  I do not recall seeing any 'official notice' to that effect.

Again, you are the one failing to make the distinction here.  We all make many judgments each and every day.  It is part of life and God expects us to do so.  As much as you (and many others) want to confound this with juridical/canonical/official judgments, the two are not the same thing (so quit pretending they are).  Everyone here understands that an individual's judgment is not binding upon another individual.

Now, quit beating a dead, non-existent horse :)

FYI, "PartyIsOver" is NOT typical of all traditional Catholics. He is very extreme, inclined to being hot-headed rather than moderate, and his best (only?) friend on here is a certain member who was banned once, but became a bit more tame in his rhetoric, and less extreme in his views.

Oddly, PartyIsOver probably prefers the OLD version of this member -- the one that was banned!

There is no one at my traditional chapel like "PartyIsOver". Maybe it's because I don't attend a Sede chapel? Who knows.

Anyhow, if I banned people because I didn't like them, he would probably be gone by now. I've read a lot of his posts (yes, sometimes I read any and all new posts...) and I've never seen any that were insightful, original, tempting me to save them off, etc.

Most other members have really good posts, at least from time to time.

Just wanted to fill you in on who you're dealing with.

Matthew

On a board like this, it is hard to see certain things.  For example, if someone is hot-blooded, young, etc., we cannot read them as we would be able to if we were in the same room.

PartyIsOver is a young man.  He is intelligent and good-willed, but there are certain things that go with being young.  Time and experience are often the only things that can bring certain tendencies under control, allowing us to make the most of what we know and the abilities God has given us.  C'est la vie, and all of us who are a little older can see the same process within our own lives.

A man in his 20s simply cannot see certain things until he is 30.  If he COULD see them, he would be miles ahead of his fellows.  It is precisely this "wisdom before their time" that sets some of the Saints apart from other men, and even from other Saints.  The vast majority of the Saints had to learn their lessons in the school of hard knocks.

That needs to be underlined.

And look at all of us -- we know much less than he did, and yet we go ahead and publish post after post for the whole world to see.

Hobble,

I was speaking in generalities. Of course my description does not apply to every Sede. By dogmatic Sedes I had in mind some of the very people you discussed. Ridiculous Sede "clergy" like the Dimonds and Traditio. Also doubtfully ordained Thuc clergy, and then the ridiculous Fr.'s C & Bishop D and the entire SSPV who started their existence in the sin of fraud and deceit.

Objectively speaking dogmatic Sedes are schismatic as they refuse to recognize the Pope and deny his authority and deny communion with those who follow him (Catholic Church). This is the very definition of schism. Subjectively, individual Sedes have varying degrees of culpability for this. The term is not a slight but a theological reality.

I would like to propose a series of academic questions and premises:

Should your bishop teach you that mohammetans worship the same god as you, would you believe him? Would you consider this man a Catholic? Would you subject your soul to his rule?

When statues of the infidel Buddha, are placed on altars of God, as a sign of ecuмenism to represent a fraternal relationship with these, could you, in your conscience, condone it?

When anti-religious activities that are clearly against Catholic conscience are practiced by the men who are pledged to uphold the Catholic faith, can you abide it?


In these cases, you would not question his faithfulness to the Catholic religion, which these must profess and practice (however imperfectly) in order to canonically be qualified for their office?

If your answer to any of the above is in the affirmative, then your position in condemning those who answer negatively to these would be justified. However, should you answer negatively, and you proceed to judge those who follow a course of action that may be the only way that they may be able to reconcile in their heart, by the same principles, then your judgment, that case, may not be legitimate.

 Imagine, for a moment, a parishioner in Nestorius' congregation when he pronounces a doctrine denying that Our Lady is the Theotokos. Would we find him sitting in silence and reverencing him as a Catholic clergyman and shepherd of his soul, believing his doctrine and subscribing to his spiritual rule, until, when years later, he is finally pronounced unfit and heretical, and found to have ipso facto lost his office?
Would such an individual be considered to have his faith in the Catholic religion, or in men who wear the robes of an office?

We will all answer to God for the judgments that we make and the course of action that we follow. When you act against what you believe to be true or the faithful manner of acting, or follow a course of action that your Catholic conscience tells you may be sinful, you will answer for that just as the Catholic who, following what he perceives as Catholic principles, acts in another... Nobody argues that clergy must be perfect and saintly, but from what Holy Mother Church has taught us, they must be a Catholic in order to be capable of teaching the Catholic faith, governing the Catholic faithful, and leading them in the sanctification of their souls.
We cannot judge hearts, but we must make our conclusions based on the fruits of their actions, and when those actions seem to blatantly betray the Catholic faith to the compromises of false religions and false gods, how can we read Catholicism into this? The fruits of V2 "ecuмenism" are naught but evil, and the world can see this, its foul fruits are there for all to see and sense their reek.

I personally cannot conclude that the novus ordo represents the Catholic Church of even 50 years ago, let alone centuries past. I cannot pretend that the doctrines I find promulgated at the local diocesan establishment even come close to resembling the faith as found in catechisms of the 60's, let alone those of the 1880's and earlier, or the writings of the saints, and the official teaching of the Church. I cannot pretend that clergy who deny the sinful nature of the seven capital sins are Catholic clergy, promoted as such by their superiors, who presently violate basic Catholic tenants and practices regularly. I cannot reconcile these actions in my heart as being authentically Catholic. I, therefore, cannot conclude that the establishment which calls itself Catholic, truly represents the faith delivered by a God that is truly Holy. And you, sir, would venture so far as to say that individuals, such as myself, are schismatic for denying communion with these, for not allowing men such as these to shepherd my soul straight into Hell? For if they be true clergy, then I must be subject to them in all things regarding my faith and conscience, no? In which case, I would need to accept these things, and that, I cannot. Your generalizations regarding "sedes", are not necessarily representative of a contemplative conclusion, nor one of charity. We cannot pretend that the situation we find ourselves in is absolutely clear. When deprived of Catholic assistance and advice, we find ourselves following the best route that we can legitimately identify.