Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: CatholicInAmerica on October 11, 2019, 08:00:23 AM
-
Too often people get caught up in arguments (especially on Cathinfo, Lad and Johnson I’m taking about you) about R&R vs sede. The reality is however, that we all have the same goal in mind, we all agree that the v2 claimants are heretics, we all agree that V2 and the new mass is abominable. And on top of that we all want the church to be restored and I feel that everyone on this forum (except some hardcore dimond fans) would accept a 100% orthodox pope. I think we should take it easy on the mudslinging because we agree on everything but 1 insignificant detail (the pope question). It is insignificant in hindsight because whether or not bergollio is a legit pope has no weight on our salvation, as we all agree he Will be condemned in the future. If tomorrow, a Pope st Pius X was to elected by the cardinals and immediately anathematized anyyhung after 1958, removed all the cardinals, removed all the liberal and homo clergy, welcomed the SSPX, cmri, sspv, resistance, I’m sure we all would be more than happy to call him pope. More importantly, how do you think a conservative novus ordo who’s considering coming to tradition feels when they see such fighting? When they see the fighting, they read and accept idiots like Michael Matt who says to avoid the SSPX and similar groups. They become Taylor Marshall fssp and make no progress on their pathway to heaven.
-
Mostly agree. Good points. For my part, I will try to keep a cooler head.
-
Mostly agree. Good points. For my part, I will try to keep a cooler head.
Very good. Too often dogmatic seeds call dogmatic R&R heretics and vice versa. However, neither are heretics because this whole situation is very very confusing and there are good points on both sides.
-
If tomorrow, a Pope st Pius X was to elected by the cardinals and immediately anathematized anyyhung after 1958, removed all the cardinals, removed all the liberal and homo clergy, welcomed the SSPX, cmri, sspv, resistance, I’m sure we all would be more than happy to call him pope.
I think the SSPX/Resistance/FSSP and other R&R types would be happy to call him Pope. But some of the sede groups might be stuck in a difficult situation as they have already declared the cardinals as heretics outside the Church and thus are not in a position to elect a Pope. Are there any major sede groups that think only the Pope is not a member of Church but still believe that there maybe some valid cardinals?
-
I think the SSPX/Resistance/FSSP and other R&R types would be happy to call him Pope. But some of the sede groups might be stuck in a difficult situation as they have already declared the cardinals as heretics outside the Church and thus are not in a position to elect a Pope. Are there any major sede groups that think only the Pope is not a member of Church but still believe that there maybe some valid cardinals?
The privationists. I feel like the sspv would accept him too. The adherents to the cassiciacuм thesis would whole heartedly accept hum and an increasing number of full blown sedes are changing to adherents to the thesis. Many sedes would accept him though, no doubt.
Almost all sedes say “a future pope will comment on this” so there has to be a pope somehow
-
Too often people get caught up in arguments (especially on Cathinfo, Lad and Johnson I’m taking about you) about R&R vs sede. The reality is however, that we all have the same goal in mind, we all agree that the v2 claimants are heretics, we all agree that V2 and the new mass is abominable. And on top of that we all want the church to be restored and I feel that everyone on this forum (except some hardcore dimond fans) would accept a 100% orthodox pope. I think we should take it easy on the mudslinging because we agree on everything but 1 insignificant detail (the pope question). It is insignificant in hindsight because whether or not bergollio is a legit pope has no weight on our salvation, as we all agree he Will be condemned in the future. If tomorrow, a Pope st Pius X was to elected by the cardinals and immediately anathematized anyyhung after 1958, removed all the cardinals, removed all the liberal and homo clergy, welcomed the SSPX, cmri, sspv, resistance, I’m sure we all would be more than happy to call him pope. More importantly, how do you think a conservative novus ordo who’s considering coming to tradition feels when they see such fighting? When they see the fighting, they read and accept idiots like Michael Matt who says to avoid the SSPX and similar groups. They become Taylor Marshall fssp and make no progress on their pathway to heaven.
There is NO WAY that sedevacantists and sedeprivationists will ever agree on what constitutes accepting..."a 100% orthodox pope." It's just not possible. Both groups have their hard-core adherents who condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views. And if a possible 100% orthodox pope doesn't completely line up with their views in all respects, then he will no doubt be a heretic, according to them. There's no going back, once you've completely cut yourself off from the Pope. You'll not be able to think again like a Catholic, when it comes to the papacy. You're too far removed from it, and for too long.
And then there are those sedevacantists who have this idea that the Pope becomes a divine being when he is validly elected, or nearly so. He's no longer just a man, but rather he is infused with divine knowledge or enlightenment or something like that, so that he can't possibly ever err. Maybe it's just a few sedes and sedeprivationists who think this way, but they exist. It seems rather gnostic to me.
-
There is NO WAY that sedevacantists and sedeprivationists will ever agree on what constitutes accepting..."a 100% orthodox pope." It's just not possible. Both groups have their hard-core adherents who condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views. And if a possible 100% orthodox pope doesn't completely line up with their views in all respects, then he will no doubt be a heretic, according to them. There's no going back, once you've completely cut yourself off from the Pope. You'll not be able to think again like a Catholic, when it comes to the papacy. You're too far removed from it, and for too long.
And then there are those sedevacantists who have this idea that the Pope becomes a divine being when he is validly elected, or nearly so. He's no longer just a man, but rather he is infused with divine knowledge or enlightenment or something like that, so that he can't possibly ever err. Maybe it's just a few sedes and sedeprivationists who think this way, but they exist. It seems rather gnostic to me.
I agree that once one arrogates to oneself the authority to determine who is, and who is not, a pope, that a principle is then established which will activate it in perpetuity, making every pontificate questionable or rejected by some.
The false principle of private interpretation is ruinous for unity and incompatible with the Church’s heirarchical constitution.
Some sedes demonstrate the point by even questioning pre-conciliar papacies.
-
I agree that once one arrogates to oneself the authority to determine who is, and who is not, a pope, that a principle is then established which will activate it in perpetuity, making every pontificate questionable or rejected by some.
The false principle of private interpretation is ruinous for unity and incompatible with the Church’s heirarchical constitution.
Some sedes demonstrate the point by even questioning pre-conciliar papacies.
Yes; it's the principle of the thing. If one absolutely rejects a Pope as invalid, then that establishes a precedent that no pope will ever be free from suspicion that he may not be a true pope. Yes, private interpretation has lot to do with it. But of course we all have to try to interpret the Crisis, and the Crisis of the Papacy too. That's sometimes difficult, which is why I rely on +ABL and others of his frame of mind to give a truly Catholic perspective on the Crisis, and the Papacy. Though +ABL didn't really focus so much on the Pope. For him, the apostasy was system-wide. He knew that Rome was inhabited by Modernists. This was his main concern; he didn't focus or isolate the Pope nearly as much as the sedes and sedeprivationists do. That's a BIG difference between the sedes and +ABL (R&R), IMO.
You mention that some sedes demonstrate the point by even questioning the pre-conciliar papacies. Well, Fr. Gregory Hesse once said that he expected the sedes to one day tell him that there's not been a true Pope since St. Peter. He was joking of course, but he was also making a good point.
-
It is quite revealing that you consider it "private interpretation" to notice the differences among
"Jesus Christ is True Man and True God"
and
"Jesus sinned and made Himself the devil"
and
"Jesus was man, not God."
In reality, it requires "private schizophrenia interpretation" to believe "God" and "not God" are the same.
But then we are accustomed to see such lobotomized illogic; e.g., "all cardinals" is "the same" as "not all cardinals."
It requires no private interpretation to recognize A ≠ not A.
-
It is quite revealing that you consider it "private interpretation" to notice the differences among
"Jesus Christ is True Man and True God"
and
"Jesus sinned and made Himself the devil"
and
"Jesus was man, not God."
In reality, it requires "private schizophrenia interpretation" to believe "God" and "not God" are the same.
But then we are accustomed to see such lobotomized illogic; e.g., "all cardinals" is "the same" as "not all cardinals."
It requires no private interpretation to recognize A ≠ not A.
Your mistake is that:
1) You accept the truth of those quotes without a reputable source (ladislaus' admission, which I agree with), and against the denial of the Vatican.
2) You also equate the necessity of rejecting an heretical statement with the authority and alleged duty to depose a pope (one universally recognized by the body of bishops, and therefore a dogmatic fact).
3) You believe it a sign of fidelity to depose him, and of infidelity to recognize his legitimacy. But in fact this is exactly backwards.
-
The mind trap. Lay folks have to have cooler heads on God's judgement and Providence. Heritics and queers will get their just punishment. Catholics must maintain charity amongst themselves.
-
The mind trap. Lay folks have to have cooler heads on God's judgement and Providence. Heritics and queers will get their just punishment. Catholics must maintain charity amongst themselves.
Maintaining charity, I agree, but not uniting the clans. Sedes and R&R do not share the same doctrine.
-
Maintaining charity, I agree, but not uniting the clans. Sedes and R&R do not share the same doctrine.
The full blown sedevacantist and the full blown R + R disagree on the doctrne of the papacy, almost always. That's really the biggest difference, it seems to me.
But the problem is there are variations of each position. For instance, the dogmatic R + R would say its objectively a grave matter to have anything less than absolute certainty of Francis' pontificate. But someone could also be R and R and still think the Church *could* eventually determine that these men weren't real popes, or something like that. Someone could take the position that we don't and can't know whether they're legitimate. Etc.
-
I agree that once one arrogates to oneself the authority to determine who is, and who is not, a pope, that a principle is then established which will activate it in perpetuity, making every pontificate questionable or rejected by some.
The false principle of private interpretation is ruinous for unity and incompatible with the Church’s heirarchical constitution.
Some sedes demonstrate the point by even questioning pre-conciliar papacies.
As opposed to the private interpretation of declaring the Mass to be invalid, an Ecuмenical Council to be a heretical robber's council, and all Church teaching in the last 50 odd years to be heretical? R&R will tell you not to attend Mass if you have no Tridentine option available - but according to the Church to do such is mortally sinful. So R&R are happy to tell you to live in mortal sin(according to the Church) because in their private interpretation they judge the Church to be wrong.
Once one arrogates oneself to the authority to determine whether each and every promulgation, law, order, missal etc. of a pope is valid, then all those things will find themselves questioned and rejected by some.
See? Exact same argument applies.
-
Very good. Too often dogmatic seeds call dogmatic R&R heretics and vice versa. However, neither are heretics because this whole situation is very very confusing and there are good points on both sides.
That's poor logic. Just because each side makes good points, this does not mean that one side or another can't also make bad points, and even heretical ones. Some R&R have embraced principles that are in fact objectively heretical, undermining the indefectibility of the Church and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology. And I will never stop speaking out about these. On the other hand, SOME sedevacantists have adopted what reduce to schismatic principles, and I will continue to speak about those as well. I will not be silent under some false ecuмenical, "can't we all just get along?" rhetoric. If I have serious theological problems with something, I will not just pretend that everything is fine. That is emotional and effeminate, and it does no service to anyone. At times I could see fit to tone down my rhetoric, but when confronted by some blockhead who is not in good faith but promoting an agenda, it may be required to get their attention. Some of the things St. Jerome wrote against heretics would make ever our hair stand on end today.
-
There is NO WAY that sedevacantists and sedeprivationists will ever agree on what constitutes accepting..."a 100% orthodox pope." It's just not possible. Both groups have their hard-core adherents who condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views. And if a possible 100% orthodox pope doesn't completely line up with their views in all respects, then he will no doubt be a heretic, according to them. There's no going back, once you've completely cut yourself off from the Pope. You'll not be able to think again like a Catholic, when it comes to the papacy. You're too far removed from it, and for too long.
And then there are those sedevacantists who have this idea that the Pope becomes a divine being when he is validly elected, or nearly so. He's no longer just a man, but rather he is infused with divine knowledge or enlightenment or something like that, so that he can't possibly ever err. Maybe it's just a few sedes and sedeprivationists who think this way, but they exist. It seems rather gnostic to me.
So, when I spoke just now of bad-willed blockheads, this is precisely what I was speaking of. Every line of this entails some slanderous distortion of the sedevacantist position. Will there be handful of the more radical dogmatic sedevacantists who will hold out? Certainly. But the vast majority would fall into line when the identity of a true pope becomes clear and universally accepted by the Church. One could argue, on the other hand, from the false non-Catholic sensibilities created among some R&R that they will become the liberal Catholics of the future, those who see fit to judge and criticize every teaching short of infallibly defined that emanates from the Holy See?
Have SOME of the more radical sedevacantists exaggerated the scope of infallibility? Yes. Have SOME / MOST of R&R minimized infallibility and the requirement to submit and give internal assent to all the teachings of the Holy See directed to the Universal Church? Absolutely. One of the first things this new Pope would have to do would be to condemn the false principles held by both sedevacantists and R&R.
-
Yes; it's the principle of the thing. If one absolutely rejects a Pope as invalid, then that establishes a precedent that no pope will ever be free from suspicion that he may not be a true pope.
And R&R establishes that "no pope will ever be free from suspicion" of teaching false doctrine, never again, right? You see the splinter in your bother's eye but ignore the beam that is sticking five feet out of from your own eye socket.
-
Maintaining charity, I agree, but not uniting the clans. Sedes and R&R do not share the same doctrine.
Agreed. There are serious theological differences in their core ecclesiology that will have to be resolved by the future Pope. Proposing that they put aside such differences comes from the standpoint of an effeminate "false irenicism".
-
That's poor logic. Just because each side makes good points, this does not mean that one side or another can't also make bad points, and even heretical ones. Some R&R have embraced principles that are in fact objectively heretical, undermining the indefectibility of the Church and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology. And I will never stop speaking out about these. On the other hand, SOME sedevacantists have adopted what reduce to schismatic principles, and I will continue to speak about those as well. I will not be silent under some false ecuмenical, "can't we all just get along?" rhetoric. If I have serious theological problems with something, I will not just pretend that everything is fine. That is emotional and effeminate, and it does no service to anyone. At times I could see fit to tone down my rhetoric, but when confronted by some blockhead who is not in good faith but promoting an agenda, it may be required to get their attention. Some of the things St. Jerome wrote against heretics would make ever our hair stand on end today.
I agree completely.
-
The full blown sedevacantist and the full blown R + R disagree on the doctrne of the papacy, almost always. That's really the biggest difference, it seems to me.
But the problem is there are variations of each position. For instance, the dogmatic R + R would say its objectively a grave matter to have anything less than absolute certainty of Francis' pontificate. But someone could also be R and R and still think the Church *could* eventually determine that these men weren't real popes, or something like that. Someone could take the position that we don't and can't know whether they're legitimate. Etc.
Indeed, there's an entire range of opinions with many nuances. One of the greatest disservices that has happened in the interests of truth is this establishment of TWO camps ... not unlike the two false political parties forced down everyone's throat in the United States. There's an entire range of opinions between the two extremes, but this labeling of people as belonging to one of two positions has caused much harm. It causes a radicalization of the two extremes and tends to push everything in between towards one of the two extreme poles.
What the future pope will need to do is to condemn all the erroneous propositions floating around out there to re-calibrate everyone's sensus Catholicus to where it should be.
-
I've always found this a beneficial exercise. Pretend that I am a simple Catholic, intent on remaining faithful to the Church, and devoted to the Holy See, living during the reign of St. Pius X. What is my attitude to the Holy See? When the Pope issues an Encyclical letter to the entire Church, what is the attitude with which I receive it? This idea that, "oh, no, here comes another Bergoglio recyclical" and "I'm not going to waste my time reading that crap" would be utterly abhorrent to a Catholic who had developed such sensibilities. That is simply not a Catholic attitude. So we have all had our sense of the faith damaged by this Vatican II horror.
-
I've always found this a beneficial exercise. Pretend that I am a simple Catholic, intent on remaining faithful to the Church, and devoted to the Holy See, living during the reign of St. Pius X. What is my attitude to the Holy See? When the Pope issues an Encyclical letter to the entire Church, what is the attitude with which I receive it? This idea that, "oh, no, here comes another Bergoglio recyclical" and "I'm not going to waste my time reading that crap" would be utterly abhorrent to a Catholic who had developed such sensibilities. That is simply not a Catholic attitude. So we have all had our sense of the faith damaged by this Vatican II horror.
Obviously that would be bad. At the LEAST the normal posture would be assuming the best and attempting to assent, and if you can’t do so to a particular point, doing so humbly and respectfully.
But clearly SOMETHING unusual is afoot
-
For instance, the dogmatic R + R would say its objectively a grave matter to have anything less than absolute certainty of Francis' pontificate. But someone could also be R and R and still think the Church *could* eventually determine that these men weren't real popes, or something like that. Someone could take the position that we don't and can't know whether they're legitimate. Etc.
Is there a name for this position? Or is it just a variation of R & R? This is pretty much what I think. I do not consider that I have the authority to say that they were not popes, but (especially in the case of Francis) I do not rule out the possibility that the Church might teach this at some point.
I keep thinking that if I had been alive during the Great Western Schism, I would not have been able to figure out which of the papal claimants was the true one. Even for me reading about it in hindsight, I can see arguments for both sides. The only way that I know is because the Church later taught about it.
-
Too often people get caught up in arguments (especially on Cathinfo, Lad and Johnson I’m taking about you) about R&R vs sede. The reality is however, that we all have the same goal in mind, we all agree that the v2 claimants are heretics, we all agree that V2 and the new mass is abominable. And on top of that we all want the church to be restored and I feel that everyone on this forum (except some hardcore dimond fans) would accept a 100% orthodox pope. I think we should take it easy on the mudslinging because we agree on everything but 1 insignificant detail (the pope question). It is insignificant in hindsight because whether or not bergollio is a legit pope has no weight on our salvation, as we all agree he Will be condemned in the future. If tomorrow, a Pope st Pius X was to elected by the cardinals and immediately anathematized anyyhung after 1958, removed all the cardinals, removed all the liberal and homo clergy, welcomed the SSPX, cmri, sspv, resistance, I’m sure we all would be more than happy to call him pope. More importantly, how do you think a conservative novus ordo who’s considering coming to tradition feels when they see such fighting? When they see the fighting, they read and accept idiots like Michael Matt who says to avoid the SSPX and similar groups. They become Taylor Marshall fssp and make no progress on their pathway to heaven.
Did you mean Michael Voris? I’ve never heard Michael Matt say to avoid the sspx