Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: SeanJohnson

[...]
Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.
[...]

This is prattle.

We are losing so much ground because we have slipped into a coma of inaction, or semantical reactionism.

Columba and Clemens Maria and J. Paul are all advocating, in slightly different ways, that we start acting like Catholics again. It's been 50 years, for cryin' out loud. It's time to get over it and put the hand back to the plow.

A blatant admission of battle fatigue!

This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").

It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.

It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.

Bp. Fellay is compromising toward Modernist heresy. Bp. Williamson is compromising toward... what defined heresy? Both R&R's and Sedevacantists are able to make plausible, though incomplete, theological defenses of their positions.

The debate is hampered by the lack of understanding and details on the Masonic take-over. What's more, neither side can show Church rulings definitively backing them up, although both sides have found opinions partially supporting their position. Take a step back from your position for a moment to see the forest for the trees. Has the R&R-Sede debate not reached a stalemate, objectively speaking? Does this debate not consume significant amounts of the limited trad resources in church splits, property disputes, and inefficient duplication of institutions such as schools? Do you envision the inconclusive arguments of one side defeating the other in the foreseeable future?

If we agree that the hierarchy appears to be under the direct control of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, how is the problem not political and solely religious? When in the history of the Church has there ever been a festering religious problem that has not also been political?

Perhaps you will say that the religious problem fuels the trouble and that we must resolve it first to make the political problem go away. The problem is solely Modernism and not Sedevacantism since the latter evaporates upon resolution of the former. R&R is no solution, but only an imperfect, stopgap response to Modernism. Sedevacantism is also a stopgap measure. If Sedevacantism is wrong, then is only because its imperfection is some degree greater than that of R&R. Neither position claims to be perfect. So in regards to perfection, the difference is at most one of degree and not of kind.

+Williamson's "compromise" on Sedevacantism is not a compromise with heresy, but only a long overdue course correction. Pseudo-dogmatic stridency about which of the two most prominent stopgap measures is best to follow serves no legitimate purpose. Elevation of the tawdry, interest-laden swabbles between R&R and Sedevacantism to the level of "doctrinal" may itself qualify as a kind of sin or error.

So if neither R&R nor Sedevacantism are genuine solutions to the Modernist problem, what is? Traditionalists must first restore the papacy, either by wresting it away from Freemasons or by divorcing the conquered church structure and erecting another. Only then can the Church definitively condemn the errors of Vatican II and render moot the differences between R&R and Sedevacantism. A solution to the political aspect of Modernism is a mandatory prerequisite to resolving the religious problem.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: SeanJohnson

This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").

It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.

It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.

Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.

Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma.  It is a schismatic tendency.  He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion.  Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.

How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?

If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him?  He says you are not in communion with him.*  So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him.  But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope.  So you are in quite the pickle.  On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope.  That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency.  But I don't blame you for it.  We are in a difficult confusing time.  That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.

* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?

To say that the Resistance or even the sspx are in communion with Francis is to completely destroy the meaning and traditional understanding of the word. We do not share the same sacraments, do not share the same laws, do not share the same liturgy, do not share the same faith.

If you call that communion, you completely destroy what the word means. If unity in faith, discipline and practice is not required then you're back in the Novus Ordo.  Everrybody's in communion with everybody.

Great post!  I think the final remaining link is the "una cuм".  That is the final thing which links the R&R communities to Francis.  Not even the picture of Francis is hung in all SSPX and Resistance chapels.  So the una cuм is the last link to Francis.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: SeanJohnson

This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").

It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.

It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.

Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.

Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma.  It is a schismatic tendency.  He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion.  Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.

How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?

If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him?  He says you are not in communion with him.*  So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him.  But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope.  So you are in quite the pickle.  On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope.  That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency.  But I don't blame you for it.  We are in a difficult confusing time.  That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.

* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.

Clemens-

I beg to differ.

The R&R is a position which will vanish when Rome returns to the Faith, and can be maintained indefinitely until that occurs.

And it matters not whether the Pope thinks we are in communion with him or not.

The fact is, we are.

And the presumption is that he is Pope, not that he is not Pope:

1) Because there is no additional claimant;

2) Because nobody can judge the Pope to say he is not the Pope.

You write as though it was a demonstrable fact that he is not the Pope.

...

3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;

4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.

Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.

If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Keep in mind that the guy in white is either the Pope or he is not so either R & R is right or SV is right.

Those who hold he is a material but not a formal Pope are practical SVs as that act and treat him as if he is not Pope at all.  The do not include him in the una cuм and they do not treat him as if he were pope in any way.  They just believe he holds a space and become Pope if he becomes Catholic by renouncing his heresies.  

Neither R&R's nor SV's follow the wayward popes. Inter-trad disputes preclude significant evangelization because newcomers only want to be Catholic and are disheartened by infighting. A sizable portion of the NO's do simply want to be Catholic and remain with the bishops only because they see no plausible alternative.

Since Vatican II, there has been a steady exit from NO pews. Modernists do not care when these faithful leave the Church. Parishes and schools are consolidated, closed, and sold for cash. Many former NO's are still looking for a home and many still attending will eventually leave, if present trends continue. Some NO's could not stand traditionalism, but many would be open to it if they made to understand it is God's will. Besides, what sane parent does not seek a way to keep their children from growing up corrupted?

I believe that trad squabbling indirectly but effectively prevents many people from finding their way to Tradition. Our squabbling scares off newcomers and precludes the coordination of nationwide and worldwide evangelization. Squabblers must be hoping that the issues of their contention will be judged important enough make the infighting worthwhile.

I think I am in agreement with what you are saying Columba.  However, I would like to distinguish between arguments (squabbling) and complete refusal to cooperate.  I think these arguments are ultimately going to benefit the Church by identifying a plausible explanation for what has happened to the Church since Vatican II.  What I think is very unhealthy is Catholics refusing to cooperate in any way with each other.  I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire.  That includes sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, sedeagnostics, sedeplenists, recognize & resistors, Resistance, SSPX, neo-SSPX(yellow light), all Catholics who have valid sacraments and adhere to the traditional doctrine of the Church.  The status of the papacy while extremely important is not a dogma of the Church.  It is an opinion.  An important opinion.  So while I think we need to resolve the question of the papacy, I also think that in the meantime we should be cooperating as much as possible, including providing the sacraments to those in need.

You said:

"I don't include adherents of the Conciliar Religion as Catholics but only those who continue to keep the Faith whole and entire."

In other words, you refuse communion with other Catholics.

You have just proven very neatly that sedevacantism has a schismatic spirit.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: SeanJohnson

This in turn causes you/them to seek a political solution to a theological problem (aka "tradcuмenism/ecuмenism").

It will be as disastrous for traditionalists as it was for modernists, since the same principle guides both: Put aside what separates us, and concentrate on what unites us.

It will dilute the purity of each compromising party, and develop a "traditionalism" of the lowest common denominator.

Conferences such as Rebuilding Christendom seem a good example. I would have no objection with such a conference.

Mr. Johnson is trying to raise theological opinions to the status of Catholic Dogma.  It is a schismatic tendency.  He is refusing communion with fellow Catholics over his pet theological opinion.  Traditionalists putting aside their differences in opinion is in no way comparable to the ecuмenism of the Conciliar Church.

How can I be in communion with "Catholics" not in communion with Peter?

If Francis is the true Pope how can you be in communion with him?  He says you are not in communion with him.*  So if he is the Pope then no traditionalist is in communion with him.  But if he is not the Pope then no traditionalist can allow himself to be in communion with him because he is not the Pope.  So you are in quite the pickle.  On the one hand, you are in communion with other R&R folks who are not in communion with the supposed true Pope but on the other hand you refuse communion with SVs because they are not in communion with the supposed true Pope.  That's not only insane, it shows a schismatic cultish tendency.  But I don't blame you for it.  We are in a difficult confusing time.  That's why I say we should put aside differences of opinion and try to cooperate and find a way to resolve the crisis.

* In fact, according to Conciliar Church doctrine your status in the Church is less than that of the Orthodox schismatics.

Clemens-

I beg to differ.

The R&R is a position which will vanish when Rome returns to the Faith, and can be maintained indefinitely until that occurs.

And it matters not whether the Pope thinks we are in communion with him or not.

The fact is, we are.

And the presumption is that he is Pope, not that he is not Pope:

1) Because there is no additional claimant;

2) Because nobody can judge the Pope to say he is not the Pope.

You write as though it was a demonstrable fact that he is not the Pope.

That wasn't me that thumbed you down.  I don't agree with what you are saying.  Mith's post was a magnificent response.  The FSSP has a better understanding of what communion really means than the SSPX.  I don't think your claim of communion with Francis is credible.

I proclaim communion with Francis, but you don't accept it???

And what bearing does your subjective refusal to accept my objective proclamation have on reality?

You have just espoused solipsism: Reality exists only in your own mind.

You might as well just have said you do not accept that I say my name is Sean.

...

3) Because he is universally recognized as such by all prelates with jurisdiction;

4) Because it is impossible (and without precedent) that the Church could have a 56 year interregnum and still claim visibility.

Against all this, it defies common sense to presume the opposite.

If you pull your head out of the manuals and take a deep breath, it might begin to occur to you.

I had the same opinion as you just a few months ago.  I had to re-evaluate after Francis said there is no Catholic God.  I think every R&R man will have to re-evaluate after JP2 is "canonized".  I'm not worried about the visibility of the Church because even if the only bishops with ordinary jurisdiction are a couple dozen traditional bishops the visibility of the Church is still preserved.  I argue that (3) above is false.  I think Mith's post shows that true common sense would tell you that you are not in communion with Francis.  But I think that is a good thing.  Why would you want to be in communion with a public heretic?