Author Topic: "Recognize and Resist" or Sedevacantism? (Read 22375 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #30 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:57:34 AM »

“I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope” -Archbishop Lefebvre, to his American priests, 1979

"...a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered...

...To whatever extent the pope departed from...tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.

...Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff." -Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #31 on:** December 18, 2013, 12:03:41 PM »

I would argue that there is a 3rd option (1. RnR, 2. SV) that doesn't first require a resolution to the problem of whether or not the Pope has lost his office. It is universally believed that the Church has the power to judge the legitimacy of any claim to the papacy. So it was understood that the competent authorities could gather to make such a judgement. So why don't all traditionalists unite on that one point? Why not let the competent authorities decide the status of the papacy? The only problem then would be identifying the competent authorities. But anyone who is even suspect of heresy is not a competent authority. So that rules out the entire Conciliar Church. Why not submit ourselves to the decision of a council of traditional Catholic clergy?

JPaul · « **Reply #32 on:** December 18, 2013, 12:22:53 PM »

Quote

The Archbishop's strategy helped to preserve tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?

Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.

Machabees · « **Reply #33 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:06:28 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?

Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.

Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?

History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.

Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?

These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.

Columba · « **Reply #34 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:55:54 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?

Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.

Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?

History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.

Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?

These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.

Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.

However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.

Machabees · « **Reply #35 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:29:08 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
The Archbishop's strategy helped to "preserve" tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?

Well, there is really only one option open to possibly revive this strategy that would be to substantially expand resistance to the apostasy and the destruction of the Church.

Why would one need to limit God if it is in His Divine plan to only preserve Tradition for now, while chastising His people, rather than fulfilling the earnest desire of souls to restore it now?

History shows that God's chastisements in other crises have lasted a lot longer than this particular crisis.

Is it time in God's mind to restore the Glory of Triumph in His Church now, or to let it continue to go through the Glory of suffering like it's Redeemer?

These are good questions and their answers do help explain the crisis in the historical context of the Church and the secret workings of the Redeemer to save souls.

Man cannot conceive of God's plans, but certainly He wants Catholics doing their utmost to propagate the Faith in this present era, whether or not those efforts will succeed in the short term. So we should work for revival even if success appear humanly impossible.

However, that is not the case. Many, many people besides traditional Catholics have noticed the collapse of Western Civilization and many are seeking leadership for launching a revival. We traditional Catholics, sole inheritors of the core of Western Civilization, hoard our treasure by not filling the leadership vacuum because we are afraid of our own shadows.

Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #36 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:40:46 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is a good post, but I respectfully disagree with Sean, with Machabees and with J. Paul.

The true recognize and resist position, upheld by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society to this day, and taught by the Saints and Doctors of the Church is this - we may resist individual evil commands by the Pope or bishops as abuses of authority, these commands cannot bind and have no effect. But in order not to refuse the authority itself, we can and must obey when the object commanded is good.

An illegal suppression is an injustice and does not bind. But a canonical regularization is by itself something good, if legitimate authority commands something good, this cannot be refused outright without in a sense implicitly refusing the authority itself.

This is the reverse side of the doctrine of necessity. It is unheard of in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope can order the correction of an injustice and in commanding something good be refused.

So if someone is dogmatically opposed to canonical regularization, then obviously the sedevacantists will quite logically point out the internal inconsistency and intellectual incoherence of that position, and rightly say that that position is implicitly sedevacantist, since it rejects not specific evil commands only, but objects commanded that are both good and evil, which is a rejection of the authority itself.

As reason and experience shows, nothing is so conducive to good Catholic souls unhappily falling into the sedevacantist confusion as the inconsistency of non-sedevacantist Catholics.

As for why sedevacantism itself must be rejected as heterodox, that is easy to show.

It is very simple to see that sedevacantism leads to heretical conclusions when the sede vacante is indefinitely extended, specifically it leads to no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and therefore compromises irremediably the visiblity and Apostolicity of the Church.

Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office by apostolic mandate, give him office and ordinary jurisdiction and make him a successor to the Apostles.

So if someone held today that Pope Pius XII was not Pope and the See has been vacant for 74 years, he would already be a heretic. Why? Because in that case there are absolutely no bishops alive who were appointed under Pius XI.

There are a few (about 15) bishops alive appointed by Pius XII but almost all of these have resigned their offices. Formal apostolicity has then vanished under sedevacantism.

This is why it is defined dogma that Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Roman Catholic Church. The Petrine succession and the Apostolic succession are interlinked and the implication of a sede vacante that is indefinitely extended is that when every bishop appointed by the last Pope dies off the Catholic Church will cease to be Apostolic, which is impossible.

Here is the correct and consistent recognize and resist position.

Quote from: Fr. Laisney
One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing - indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent - the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the Pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) – therefore against which one has not the right to resist, in as much as he gives it with no evil conditions and with the sufficient guarantees so that this order be solid.

Quote from: Bp. Fellay
It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests—may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. . . . . It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable.

The calm logic, the precision, the consistency and the evident Catholic sense of this position is incontrovertible.

Nishant-

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me.

You have laid out my position perfectly.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #37 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:47:47 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Sean Johnson,
Quote

It is only unquestionable to you.

And Pete Vere.

And anyone else who has not the ability or disposition to read the article on the doctrine of necessity.

Like Menzingen accordistas, you turn a blind eye in order to protect your self-imposed ignorance, and maintain your position.

.........................

The doctrine of necessity allows one and can even compel one to act according the will of the Church and against an authority within the Church.
However it does not compel one to recognize an authority which by objective measure might not be legitimate.

The doctrine of common sense and reason compels one to reject the notion that a thing can be and not be at the same time. That is the only position that I maintain.

Holding two contradictory concepts simultaneously,
1) I accept that this authority is legitimate
2) I am free to selectively limit my submission to this authority, does not seemed to have worked for the last fifty years.

I do not have enough of the doctrinal certainty of the Menzinista or indult mind to keep the contradiction of these ideas at bay any longer.

Standing in the middle of the stream while the ground is eroding under foot is no longer an option. God has promised to vomit forth the lukewarm middle of the streamers.
If you cannot see what is before you, then perhaps you should ponder you own words about blindness and self-imposed ingnorance.

This post makes it obvious that you have not read the referenced article.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:51:39 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Nishant
It is very simple to see that sedevacantism leads to heretical conclusions when the sede vacante is indefinitely extended, specifically it leads to no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and therefore compromises irremediably the visiblity and Apostolicity of the Church.

You need to docuмent that assertion or it is worthless.

Quote from: Nishant
Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to an office by apostolic mandate, give him office and ordinary jurisdiction and make him a successor to the Apostles.

It is my understanding that bishops have been consecrated and appointed and given a canonical mission/office during interegnums. That would prove your statement to be false.

Also, isn't the idea that a bishop can be legitimately consecrated without a canonical mission a novelty? Can you point to any other cases (aside from post-V2) in the history of the Church where a bishop was validly and licitly consecrated without a canonical mission?

Reservation of the consecration/appointment of bishops to Rome was only introduced belatedly to the Church in the 11th century (and even then, only for the Latin Church).

JPaul · « **Reply #39 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:08:48 PM »

Quote

Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.

Columba's reply was adequate for both of us.

You look at this in a particular way in which this appears to make sense but, no human has the insight into the mind of God. His ways are inscrutable and unfathomable, but if you wish to speculate about this then it is just as likely that He is allowing this agony to continue due to the tepidity and weak faith of those whom he has called to his service.
There is no hope of seeing an end to this and a restoration in our lifetimes but when is not relevant to whether or not we put forth an effort on its behalf.

If we are to receive what we require we must make ourselves worthy of His mercy by shedding our complacency and acting in what ways we can to save and inculcate the Holy Religion into souls.

He has given us the greatest of gifts and justice demands that we not toss the whole problem back at Him. We are in this world and are supposed to be the Church militant not the Church waiting. We are to be living stones which exude His Kingdom and contradict the world as we find it. We are not a contradiction to the world when we sit and do less than is possible for us to do. We are accommodating it.

If our efforts are not fruitful, God will show us the way in which they might be. Trusting in God's providence can most easily end up by presuming upon his providence.

God Bless

JPaul · « **Reply #40 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:12:02 PM »

Later off to work now

Machabees · « **Reply #41 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:36:22 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
Sorry Columba, my post was directed to J.Paul in what he had written; not what you had written.

Columba's reply was adequate for both of us.

You look at this in a particular way in which this appears to make sense but, no human has the insight into the mind of God. His ways are inscrutable and unfathomable, but if you wish to speculate about this then it is just as likely that He is allowing this agony to continue due to the tepidity and weak faith of those whom he has called to his service.
There is no hope of seeing an end to this and a restoration in our lifetimes but when is not relevant to whether or not we put forth an effort on its behalf.

If we are to receive what we require we must make ourselves worthy of His mercy by shedding our complacency and acting in what ways we can to save and inculcate the Holy Religion into souls.

He has given us the greatest of gifts and justice demands that we not toss the whole problem back at Him. We are in this world and are supposed to be the Church militant not the Church waiting. We are to be living stones which exude His Kingdom and contradict the world as we find it. We are not a contradiction to the world when we sit and do less than is possible for us to do. We are accommodating it.

If our efforts are not fruitful, God will show us the way in which they might be. Trusting in God's providence can most easily end up by presuming upon his providence.

God Bless

J.Paul, you contribute many good things; however, you certainly have an "all or nothing" spirit. Always ambitions, that is good, but always anxious. I may recommend to find your answers in reading Holy Scripture; it is a sure path to understanding the making of human development with its causalities and effects.

Please do not misunderstand me or block me into a convenient category. This is a religious problem; therefore, it is a direct question of what is God's will in it (as in all things).

This is a question of a Scriptural Foundation regarding the authority of the Pontiff; God's Petrine Chair; so I am answering accordingly. As your posts are very dominate with that "all or nothing" approach, you are not including any historical discussion for God's allowance of purposely leaving this crisis in "turmoil" to serve His will for the chastisement and purification of His people.

I am trying to raise the bar, not to go through the mud of the mundane "human activism" approach many make of charging without the consideration of God's plan. Look at the many impatient Kings and Prophets in the Old Testament, with the same spirit, who went into "battle" without God's manifest time. That is not to say we do nothing. No, to the contrary, we continue to sharpen our swords of Truth and shine our breast plates of Charity.

A lot has been going on in the last two years especially; but nothing has manifested itself with a character of restoration; only preservation.

As Columba pointed out to you, and as you admitted to, you want to make a difference in the crisis and "charge" without a plan. You are a good ally; you deserve to give yourself some time to understand the details of: What is God trying to do? What is He setting up to do? Has He made manifest the time, or the direction to move as He had guided those in the Old Testament? Many of times, God has let His people sit out in the wilderness for long periods of time before He had acted; only to purify them. And when He did act, no one expected the time nor hour when He had made his manifest Glory to move.

Patience..my friend. I am introducing to you the angle that God does have control over the situation; and we are just commoners in His ground troops waiting for His lead to guide in a clear and concrete direction. Without God leading the charge, it is futile.

So I am advocating to continue to "train" in your study, pray, continue to have the spirit of sacrifice, and listen attentively for His manifest will through events. History shows that He always raises someone up from nothing and moves with great power in proportion to the need; as He did in our modern times with St. Padre Pio (Sanctifying the Holy Mass), and with Archbishop Lefebvre (Sanctifying the Faith, the Priesthood, and of Holy Tradition).

This crisis is bigger than we think. Each stage is a stepping stone. Therefore, it needs another magnanimous "messenger" sent by God with the same emptiness of self to manifest His will; along with His ground troops...and to draw all things to God.

Is that sitting on our "rocker"? No, far from it. Prepare. God needs all souls of good will. The battle is first Spiritual; therefore, it is to use the weapons of Him on the White Horse:

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight. And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself. And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.

"And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Apocalypse 19:11-16).

Viva Christo Rey...

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 18, 2013, 06:30:06 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Cantarella
Is there truth in the belief that God would allow an evil Pope to occupy the seat of Peter as a just punishment?

It is my belief that the Popes from John XXIII on are a just punishment from God because most Catholics, although still attending Mass, were lukewarm at best and faithless at worst. I don't think many Catholics really had the faith before the crisis started and the punishment of the crisis was allowed by God because most of the Priests and most of the laymen were faithless and most of those who still had the faith were lukewarm.

But I was not alive at the time so I do not know if this is true, it is just an attempt at explaining why God would allow such an unprecedented crisis to occur.

Very well said. I lived through that time period. Vast majority of
Catholics were just cultural Catholics where their duties being
Catholic ended when they left the Church door after mass.
Friday was supposed be meatless, not in my experience.
Lent was supposed to be a time of fasting and self denial,
never in my experience.
I agree that the decline of the church is a just punishment from
God.

JPaul · « **Reply #43 on:** December 18, 2013, 07:17:08 PM »

I have ended my comments on this subject.

Thank you.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #44 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:32:03 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

This false choice which is presented by this either or controversy . . . .

One of the most important observations on this thread: It is not either SV or R&R.

I like what J. Paul said somewhere else: It is no more / no less than identical to the REAL.