R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.

Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay?  What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson

...and the same truce could then be offered to the high Anglicans, Orthodox, Polish National Church, etc, depending on the particular issue being opposed.

With regards to the Resistance, I would be shocked if they made common cause with high Anglicans. In over 20 years of being a traditionalist I have come across maybe two traditionalists who disagree or question Apostolicae Curae.

Likewise, I would be very surprised if the Resistance came to a truce with the PNCC--especially since the PNCC accepts many practices that the Resistance objects to within the Novus Ordo, as well as some departures from traditional Catholicism not found in the Novus Ordo.

Orthodoxy? Okay, I see some similarities to ROCOR, Old Calendarists, Russian Old Believers and the Monks of Mount Athos, but a truce or alliance would require their acceptance of the Resistance and sedevacantism, which is unlikely given that they are roughly equivalent of the Resistance within Eastern Orthodoxy.

As for an alliance with mainstream Orthodoxy, I see this as highly unlikely given that Pope Francis has a long history of strong ecuмenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox, to the point that he is probably more well liked among Eastern Orthodox than any Roman Pontiff going back to the Photian schism.  

In contrast, so long as Mgr. Williamson is the Resistance's only bishop, and so long as the Resistance lacks stability and critical mass, I am not sure it can avoid following Mgr. Williamson's entreaty toward an alliance with non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.

Pete-

You are being much too picky!

After all, we resisters are very big on principle!

As defenders of the Trinity, we could all team up against the Jews.

As defenders of priesthood, we could all team up against the Prots.

And as opposers of modernism, we could all team up against Rome (apparently).

This is blatant ecuмenism, no matter how pleased with it the sedes who overrun this site are with Bishop Williamson's long-awaited statement.

They will try to out-do each other praising the wisdom of Bishop Williamson, to encourage him in his slide towards their position.

But none of their Te Deums, appeals to reason (which is quite funny, actually, since they have become solipsists), or defenses will mask the fact that Bishop Williamson (like Bishop Fellay) has expressed a willingness to set aside doctrinal differences to reach a political goal.

For the sake of consistency, I would now expect of them to cease all attacks on Bishop Williamson and Menzingen on that score.

A shame.

PS: Has anyone asked you whether you were sent here to drive deeper the wedge with the resistance?

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.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: cantatedomino

R&R brought the SSPX to its knees.

Are you sure this was the cause of the fall of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay?  What about the SSPX-Marian Corps that continues that position and yet is very strong?

Well, you're not going to try to enter into "full communion" (versus the ridiculous novelty of "partial communion") if you don't think the man in white is the pope, will you?

It's apparent that R&R will eventually tip one way or another.  

As Archbishop Lefebvre said, "No canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution."

 :applause:

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.

Sean, I know you are strongly opposed to the above. Therefore I think the question you will now face is how to stop it.

Especially now that Mgr. Williamson is following through on a two-decade old prediction he would end up going in this direction under Pope John Paul II's successor.

In case of doubt, should it be the traditional teaching we change in light of the "facts" or should it be our understanding of the facts that change in light of the immutable teaching of the faith?

Agreed.  I don't believe I have contradicted any doctrines of the Church.  I don't recognize theological opinions as being doctrines of the Church.  They are usually correct but not always.  St Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived.  Should the Church have been bound by his opinion?  Of course not!  So if you can show that a particular teaching is de fide then yes, of course, even the "facts" must be interpreted in the light of that teaching.  However, the indefectibility (as opposed to the infallibility) of the local Roman Church is merely an opinion.  An opinion which can't be taken lightly but an opinion nevertheless.  If the facts appear to contradict that opinion then I don't think it is unreasonable to question the veracity of it.  Furthermore, even reason can tell us that the opinion is questionable because the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Roman Church are based on the Church's teaching concerning the Roman pontiff.  But we know that the Church has only defined the infallibility of the Pope, not his indefectibility.  We know there will always be successors of Peter so we can also infer that the local Roman Church will continue until the end of time.  But that doesn't mean there will not be periods where it is diminished even to the point of losing its hierarchical order.  The hierarchical order can always be restored with the election of another pope.

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.

One thing you have to remember is that in the period between the heresy becoming manifest and the Church making a formal declaration no Catholic is required to submit to the suspected heretic.

“The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic ...

 Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church

I think that quote supports the sede vacante position more than it supports the R&R position.  Unfortunately, in the present crisis, the Cardinals and the Roman Clergy have adhered to the Conciliar schism.  So it will have to be a council of Catholic clergy who make the declaration.

You know, when we discussed this on IA, I understood the perspective you had at the time, even if I disagreed. Your view seems to have changed a lot since then.

I only remember discussing the particular point about whether or not uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the apostolicity of the Church.  So I am certainly concerned about explaining the current crisis in such a way as to show that apostolicity is being preserved.  But I'm not attached to any particular explanation.  I am just trying to find the best explanation.  I'm now convinced that uninterrupted ordinary jurisdiction is necessary.  But now I believe that at least some traditional bishops have ordinary jurisdiction.

Back to CM: We've seen the quotes from both Spirago Clarke and Dom Gueranger before, have we not, on the extreme seriousness of claiming ordinary jurisdiction without a demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope? The former in fact clarify your precise doubt, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Only after the confirmation, the bishop can exercise his office and power of jurisdiction.

I haven't seen that quote before.  Thanks for posting it.  I would have to say that in the present situation where there is no reigning Pope but there is a dire need for bishops, we can be morally certain that it is the implicit will of the next Catholic Pope that the Church have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.  In such an emergency, the salvation of souls is the highest law and it is necessary that the bishops exercise their offices prior to being confirmed by the Pope.  While it is irregular from a disciplinary perspective it would still preserve the apostolicity of the Church.

What Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always said is precisely this traditional teaching - he told the Bishops he appointed, you can place your episcopacy in the hands of a future Pope, and after he confirms you, then you will begin to have ordinary jurisdiction.

Wow!  That is a magnificent confirmation of what I am saying.  Do you have a source for that?  I would like to read the source material on that.  I don't think any traditionalist would want to say that the next Pope will refuse to confirm the traditional bishops.  So under the present circuмstances it is necessary that they begin exercising their offices prior being confirmed.  This circuмstance has happened in the past where bishops were appointed during an interregnum.

The Papal confirmation is not just a condition to receive jurisdiction, it is the cause.

That's OK, I think we can have moral certainty that the next Catholic Pope will confirm them.  Therefore they can begin exercising their offices now.  I also believe that the next Catholic Pope will approve of them exercising their offices now.

The Dominicans and the Franciscans engaged in a fierce* battle over some theological point (I forget what it was exactly but if I recall correctly it was not an insignificant point).  The Pope commanded them to stop and he never resolved the question of the point they were arguing over.  How's that for tradcuмenism?

* By fierce I mean they were calling each other heretics.  And if I'm not mistaken there was even an attempted (or at least threatened) excommunication.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

The Dominicans and the Franciscans engaged in a fierce battle over some theological point (I forget what it was exactly but if I recall correctly it was not an insignificant point).  The Pope commanded them to stop and he never resolved the question of the point they were arguing over.  How's that for tradcuмenism?

What they argued over was the Immaculate Conception.

The Domincans and Aquinas stated Mary was not free from sin, Scotus and the Franciscans argued she was the Immaculate Conception.

In historical timing, Aquinas died when Scotus was est. to be about 8 years old.

I don't recall now.  That might be it.  I think there have been a few major fights between religious orders.  I recall the Jesuits were involved in another.  My main point is that at the time the Pope did not take a side of the argument.  He just told them to shut up.

Did one of them deny the Pope was the Pope?

If not, the analogy does not fit.