Author Topic: A fair question. (Read 14693 times)

Pete Vere · « **Reply #30 on:** May 17, 2014, 12:59:04 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: TKGS
Actually, these posters would rather have us all banned. Frankly, I think these are the people who would be more at home at Catholic Answers Forum, now that I've learned how that forum works (from reading another topic). There certainly would be a lot fewer posts if sedevacantists and discussions of sedevacantism were banned!

Um, no.

As the CI poster who probably is most at home with Catholic Answers forum, what I like about CI over every other trad discussion forum online is the fact Matthew permits open discussion with sedes. Though at the opposite end of the trad spectrum in accepting the validity of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papacies, I would definitely leave CI if Matthew banned non-dogmatic sedes.

...as though the consequences hinged on whether or not the sede was dogmatic or non-dogmatic.

Either way, the pestilence is spread.

PS to Pete: I think you tipped your cards a bit with this post (wink-wink).

LOL! Like I have kept them hidden for the last 20 or so years?

Your hatred of the SSPX is well-known, I admit.

But your latest tactic of joining forces with the schismatics to fight tradition is a new wrinkle.

That being said, Sean, when it comes to R&R polemics you're simply repeating the charge Christopher Ferrara made against me almost a decade ago in the Remnant: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-200600630-wanderer_beds_down_with_the.htm

After I wrote the following commentary on his controversy with Fr Cekada in the aftermath of Gerry Matatics, Dr Tom Drolesky and a number of other (former) R&R apologists publicly embracing sedevacantism:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1496522/posts

That's about as far back as I can go with a quick google search, but if you do a detailed search of the Internet you will likely find posts of mine going back to the mid-90's where I state quite openly that as an Ecclesia Dei indult trad I agree with the R&R when they point out we have more in common with sedevacantists than we do R&R adherents.

donkath · « **Reply #31 on:** May 17, 2014, 05:20:03 AM »

Bishop Williamson on Sedevacantism

Number CCCLVII (357)

17th May 2014
CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY -- III

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.

But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.

However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists , they conclude.

Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.

Kyrie eleison.

If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.

TKGS · « **Reply #32 on:** May 17, 2014, 07:04:48 AM »

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition.

It seems to me that the anti-sedevacantists are furiously attempting to lay a foundation to convince as many people they can that when Bergoglio formally approves the docuмent on the family this coming October in which all indications are that Rome will formally redefine the Church's doctrines on marriage and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, it will not really be an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, even though it will be:

1. A new teaching as pope,

2. A new teaching in the area of Faith or morals,

3. A new definitive teaching, and

4. Will clearly be intended to bind all Catholics since marriage is a public act in which all must fully accept.

2Vermont · « **Reply #33 on:** May 17, 2014, 07:32:44 AM »

Ah, Machabees has struck again.

It seems to me that most sedeplenists and sedevacantists can live in harmony on this site and others. Maybe Matthew should consider banning those who continue to sow discord.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #34 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:24:08 AM »

Quote from: donkath

Bishop Williamson on Sedevacantism

Number CCCLVII (357)

17th May 2014
CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY -- III

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.

But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.

However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists , they conclude.

Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.

Kyrie eleison.

If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.

A question for His Excellency, that would greatly assist me in interpreting the meaning of his words above: Does he accept the validity of Pope Francis's canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II? Yes or no?

2Vermont · « **Reply #35 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:29:07 AM »

Or better yet perhaps those who do not follow this rule:

You need not agree with everyone (or even most people) here, and you are free to disagree with the moderator. However, you have to consider CathInfo members your "fellow Catholics" -- you may strongly disagree with some of them, but you have to have enough humility to "live and let live" and "agree to disagree".

should be banned. We have two posters in this thread who have made it quite clear on a regular basis that they do not consider sedevacantists their fellow Catholics. Not only have they made it quite clear, but they are quite proud of that accusation.

JPaul · « **Reply #36 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:36:01 AM »

So here, this morning we find a R&R attack thread by the position's dogmatists.
It cannot be missed that it was started by an SSPX zealot and carried forth by other like minded practitioners of Spxism and has devolved into a typical Menzingen mudslinging affair having little or no humility displayed.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #37 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:37:59 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Most sedevacantists are not even able to give a clear and irrefutable theological reason as to why an elected Pope can certainly never be a heretic, and why no Pope can ever fall into heresy.

Because he is the Vicar of Christ.

***************

Some here are so against the sedevacantist position because it makes perfect sense and they can't handle it.

Another noun to consider, Magisterium, the authority, office, and power to teach true doctrine by divine guidance, held by the Roman Catholic Church to have been given to itself alone by divine commission.

Sedevacantism are not schismatic because the position does't deny the Office of Pope, the Papacy, the Magisterium, the Vicar of Christ, actually YOU, who are anti-sede are in schism because you do not identify with the Four Marks of the Church. You believe the Magisterium can teach anything possible under the sun as long as the person sitting the the Office is "there" anyone, even the devil himself.

I doubt you have a Papal Flag in your chapel, just a picture of the heretic Francis. We not only have a Papal Flag in our chapel but also defend the True Magisterium.

If you don't like the way Matthew handles his forum, then take a hike.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #38 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:47:42 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

So here, this morning we find a R&R attack thread by the position's dogmatists.
It cannot be missed that it was started by an SSPX zealot and carried forth by other like minded practitioners of Spxism and has devolved into a typical Menzingen mudslinging affair having little or no humility displayed.

In fairness to Sean Johnson, who has been the most dogmatic anti-sede on this thread and elsewhere on CI, he has been very clear and unwavering in his support of Mgr Williamson and the Resistance. That I don't think we can accuse him of Menzingen mudslinging or SSPX'ism.

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** May 17, 2014, 08:52:25 AM »

Pete, with all due respect, Ferrara and others are quite right to criticize your stance. History proved the Society right in maintaining that every priest was free to celebrate the true Mass and quite rightly refusing to obey unjust sanctions to the contrary. You would have had them do otherwise, but then you may yourself well have little to no Indult/Motu Masses to attend today. It was the Society against the world, and the Society was proved right, as even the Roman authorities, 30+ wasted years later, reluctantly conceded, that yes, the traditional Mass was "in principle, always permitted" despite all the previous public posturing to the contrary.

Summorum Pontificuм changed very little for the Society, it is indultarians who have gained much from it, and most whom I know acknowledge with gratitude that they are indebted to the Society. Anti-SSPX indultarians are the worst. You wouldn't even have the scraps you do without the Society, without Bp. Fellay and without Abp. Lefebvre.

But there are more important matters than even the Mass, like what religious liberty in practice has meant for Catholic states as we once knew them, their utter ruin and usually their being overrun by heretical sects, and the practice of false ecuмenism, a disastrous pastoral policy that in the concrete reality has led countless souls to religious indifferentism, to ignorance or neglect of basic Catholic doctrines for the sake of appeasing Protestants, schismatics or the faithless.

It is these that the Society refuses and resists, and has every right and duty to do so. If you're being consulted on sedevacantism, here is what you should understand yourself and then explain to the souls who come to you for advice, if you sincerely have love of truth and their own good at heart:

50+ year Sedevacantism is gravely false, erroneous and no informed Catholic should in any way support such a position, especially its being publicly preached. Dropping the name of the man universally recognized as Pope from the canon is a borderline schismatic act at best, objectively speaking, it separates one from Catholic unity and teh communion of the Church. Claiming the Church can be reduced to bishops without ordinary jurisdiction is heretical. Claiming bishops can receive ordinary power of jurisdiction and formal Apostolic succession from anyone other than a real Pontiff is heterodox. There is practically no sedevacantist in the world who doesn't believe in some combination of these errors, and the Society has pointed it out many times. While some sedevacantists may be in good faith, their position is objectively erroneous, and therefore must be opposed, most of all for the sake of these souls, who are materially attached to this separatist position. Forget failing to oppose it, to even in any way indicate indifference toward the position is wrong, for as the Popes teach, to be indifferent between truth and error is to show oneself to be in error.

JPaul · « **Reply #40 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:13:32 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: J.Paul
So here, this morning we find a R&R attack thread by the position's dogmatists.
It cannot be missed that it was started by an SSPX zealot and carried forth by other like minded practitioners of Spxism and has devolved into a typical Menzingen mudslinging affair having little or no humility displayed.

In fairness to Sean Johnson, who has been the most dogmatic anti-sede on this thread and elsewhere on CI, he has been very clear and unwavering in his support of Mgr Williamson and the Resistance. That I don't think we can accuse him of Menzingen mudslinging or SSPX'ism.

On this issue, Menzingen and Mgr. Williamson/"resistance" are identical, no difference. The same concepts, language, and indictments.

The resistance so called, is but a degree from the parent group, which is only a few more degrees beyond the conservative Conciliarists They are all singing "The bad Fathers Lament", and Sean was not singled out in the comment..

Another point, the dogmatic anti-sedes are in fact R&R zealots. They are anti- sede by necessity. The sedes assertions threaten the R&R position by exposing its inconsistencies.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #41 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:26:03 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Another point, the dogmatic anti-sedes are in fact R&R zealots. They are anti- sede by necessity. The sedes assertions threaten the R&R position by exposing its inconsistencies.

On this last point we are both agreed. Which is why I see the Resistance being absorbed into the R&R.

2Vermont · « **Reply #42 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:35:37 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: J.Paul
Another point, the dogmatic anti-sedes are in fact R&R zealots. They are anti- sede by necessity. The sedes assertions threaten the R&R position by exposing its inconsistencies.

On this last point we are both agreed. Which is why I see the Resistance being absorbed into the R&R.

I think you meant SV here, right?

Machabees · « **Reply #43 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:43:37 AM »

Here again is ANOTHER derailment of sedevacantists in the Resistance sub-forum publicly bantering like a child who wants to be heard in their cry of rebellion against God and His Authority.

As the thread had pointed out, this is again PROOF that they need to be separated into their own sub-forum "box"; like that child again, they will always derail the surroundings were they are at; it is the nature of their revolution against God's order.

So Matthew, is this R&R Thread going to be disciplined back to the original subject -the Resistance forum needs to be unmolested by the sede errors and its poison- or is it going to get deleted because of the spoils of the sedevacantists and the real issue and concerns goes off into space again?

Mind you, when sedevacantists, or other derailers, is disciplined to their own sub-forum, these injections by them go away also; and the proper respect is worked out when the dust settles.

Machabees · « **Reply #44 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:57:41 AM »

Matthew, here is a practical answer to get this going.

Just delete any and every post of the sedes within the resistance sub-forum until they get the message you are not fooling around; instead of deleting the valid R&R threads that want to talk about this very issue.

The button is yours...what will you do?

Your clarity on this issue is the deciding factor if you are friend of the Resistance, indifferent, or foe; not to respond is a failure to the cause.

No blanket statements. What is your decision on your Cathinfo site?

Is it pro-resistance? Are you going to protect it, or not?