Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Machabees on May 16, 2014, 08:28:56 PM
-
A fair question.
I would like to ask a fair question; one that it seems others are starting to ask also.
That is, as the brave SSPX Resistance Priests and faithful who have stood up for the true legacy and fight of Archbishop Lefebvre (ABL) against modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which the SSPX under the present leadership has been compromising to, and these brave Priests and faithful have put themselves in a humbling yet courageous position to now call out [their] superiors from their errors of going down the wrong road ABL had warned them about, as well as, from the Providence shown from the 9-other traditional groups that had fallen to the conciliarist, in addition to seeing the way they are being treated and censored by the modernists from within conciliar Rome in which they had made allegiance to, these energetic priests said that they cannot do everything, of course, and have asked us to help them to organize the fight we are all in danger with; and together communicate the needs, resources, and talents, like any Catholic legion would do, to fight for Christ the King.
One of the ways to do that is to form Catholic Resistance websites dedicated to the cause; in using the internet, as well as print, video, and audio, to unite us in this terrible battle against our souls and against our children’s souls.
In response to this plea, and even organically happening from the need at hand, there have been some that took up the fight; and God bless them abundantly. There are websites and forums that have started with the abilities that they had at the time, and with the time to do it, with the support of many people, they started to grow.
With that said, there has been a growing concern over the last year especially, and even more recently in some forums, that the entitled “R&R” forums are being overrun particularly by sedevacantists spreading their [errors] on such R&R sites.
That concern was met with a lot of reasonable and fair questions from the R&R people across the many Forums; why is this happening on an R&R site? It is certainly disturbing and distracting to the need at hand in order to unite and organize our efforts unadulterated by constant [derailments] of the sedevacantists; many intentional; some not.
The assumption of these website(s) in this new sspx-crisis is that these are R&R websites and forums, if not publicly stated so, so why are they not guarded and protected from such infiltration? The same question can be applied to the Church as a whole, why wasn’t the gate watched? Certainly in regards to Rome, we would not have this problem within this crisis in the magnitude as it is; nor on the R&R websites.
To make the point and to be clear about sedevacantism, as I have written many times,
Sedevacantism is a possibility in any epoch of time. To discuss the possibilities is a good and discerning thing to do; with humility, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and patience.
To go to the next level of judging a valid Pope, when as a layman one has NO authority to do so, and spread that "belief" to others on a public platform is not only erroneous, it is evil. "Whoa to those who scandalize the children..."
There are many good people who are studying sedevacantism, for those who conclude that there is the greatest evidence that he is "not the Pope", the same people also recognize that it is [their] private understanding and do not push it in public; unfortunately like those on this forum and on others that do.
Where is the humility to know one’s place? The possibility of Sedevacantism can be collected from the faithful and prelates to form a body of "evidence", then submit it to the proper Authorities God had established. If that cannot be done, then be patient, and let God act as God. He will not leave us "orphans".
Judging a valid Pope out of his office is NOT your place. Where is your absolute certitude? There is none! Then it is self-evident not to judge God’s Authority –the Pope.
Further, Sedevacantism is a NOUN. It is a state of being. When one describes oneself as a Protestant, or a Sedevacantist, one is stating that they have already made that judgment against God’s Authority and disposed the valid Pope in their mind and life; extremely dangerous. As said above, a Catholic cannot judge God’s Authority without disassociating oneself from the communion of the Church. You can look up the catechetical quotes of what that separation means.
Canon Hesse has given excellent answers to understand this present crisis; along with addressing the sedevacantist issue.
The warnings must be made. Sedevacantists are protestants at best (independent); and Jansenistic at least (legal determinism).
As it is that Sedevacantism is another thorn and distraction in this crisis, along with their other splinter errors, that if it is not tempered on an R&R Website and Forum, it can derail the focus of the fight that we all are duty bound in our Baptism to fight.
There are some suggestions that I do recommend for the R&R people and for the administrators in a moment.
First, I would like to ask a couple of other questions directly to the administrators and moderators:
• These discussions from the R&R members on your website(s) are coming out honestly; with concern for the overall good. You know this.
• With the many dozen other members, I too have tried for this good to happen over the last weeks especially; only to constantly be derailed by the sedes, again, and censored by the administrators; along with being slandered with intentions I/we never had; when other R&R members got it, and the administrators (and moderators) spun it; then deleted all traces of the archive. Whose side are you on?
• If you state that you are an “R&R” site that honors ABL, and you have a sub-forum, or an entire site dedicated to the “cause”, why is it then that these questions of R&R members on some of these particular “R&R” Forums are censored with posts and threads deleted, even locked, when they bring up this topic? Why are these types of questions monitored with scrutiny; like having scruples? Why the political football without addressing the real issue and nothing is getting done about it?
• On several “R&R” Forums over the years or so, R&R members have left and were “banned” because of asking these questions. Why on a supposed R&R Forum?
• Yes there are two particular “R&R” Forums I do know of that have started their websites with sedevacantists; whether as co-owners or as co-moderators. And that is fine; if it is tempered and not distracted from ABL’s mission that we have taken to ourselves. If you claim that you are 100% an “R&R” Forum for ABL, why then the censoring and duplicity?
So what it comes down to it this. Here is the suggestion. If you want to say that you are a Resistance site, you need to protect the Resistance site, or the Resistance designated sub-forum, from the sedevacantist derailments; and box in the sedevacantists and other derailers, not the Resistance from the former’s whining and whims.
So it is very simple. Administrative "rules" is not the answer. Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site. Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.
This conversation needs to be had; even though many have tried and are still getting their posts and Threads deleted; along with getting banned. It is none the less, a fair question…
It remains: “So which side of History will you be on?”
Viva Christo Rey…
-
Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site. Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.
I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.
-
Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site. Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.
I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.
It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)
-
Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site. Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.
I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.
It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)
That is very true. The R&R folks are just as dogmatic in their views as are the sedevacantists.
-
Have a separate sedevacantist sub-forum dedicated by itself; whereby sedevacantism is not allowed anywhere else on the site. Box in sedevacantists; not the R&R cause.
I thought Cathinfo already did this with the sub-forum Crisis in the Church.
It's in the rules and is enforced as often as it bothers one of us. But, a R&R member is just as likely to bring up the topic outside the Crisis subforum as a sede member is. (This thread, for example.)
That is very true. The R&R folks are just as dogmatic in their views as are the sedevacantists.
With the exception of Bellarmine Forums, the majority ( I dare say vast majority ) of threads about sedevacantism on the various trad fora are started by non-sedevacantists, either asking a question about sedevacantism or posting a "debunk" of it. To which, naturally, sedevacantists reply.
-
What are you talking about? What do you mean, "Whose side are you on?" Resistance supporters as such don't get censored, banned or deleted here on CathInfo. That is not to say they're above the law, however.
If a Resistance supporter (or anyone else) posts a thread that goes against the spirit of what I'd like to see on CathInfo, enough to motivate me to remove it, it's going to get removed.
I believe what you're complaining about is the recent thread you started that I removed (wherein you and 2 mods from another forum went round-and-round). I already addressed that issue publicly. I even seconded the point you were making (which was the only item of value I could salvage from that thread) before I locked the thread.
I try to keep the forum organized, and I want all discussion of the Church Crisis in general kept in the Crisis subforum.
I note that you started this thread about Sedevacantism (your argument is very much "contra", but it's still about Sedevacantism) in the SSPX Resistance subforum rather than the Crisis subforum. How can you expect others to abide by rules you don't even abide by?
I have a policy of being charitable to Sedes that act Catholic. I don't ban them, make them wear an "empty chair" arm band (nαzι-style), or any other kind of mistreatment. I'm not 100% sure that they're wrong. And here's the trick: No one is. We just don't know. I wouldn't want to ban them out of ignorance, and then find out they were right one day and have to apologize. I'm the type to be careful in the first place, rather than act rashly and have to apologize.
I allow any Sedes that are non-dogmatic. A dogmatic Sedevacantist claims that you must be Sede to be Catholic, as if "the See is vacant" has been added to the body of Revelation which must be held as dogma by all Catholics.
As long as a person is not schismatic -- if they acknowledge as Catholic those that are Catholic -- they are welcome on CathInfo.
I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers. Discussions on the Pope and other Crisis issues must stay in the Crisis subforum, however, for the sake of organization.
I do have to move threads all the time though, and I will continue to move them. I especially hate it when people start Crisis threads in General Discussion.
Anyhow, I hope this clears things up.
-
I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers.
Thank you, Matthew. I do appreciate this comment.
There are most definitely a few posters on this forum who would have sedevacantists start every post with a warning:
:cry: Unclean! :cry: Unclean! :cry: Unclean! :cry:
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!
-
Your response did validate the Thread's claim. You are still hitting the political football again in regards to uniting and protecting the dedicated Resistance sub-forum
What are you talking about? What do you mean, "Whose side are you on?" Resistance supporters as such don't get censored, banned or deleted here on CathInfo. You did a week ago in fact deleted two-threads discussing this very matter: "A B L Forums admits to be over run by sedevacantists", and "What happened to the Thread ....". That is not to say they're above the law, however.
If a Resistance supporter (or anyone else) posts a thread that goes against the spirit of what I'd like to see on CathInfo, enough to motivate me to remove it, it's going to get removed.
I believe what you're complaining about is the recent thread you started that I removed CONFIRMED. (wherein you and 2 mods from another forum went round-and-round). I already addressed that issue publicly. I even seconded the point you were making (which was the only item of value I could salvage from that thread) before I locked the thread.
If you did "lock" it, it was for mere moments; you had outright you deleted the subject the Thread was trying to make -Point taken! Second point, "if" you say that you "seconded the point that the OP was making, and MaterDominici certainly understood it when she made her post in astonishment that a website saying that it is dedicated to ABL has censored and deleted R&R members posts; and you wrote in your own "complaint" within a "locked" thread, that no one can respond to (nice move), with several paragraphs that MaterDominici understood the problem, and what did you do? You deleted the subject matter so no one can see the importance of the concern. Please... Third point, you also CONFIRMED that the subject matter was derailed (by sedevacantists again), and instead of moderating it with a post to get back on track, IM me, or an email, you just deleted the whole concern; with NO announcement, NO disclosure, NO transparentcy, NO anything; hence another post was started to ask what happened. No reply from you, again! You just deleted that one also! Only until much later when everyone is asking what is going on. You respond with your own locked thread.
Question, why let the sedevacantist continue to derail the threads? That is the reason and the conversation for this new thread. Hoping that you will take it seriously; if you want us to take you seriously.
I try to keep the forum organized, and I want all discussion of the Church Crisis in general kept in the Crisis subforum.
I note that you started this thread about Sedevacantism (your argument is very much "contra", but it's still about Sedevacantism) in the SSPX Resistance subforum rather than the Crisis subforum. How can you expect others to abide by rules you don't even abide by?
Not true! I started this thread in the proper resistance subforum as evident about the nature of the subject -RESISTANCE; to get others organized from the detractors and derailers; which you already CONFIRMED above.
I have a policy of being charitable to Sedes that act Catholic. I don't ban them, make them wear an "empty chair" arm band (nαzι-style), or any other kind of mistreatment. I'm not 100% sure that they're wrong. And here's the trick: No one is. We just don't know. I wouldn't want to ban them out of ignorance, and then find out they were right one day and have to apologize. I'm the type to be careful in the first place, rather than act rashly and have to apologize.
You then admit that you have no CONVICTION in the matter; that is precisely why there are problems on Cathinfo as an R&R site. You are not a 100% positioned R&R as we have suspected. So thank you for being honest about this.
I allow any Sedes that are non-dogmatic. A dogmatic Sedevacantist claims that you must be Sede to be Catholic, as if "the See is vacant" has been added to the body of Revelation which must be held as dogma by all Catholics.
As long as a person is not schismatic -- if they acknowledge as Catholic those that are Catholic -- they are welcome on CathInfo.
I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers. Discussions on the Pope and other Crisis issues must stay in the Crisis subforum, however, for the sake of organization.
I do have to move threads all the time though, and I will continue to move them. I especially hate it when people start Crisis threads in General Discussion.
Anyhow, I hope this clears things up.
-
I also take note that, other than MaterDominici, the others posters on this thread are sedevacantists, including a very proud militant-sedevacantist Moderator on another supposed R&R Forum, and an "indifferent" derailer, that just love what you have to say in protecting them to continue on in derailing what they want; unsolicited.
I get it...though I do not put incense on it.
-
FYI - Blue text mixed with black text is not the easiest thing to read.
-
I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers.
Thank you, Matthew. I do appreciate this comment.
There are most definitely a few posters on this forum who would have sedevacantists start every post with a warning:
:cry: Unclean! :cry: Unclean! :cry: Unclean! :cry:
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!
Typical sede.
Stroking the moderator to keep your satanic influence alive.
You should all be banned.
Can I be any more dogmatic anti-sedevacantist?
If so, let me know how!
Matthew bears the brunt of responsibility for allowing your snare to catch more innocents.
-
Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.
"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.
"We are the Catholic Church.
"I don't say that.
"I don't accept that.
"That is schism.
"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?
"Where?
"Where is the authority of the Church?
"Where is our leader in the Church?
"We can't know where we are going.
"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.
"We must pray for this pope.
"But don't say that he is not the pope."
There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.
-
I got a great idea:
Let's keep throwing up perplexities until we cause someone to waiver, and then when they do, let's tell them it is proof that they must acknowledge there is no pope!
If enough of us do this, we can call it a movement.
And we can even give it a name!
-
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.
The viewpoint of my way or the highway, may have been satisfactory for ABL in 1983, but thirty years later it is not working very well for the Society, and will not be any more effective for the "resistance".
-
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.
Nice try-
Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.
Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.
-
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.
Nice try-
Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.
Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.
And here we have the clear illustration of what I have pointed out.
-
Folks who are spoiling for a fight will find it wherever they go. This thread has become contentious in a very short time.
After all this is a discussion forum where members should be able to disagree on subjects without insulting each other.
The Catholic dignity of ladies and gentlemen is far to thin these days.
Nice try-
Your veil is nothing besides a schismatic movement looking for someone to bless it as Catholic.
Seems to have found some receptivity on this forum.
And here we have the clear illustration of what I have pointed out.
Guilty as charged!
Sedevacantism is a pestilence which must be eradicated with the same vigilence and determination as the fight against modernism (from which it is spawned).
-
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.
-
Sedevacantism is only a theological speculation that can easily degrade into schism for the one who holds it, if not prudent precautions are taken. There are many theological flaws in the sedevacantist thesis. 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. The final argument is that it is a matter of "Divine Law" (not ecclesiastical law, however they keep bringing up and misusing cannon laws in order to push their agenda), as if the common layman could have a final say in the matter.
-
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).
-
Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!
But not a 10th sedevacantist, whom the same alleged dogmatic anti-sedevacantist would invite to publicly co-consecrate four bishops with despite a lack of papal mandate.
-
Here's another dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, just a few months after having expelled 9 sedevacantists........for reasons they claim had nothing to do with sedevacantism!
But not a 10th sedevacantist, whom the same alleged dogmatic anti-sedevacantist would invite to publicly co-consecrate four bishops with despite a lack of papal mandate.
Please:
Pretending it were true, are you really going to hold a man to every word he utters, when the bulk of his career before and after runs contrary to the hallucination?
PS: Skillful derailment, I might add.
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?
-
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?
:laugh1:
-
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?
If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.
-
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?
:laugh1:
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.
-
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?
If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.
Can you please produce the pre-1988 Fr. Williamson newsletter of which you speak?
-
PS: At any given time, you can go to the bottom of the home screen, and see the "Active Forum Users."
Note the names, and how many of them are active sedevacantist schismatic posters.
It is usually in the 50% range.
-
With that said, there has been a growing concern over the last year especially, and even more recently in some forums, that the entitled “R&R” forums are being overrun particularly by sedevacantists spreading their [errors] on such R&R sites.
That concern was met with a lot of reasonable and fair questions from the R&R people across the many Forums; why is this happening on an R&R site?
Basically, it is a combination of three factors:
1 - Pope Francis has moved to consolidate the reforms of the Second Vatican Council within the Church.
2 - In response to #1 above, R&R theology has diverged from the commonly accepted pre-Vatican II tradition into areas that are highly speculative. One recent example is the plethora of novel arguments denying the infallibility of papally-led canonizations.
3 - Sedevacantists are neither infiltrating nor over-running R&R forums as claimed by some dogmatic R&R. Rather, non-dogmatic R&R are becoming non-dogmatic sedevacantists or sede-agnostics/doubtists in response to #2 above.
-
PPS: Was he making such comments before the invitation?
If one is to believe Mgr Williamson's newsletters, it would certainly appear so.
Can you please produce the pre-1988 Fr. Williamson newsletter of which you speak?
No, because as I mentioned earlier, the SSPX more-or-less refrained from broadcasting Mgr de CM's sedevacantism until the Campos reconciliation of 2000-2001.
Come to think of it, I do not recall either Mgr Fellay or the other two bishops who remain SSPX today broadcasting it after the Campos reconciliation either.
-
But your latest tactic of joining forces with the schismatics to fight tradition is a new wrinkle.
I assume that your use of the word "schismatic" is R&R polemic for sede. Fair enough in this context given that you are candid about being R&R dogmatic anti-sede.
What I challenge is your assertion that this is my "latest tactic"?
When, since renouncing the R&R position for the Ecclesia Dei indult over 20 years ago, have I ever denied finding sedevacantism the more theologically rational position in comparison to the R&R one?
In fact, that is why Fr Summerville welched on his offer to debate publicly my criticism of the SSPX position. He freaked out the second I quoted Fr Cekada as a critic of the R&R position.
-
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?
:laugh1:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Wah wah, look who is crying now! :baby:
-
Wah wah, look who is crying now! :baby:
LOL. Exactly what I was thinking. Do we have a stomping feet icon?
-
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.
Well said, Nishant
-
I would disagree with Nishant, since when I pope dies there is no name mentioned, I suppose the Church disappears for awhile. Make sense doesn't it, that the Church goes in and out.
We pray for the intention of the Church, and that is what a True Pope's intention should be anyway.
I challenge Nishant and you Cantarella to define what if means to be the Vicar of Christ.
-
I think we have far too many sedevacantists to keep them "caged"; and besides, they're not lepers.
Are you admitting that Cathinfo is also over run by sedevacantists?
As far as they are "not lepers", if you agree in the R&R position that the sedes are in error to judge a valid Pope (...), then yes, they are in fact "lepers" from their decaying errors which they want to spread on your site.
As Nishant pointed out:
Nishant said:
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.
-
Here again is ANOTHER derailment of sedevacantists in the Resistance sub-forum...
There is something seriously wrong with your ability to think or your memory isn't very strong.
You are the one who started a topic about sedevacantists in the Resistance sub-forum and now you're complaining that sedevacantists derailed "ANOTHER" topic?
For crying out loud! Even Matthew criticized you for doing so.
-
Here again is ANOTHER derailment of sedevacantists in the Resistance sub-forum...
There is something seriously wrong with your ability to think or your memory isn't very strong.
You are the one who started a topic about sedevacantists in the Resistance sub-forum and now you're complaining that sedevacantists derailed "ANOTHER" topic?
For crying out loud! Even Matthew criticized you for doing so.
Your tactic to snuff out the needed R&R conversation is noticed.
The nature of the subject is about the R&R RESISTANCE -to get others organized from the detractors and derailers of Sedevacantists and others- which you also CONFIRM the derailing by your own sedevacantist injections.
Sooo, you think we R&R should go to a sede sub-forum to discuss R&R matters?
Are you afraid of something?
-
Macabees,
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.
Dear Macabees,
Firstly, not all who are commenting hold the sede vacante position. I do not think that applies to Mr. Vere and it does not apply to myself, so you must not generalize so freely.
Second, This is the second or third time that you started a thread to accomplish here what you could not on another forum, and so the original question is not a fair question but is a rigged question which was bound to stir this controversy and generate the present hostility which is manifested within it.
Third, you are requesting or directing Matthew to alter his forum's policies regarding these matters to satisfy the sensibilities of a particular group of SSPX minded folks.
This is not a practical or desirable approach. If you need to have a peaceful environment, which is sede free then you should, or perhaps must create your own forum which is tailored to suit your opinions and those of your fellow Menzigen stalwarts. You can then exclude any opposing opinion on that site.
This forum's current character is merely a reflection of a changing Catholic reality. People are not as certain about they once were about the Romans, or Menzingen or its resistance. The old experiments in dealing with this crisis have done little but help legitimize the Conciliar establishment which continues to destroy what is left of the Catholic religion and Catholic souls.
Some things have become unworkable in the present environment and it is not fair at all to rail against fellow Catholics who doubt the 50 year old status quo.
-
Macabees,
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.
Dear Macabees,
Firstly, not all who are commenting hold the sede vacante position. I do not think that applies to Mr. Vere and it does not apply to myself, so you must not generalize so freely.
Second, This is the second or third time that you started a thread to accomplish here what you could not on another forum, and so the original question is not a fair question but is a rigged question which was bound to stir this controversy and generate the present hostility which is manifested within it.
Third, you are requesting or directing Matthew to alter his forums policies regarding these matter to satisfy the sensibilities of a particular group of SSPX minded folks.
This is not a practical or desirable approach. If you need to have a peaceful environment which is sede free then you should, or perhaps must create your own forum which is tailored to suit your opinions and those of your fellow Menzigen stalwarts.
The forum's current character is merely a reflection of a changing Catholic reality. People are not as certain about they once were about the Romans, or Menzingen or its resistance. The old experiments in dealing with this crisis have done little but help legitimize the Conciliar establishment which continues to destroy what is left of the Catholic religion and Catholic souls.
This is interesting coming from an "indifferent" trad-ecuмenist.
Have you not read. Matthew said many times that Cathinfo is the "Headquarters of the Resistance".
Is it, or is it not? That is what is posed to all of the R&R administrators.
Your "principle" as a trad-ecuмenist is that if an entity is infiltrated (changes) with foreign thoughts (current character), then the morph is a new entity.
Therefore, you recognize that Cathinfo as an "R&R" site is changed to a non-R&R site by the outside influences; and in the same line of "principle", the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, is also infiltrated with outside influences (current character), and is NO LONGER the bride of Christ.
Good grief...
-
Macabees!
Must you distort what others are saying in the pay of your agenda?
Must you give these foolish designations to anyone who does not agree with you?
I am no such thing as a Trad Ecuмenist and if anyone deserves the title it would be the indoctrinated R&R crowd who indulge freely in selective ecuмenism with the modernists.
Dear God man! open your eyes............
As an aside, this forum has not changed to a non R&R site, it has only ceased to be an unquestioning R&R site. Please stop disrespecting Matthews longstanding efforts to have an open but orderly forum.
You may see the spotless Bride of Christ in Conciliar Rome but for some of us, it is not so easy.
-
Macabees!
Must you distort what others are saying in the pay of your agenda?
Must you give these foolish designations to anyone who does not agree with you?
I am no such thing as a Trad Ecuмenist and if anyone deserves the title it would be the indoctrinated R&R crowd who indulge freely in selective ecuмenism with the modernists.
Dear God man! open your eyes............
As an aside, this forum has not changed to a non R&R site, it has only ceased to be an unquestioning R&R site. Please stop disrespecting Matthews longstanding efforts to have an open [ED: Headquarters of the Resistance] but orderly forum.
You may see the spotless Bride of Christ in Conciliar Rome but for some of us, it is not so easy.
I see contradictions come easy to you...
By the way, why do you come here if you are not an R&R member; because it morphed into trad-ecuмenism as you stated?
Nishant said:
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.
Food for thought J.Paul.
God bless,
-
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?
No, you're on your own here.
I'm not going to prune this thread (about Sedevacantism) into a one-sided, back-patting, pro-R&R cheerleading session. That's not what I'm after with CathInfo.
I do want threads about the Crisis kept in the Crisis subforum.
However, it's not a "playpen" or "ghetto" for the Sedevacantists, which is what you seem to be after. Sorry to disappoint you.
I agree with Nishant, Cantarella, etc. about the dangers of Sedevacantism, but it's also true that ABL considered the idea a possibility. Moreover, I'm not 100% cock-sure that I'm correct that Sedevacantism is wrong, and I'm willing to admit that.
So I'm going to continue welcoming all devout and good-willed Catholics to meet and discuss things here on CathInfo. Anyone willing to live in peace is welcome. Anyone who can't abide one side or the other -- i.e., anyone who insists on a schismatic mentality (cutting legitimate Catholics out of Catholic Church membership = the very definition of Schism) is welcome to leave at any time.
-
Observation.
Why is it that non-R&R's are fighting this subject to have an unmolested R&R Resistance sub-forum here on the "Headquarters of the Resistance", and well as happening elsewhere, and yet on this particular site, it is relatively quiet from the R&R side?
Has this site really been a turn-off to the R&Rs already?
Has the infiltration been successful? Is it even worth asking the question anymore to save these sites?
If the Church gets hit when not watching Her gate, R&R sites can also get hit in not watching their gates too.
History repeats itself.
-
I see contradictions come easy to you...
By the way, why do you come here if you are not an R&R member; because it morphed into trad-ecuмenism as you stated?
Actually contradictions do not agree with me at all, which is why I have suspended my former R&R opinions
One might ask, why do you come here when there are sedes present?
Quote:
Nishant said:
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.
Food for thought J.Paul.
Making excuses and rationalizations for the Conciliar modernists is failing to oppose them, that would also be a form of expedient indifference towards them. That is what we have seen in the SSPX/resistance.
Sauce for the goose etc.....
-
Observation.
Why is it that non-R&R's are fighting this subject to have an unmolested R&R Resistance sub-forum here on the "Headquarters of the Resistance", and well as happening elsewhere, and yet on this particular site, it is relatively quiet from the R&R side?
Has this site really been a turn-off to the R&Rs already?
Has the infiltration been successful? Is it even worth asking the question anymore to save these sites?
If the Church gets hit when not watching Her gate, R&R sites can also get hit in not watching their gates too.
History repeats itself.
Stop whining.
R&R Catholics are not positively discriminated against, censored, or molested in any way here.
What you're complaining about is how I'm treating your opponents. You want me to smash them with my mod powers or banish them to a ghetto so you won't have to deal with them. Too bad.
You want a rah-rah R&R group where no one is forced to think or ask hard questions.
If an increasing majority of good-willed, serious-minded fervent Catholics (also known as "CathInfo members") are becoming open/friendly to/embracing the Sedevacantist position, that isn't my business.
As I see it, if the Sede population increases on CathInfo, there must be a reason for it. Maybe because a large % of Resistance priests are sedevacantist? Maybe because of the recent canonizations? Maybe because ABL himself was open to the idea? Maybe because of Pope Francis in general? Maybe because of how the R&R beach-head (SSPX) is going Indult? There are many legitimate reasons a person might start entertaining Sedevacantism these days.
We're all truth-seekers here. We're not going to find the truth by me violating it. And I have no certainty whatsoever that Sedevacantists are the boogeymen you portray them as, so they stay. End of story.
-
:applause: Matthew.
Of course, Lord Machabees will use my post against you...sorry about that.
-
Machabees did it ever occur to you that it is not the Catholics that hold to the sedevacantist position that are persuading anyone to their thinking, it is Francis himself. You can thank him, maybe it's God's will that the good willed Catholic is finally wondering.
-
Viva Christo Rey...Adieu
If you quit, then Cathinfo will become just a little more sede because your R&R voice will be lost.
-
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Now, where were we?
-
Machabees,
You seem to think R&R and Resistance are interchangeable, but it seems that increasingly it is not.
Bp Williamson just said he has, "abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes."
That doesn't sound very R&R. Would you boot him from your Resistance group?
-
Who just deleted my final post? It was respectful and balanced. Is that not censoring again?
-
Who just deleted my final post? It was respectful and balanced. Is that not censoring again?
If it was respectful and balanced, I am sure it would not have been deleted out of hand, if it was so. Why don't you post it again?
-
I've already stated my position on the matter several times.
I understand now why you rejected CathInfo months ago, and why you're not happy with it today: You want a hard-core R&R forum with equal fervor in the "recognize" and "resist" categories.
As my wife pointed out, R&R and Resistance are not the same thing.
CathInfo is a Resistance forum, not an R&R safe haven. There's a difference.
If R&R were more certain, maybe it would have more followers and/or its own forum :)
-
When I read the description of this forum, I see:
Traditional Catholic Forum
A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
-
Machabees,
P.S. That's why I deleted your thread. It was unnecessary.
Yes, yes, and you wanted to say "goodbye". Ok, ok... vanity post, dramatic goodbyes, all that good stuff.
Here's the Drama Llama in your honor.
Anyhow, farewell.
-
I've already stated my position on the matter several times.
I understand now why you rejected CathInfo months ago, and why you're not happy with it today: You want a hard-core R&R forum with equal fervor in the "recognize" and "resist" categories.
As my wife pointed out, R&R and Resistance are not the same thing.
CathInfo is a Resistance forum, not an R&R safe haven. There's a difference.
If R&R were more certain, maybe it would have more followers and/or its own forum :)
The distinction is not a "nuance" of words. As I had said earlier to you, thank you for clearing and stating your decision; which I respect your honesty in this matter.
I have posted my final thread; it was deleted. I will post it again hoping that it will also be respected.
-
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?
No, you're on your own here.
I'm not going to prune this thread (about Sedevacantism) into a one-sided, back-patting, pro-R&R cheerleading session. That's not what I'm after with CathInfo.
I do want threads about the Crisis kept in the Crisis subforum.
However, it's not a "playpen" or "ghetto" for the Sedevacantists, which is what you seem to be after. Sorry to disappoint you.
I agree with Nishant, Cantarella, etc. about the dangers of Sedevacantism, but it's also true that ABL considered the idea a possibility. Moreover, I'm not 100% cock-sure that I'm correct that Sedevacantism is wrong, and I'm willing to admit that.
So I'm going to continue welcoming all devout and good-willed Catholics to meet and discuss things here on CathInfo. Anyone willing to live in peace is welcome. Anyone who can't abide one side or the other -- i.e., anyone who insists on a schismatic mentality (cutting legitimate Catholics out of Catholic Church membership = the very definition of Schism) are welcome to leave at any time.
Thanks for posting and clearing your decision you wish to do on your own personal web site.
Such as you had decided. Please then do not inflate or call your site the "Headquarters of the Resistance" any longer; it is misleading and deceiving.
There is no other reason to come here on this Resistance sub-forum if the lines of communication and unity is broken from infiltrators being allowed to freely derail with their errors.
There is a real fight in front of us; it needs to be taken seriously; less we all go down.
Christ did not compromise; I will neither. Therefore, this is my last post here.
Viva Christo Rey...Adieu
-
I will post it again hoping that it will also be respected.
If you're hoping for that, I recommend leaving quotes referring to other fora out of your post. Just a suggestion; don't know if it will work.
-
Your tactic to snuff out the needed R&R conversation is noticed.
The nature of the subject is about the R&R RESISTANCE -to get others organized from the detractors and derailers of Sedevacantists and others- which you also CONFIRM the derailing by your own sedevacantist injections.
Sooo, you think we R&R should go to a sede sub-forum to discuss R&R matters?
Are you afraid of something?
I do not fear reason, nor do I fear your irrational behaviour.
I have not done anything to "snuff out" and "R&R conversation". As a simple member of the forum, I would not have any ability to do so anyway.
But don't bring up sedevacantism if you don't want it discussed.
-
I've already stated my position on the matter several times.
I understand now why you rejected CathInfo months ago, and why you're not happy with it today: You want a hard-core R&R forum with equal fervor in the "recognize" and "resist" categories.
As my wife pointed out, R&R and Resistance are not the same thing.
CathInfo is a Resistance forum, not an R&R safe haven. There's a difference.
If R&R were more certain, maybe it would have more followers and/or its own forum :)
Speaking of, the turn this thread has taken in the last few pages compels me to do a little C&P from somewhere else.
--------
One of the "problems" is that the SSPX Resistance is very loosely defined. This is a board run by Americans, and catering to mainly American trads (though there are some non-USA members, they definitely make up the minority). As such, the Resistance is inevitably identified with Fr. Pfeiffer for good or ill. By now it should be apparent that there is a reason that Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson are not working together, that neither are working particularly close to the French priests and that the Latin American priests (Fr. Meramo et al.) aren't even really considered a part of it.
All were kicked out or left the SSPX for the same reason, more or less-- but various considerations have made it such that some opinions acceptable in some "groups" are anathema in others. Consider Fr. Pinaud, who heroically underwent the kangaroo court of Bishop Fellay after having been subjected to ʝʊdɛօ-Menzingen black ops to dishonestly acquire information from his personal computer. Fr. Pinaud is "non una cuм" and goes all the way to Quebec to minister to the faithful out there who've had it with the SSPX, and what happens? Fr Pfeiffer gets sent up there to straighten out the "non una cuм" party and tell them that unless they're "united" to Francis the heretic they're going to Hell. My heart breaks for everything Fr. Pinaud has been through. Does Fr. Pfeiffer think he's going to Hell? That's a rhetorical question simply meant to illustrate the difficulties of the present situation in having some hundred religious and some thousands of faithful all part of "the Resistance" who all differ on certain issues, and some of those differences are considered unacceptable by some.
To have a pro Resistance board is not as clear cut as it may appear. So the effort is on Resisting the lowest common denominator, the Novus Ordo and in this particular day and age, that also requires resisting +Fellay who should know better than to covertly organize and re-mold the SSPX to be acceptable to enter into it's ranks. But where people go once they've said no to the N.O. and +Fellay is another story, one which seems to be writing itself as we speak.
--------------
There are some posters who have such intense blinders that they cannot see that their problem is actually WITH the Resistance, and the fact that it is not unified (which I don't say is good or bad, but it is what it is) under the self-congratulatory R&R principles they think it should be. They see Fr. Pfeiffer hum and haw about the great evils of our time (Novus Ordo and sedevacantism) and when they see "resistors" who do not share this position, they're running afoul "The Resistance." But in truth, Fr. Pfeiffer is one of many, many priests who are resisting +Fellay and he doesn't have a monopoly on it. He's just the loudest.
More properly called, such posters are really just followers of certain priests.
-
One of the "problems" is that the SSPX Resistance is very loosely defined. This is a board run by Americans, and catering to mainly American trads (though there are some non-USA members, they definitely make up the minority). As such, the Resistance is inevitably identified with Fr. Pfeiffer for good or ill. By now it should be apparent that there is a reason that Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson are not working together, that neither are working particularly close to the French priests and that the Latin American priests (Fr. Meramo et al.) aren't even really considered a part of it.
All were kicked out or left the SSPX for the same reason, more or less-- but various considerations have made it such that some opinions acceptable in some "groups" are anathema in others. Consider Fr. Pinaud, who heroically underwent the kangaroo court of Bishop Fellay after having been subjected to ʝʊdɛօ-Menzingen black ops to dishonestly acquire information from his personal computer. Fr. Pinaud is "non una cuм" and goes all the way to Quebec to minister to the faithful out there who've had it with the SSPX, and what happens? Fr Pfeiffer gets sent up there to straighten out the "non una cuм" party and tell them that unless they're "united" to Francis the heretic they're going to Hell. My heart breaks for everything Fr. Pinaud has been through. Does Fr. Pfeiffer think he's going to Hell? That's a rhetorical question simply meant to illustrate the difficulties of the present situation in having some hundred religious and some thousands of faithful all part of "the Resistance" who all differ on certain issues, and some of those differences are considered unacceptable by some.
To have a pro Resistance board is not as clear cut as it may appear. So the effort is on Resisting the lowest common denominator, the Novus Ordo and in this particular day and age, that also requires resisting +Fellay who should know better than to covertly organize and re-mold the SSPX to be acceptable to enter into it's ranks. But where people go once they've said no to the N.O. and +Fellay is another story, one which seems to be writing itself as we speak.
--------------
There are some posters who have such intense blinders that they cannot see that their problem is actually WITH the Resistance, and the fact that it is not unified (which I don't say is good or bad, but it is what it is) under the self-congratulatory R&R principles they think it should be. They see Fr. Pfeiffer hum and haw about the great evils of our time (Novus Ordo and sedevacantism) and when they see "resistors" who do not share this position, they're running afoul "The Resistance." But in truth, Fr. Pfeiffer is one of many, many priests who are resisting +Fellay and he doesn't have a monopoly on it. He's just the loudest.
More properly called, such posters are really just followers of certain priests.
Love it or hate it, I think it's a good summary. Are you quoting yourself?
-
I've already stated my position on the matter several times.
I understand now why you rejected CathInfo months ago, and why you're not happy with it today: You want a hard-core R&R forum with equal fervor in the "recognize" and "resist" categories.
As my wife pointed out, R&R and Resistance are not the same thing.
CathInfo is a Resistance forum, not an R&R safe haven. There's a difference.
If R&R were more certain, maybe it would have more followers and/or its own forum :)
Speaking of, the turn this thread has taken in the last few pages compels me to do a little C&P from somewhere else.
--------
One of the "problems" is that the SSPX Resistance is very loosely defined. This is a board run by Americans, and catering to mainly American trads (though there are some non-USA members, they definitely make up the minority). As such, the Resistance is inevitably identified with Fr. Pfeiffer for good or ill. By now it should be apparent that there is a reason that Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson are not working together, that neither are working particularly close to the French priests and that the Latin American priests (Fr. Meramo et al.) aren't even really considered a part of it.
All were kicked out or left the SSPX for the same reason, more or less-- but various considerations have made it such that some opinions acceptable in some "groups" are anathema in others. Consider Fr. Pinaud, who heroically underwent the kangaroo court of Bishop Fellay after having been subjected to ʝʊdɛօ-Menzingen black ops to dishonestly acquire information from his personal computer. Fr. Pinaud is "non una cuм" and goes all the way to Quebec to minister to the faithful out there who've had it with the SSPX, and what happens? Fr Pfeiffer gets sent up there to straighten out the "non una cuм" party and tell them that unless they're "united" to Francis the heretic they're going to Hell. My heart breaks for everything Fr. Pinaud has been through. Does Fr. Pfeiffer think he's going to Hell? That's a rhetorical question simply meant to illustrate the difficulties of the present situation in having some hundred religious and some thousands of faithful all part of "the Resistance" who all differ on certain issues, and some of those differences are considered unacceptable by some.
To have a pro Resistance board is not as clear cut as it may appear. So the effort is on Resisting the lowest common denominator, the Novus Ordo and in this particular day and age, that also requires resisting +Fellay who should know better than to covertly organize and re-mold the SSPX to be acceptable to enter into it's ranks. But where people go once they've said no to the N.O. and +Fellay is another story, one which seems to be writing itself as we speak.
--------------
There are some posters who have such intense blinders that they cannot see that their problem is actually WITH the Resistance, and the fact that it is not unified (which I don't say is good or bad, but it is what it is) under the self-congratulatory R&R principles they think it should be. They see Fr. Pfeiffer hum and haw about the great evils of our time (Novus Ordo and sedevacantism) and when they see "resistors" who do not share this position, they're running afoul "The Resistance." But in truth, Fr. Pfeiffer is one of many, many priests who are resisting +Fellay and he doesn't have a monopoly on it. He's just the loudest.
More properly called, such posters are really just followers of certain priests.
I would say this post is a good summation of the ill effects of the "loose association" strategy.
But I would not say these problems stem from the R&R position, since on the one hand, they are equally manifested in the infighting within the sedevacantist orb, and on the other hand, unity was maintained within the SSPX for 40 years, until the leadership excessively fixated on one "R" causing a backlash reaction to fixate on the other "R."
-
Observation.
Why is it that non-R&R's are fighting this subject to have an unmolested R&R Resistance sub-forum here on the "Headquarters of the Resistance", and well as happening elsewhere, and yet on this particular site, it is relatively quiet from the R&R side?
Has this site really been a turn-off to the R&Rs already?
Yes.
Sez the CathInfo member with 87 posts.
I'll give you a clue: CathInfo hasn't changed in 8 years. It was started as a safe haven for serious Catholics all over the world -- safe from the ban hammer of liberals (Fisheaters) anti-Sedevacantism (again, Fisheaters) and offering freedom to discuss anything Catholics find important.
All Trad Catholics were/are welcome, but in particular those that reject The World, and are a bit more serious about putting the Faith into daily life.
And that is exactly what CathInfo is today. What exactly is the problem?
If you do have a legitimate problem with CI, that problem was here BEFORE you showed up, joined, and posted 87 times.
-
As was obvious from the beginning of this thread and its predecessor, that it was indeed designed to force confrontation and disrupt the forum in favor of the Conciliar/Menzingen/resistance R&R doctrine.
The first purpose being accomplished while the second remains unfulfilled thanks to Matthew holding to his principles.
But, this was a clear repeat of what happened on the other forum where the same strategy was employed.
As the R&Rist foundations are weakening their fervor in defending them is increasing.
This is precisely the pattern which was set in 2012 by Menzingen and carried out by its operatives. The resistance so called has inherited this mode of action and is acting according to the same script.
You must not question this or you become the target.
And so, we have so much conflict and distraction among the Catholic brethren, and......meanwhile....back in Rome............
-
Observation.
Why is it that non-R&R's are fighting this subject to have an unmolested R&R Resistance sub-forum here on the "Headquarters of the Resistance", and well as happening elsewhere, and yet on this particular site, it is relatively quiet from the R&R side?
Has this site really been a turn-off to the R&Rs already?
Yes.
If your only interest is in chatting with people who think exactly as you do, I'd imagine this site has been a turn-off for over 5 years going now.
The 87 posts guy makes more sense to me than the ones who've racked up hundreds or thousands of posts here and then suddenly wake up one day and have a problem with the way things have always been.
-
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?
Number CCCLI (351)
5th April 2014
CANONISATIONS UNREAL
The “canonisation”of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonisations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.
In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonisations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonisations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonisations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.
The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
True canonisations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get uncanonised), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonisations used to fulfil the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonisation ?
The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonised did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonising” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.
If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonisations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?
Kyrie eleison.
-
Matthew said:
"I agree with Nishant, Cantarella, etc. about the dangers of Sedevacantism, but it's also true that ABL considered the idea a possibility. Moreover, I'm not 100% cock-sure that I'm correct that Sedevacantism is wrong, and I'm willing to admit that."
__________________________________
A little catechism on sedevacantism
What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.
Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.
The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.
Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
What is meant by being pope materialiter?
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacuм Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.
What do you think of this solution?
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.
What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...
The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...
But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.
Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.
It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.
One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.
Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cuм") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?
The expression "una cuм" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.
In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cuм ...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for ...myself, your unworthy servant."
But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?
St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.
All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."
In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.
Fr. Munoz[4] points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)
Footnotes
1 Fr. Coache (1920-1994), Doctor of Canon Law, was the pastor of the parish of Montjavoult until 1973. He was one of the pioneers of the Catholic resistance against the Conciliar revolution. His parish bulletin evolved into The Combat for the Faith, which was widely distributed, and which he edited until his death. He organized with Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget the epic taking of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, in February 1977.
2 "Cassiciacuм" is the name of the place to which St. Augustine withdrew with some friends after his baptism, and where he studied and deepened his faith. In the late 1970’s, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., together with a group of like-minded priests, founded a review called Les Cahiers de Cassiciacuм to defend the sedevacantist position. The "Cassiciacuм Thesis" is the name given to the theory that the pope is pope materialiter but not formaliter.
3 Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.
4 Of the diocese of Barcelona, Spain. He was ordained in 1952, and was vicar of a parish in Barcelona. With women active in the Catholic Action movement, he founded a contemplative religious community called the Oasis, near Barcelona. The special mission of this community is to pray for priests. Becoming acquainted with Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970’s, he chose to remain faithful to the traditional Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre had a deep affection for the community of the Oasis, whose apostolate he judged to be very necessary for the Church today, and would go there to visit. In October 2000, Fr. Munoz founded a second Oasis in the south of France.
Source (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm)
-
Thank you for posting this, donkath - from the Dominicans of Avrillé.
-
Love your post Donkath, thankyou :applause:.
In the old Law Our Lord did not deny the Priests, all the way up to Caiphas, the respect due to their position, despite calling them a brood of vipers. History is repeating itself
Our Lady prophesied that Russia would eventually be converted when the Holy Father consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Please explain how this prophecy will come true if we do not have a pope?!
-
In the old Law Our Lord did not deny the Priests, all the way up to Caiphas, the respect due to their position, despite calling them a brood of vipers. History is repeating itself
Our Lady prophesied that Russia would eventually be converted when the Holy Father consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Please explain how this prophecy will come true if we do not have a pope?!
In the first place, we are mixing oranges with apples. The two are simply not the same. It matters not what Christ did while on earth concerning the Jєωιѕн priests who were priests due to their birth lineage because Christ gave us the Catholic priesthood who are priests according to a whole new order. We have the Church which has definitively declared that one must hold the Catholic Faith in order to be a priest of the Catholic Church and one's birth lineage does not matter.
As for the prophesy of Our Lady, obviously, it will not happen while there is no pope so it must be that one day there will be a pope. It's just not today.
-
Thank you for posting this, donkath - from the Dominicans of Avrillé.
Raphaela-
Are you a Dominican from Avrille?
-
So we have examples of good willed R&R folks posting and they have suffered no molestation. In most cases it is the attitudes which one brings to the discussion which determine the tone and tenor of the same.
-
In the old Law Our Lord did not deny the Priests, all the way up to Caiphas, the respect due to their position, despite calling them a brood of vipers. History is repeating itself
Our Lady prophesied that Russia would eventually be converted when the Holy Father consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Please explain how this prophecy will come true if we do not have a pope?!
In the first place, we are mixing oranges with apples. The two are simply not the same. It matters not what Christ did while on earth concerning the Jєωιѕн priests who were priests due to their birth lineage because Christ gave us the Catholic priesthood who are priests according to a whole new order. We have the Church which has definitively declared that one must hold the Catholic Faith in order to be a priest of the Catholic Church and one's birth lineage does not matter.
As for the prophesy of Our Lady, obviously, it will not happen while there is no pope so it must be that one day there will be a pope. It's just not today.
Caiaphas betrayed God and his people to appease the Romans.
The resent Popes are betraying God and his people to appease ‘a socialist world’
I always thought the Bible as well as tradition told of the way Our Lord acted in order to give us an example to follow.
Are you telling me that you can give me a more perfect example than Our Lord. Or is it that His example was only for that time, and times have changed, in which case you have a lot more in common with the thinking of current Popes you do not believe are Popes
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
-
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?
Thanks for the correction. Yes, I see the Resistance being absorbed into sedevacantism.
-
Machabees,
You seem to think R&R and Resistance are interchangeable, but it seems that increasingly it is not.
:applause:
Exactly.
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.
-
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he if then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]
There is simply not concensus of the theologians regarding the case of a heretical Pope. Even if there was, this would still not have the mark of infallibility. St. Bellarmine is not the binding authority of the Church. Best to be in the safe side and not to hold imprudent personal opinions that can really cause the lost of one's immortal soul.
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.
Do you mean this part;
The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
-
How does he get the papacy back?
-
pbax ...but then we have this: Galatians 1; verse 8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!”
MyrnaM....but then we have this....St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
Just as Canon Hesse says"...just ignore him"
Have you read the next chapter? St. Robert is not saying what you think he's saying.
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
Read the next chapter where St. Robert says it is certain that a heretic is not a pope.
Do you mean this part;
The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)
Do sedes attend SSPX or Resistance Masses?
Yes, many who hold the "sede" position attend mass at both SSPX and resistance masses.
John Lane, of the Bellarmine Forums, one of the best known "sedevacantists" in the world attends SSPX every Sunday.
-
How does he get the papacy back?
I do not believe Francis was ever Pope to begin with, so there is no getting it back for him.
In order to have a Pope again, in the apparent absence of the cardinals, the right of election falls to the remaining members of the hierarchy and Roman clergy who have kept the Faith.
-
In the following quote, taken from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1895), Sabastian B. Smith discusses the two-fold opinion with respect to the hypothetical question of a heretical pope, and then explains how it would be dealt with on the practical level.
“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”. (20)
As we can see, while there are two common opinions with respect to the hypothetical question, “both opinions agree” when it comes to the practical aspect. And what both opinions agree on is that, on the practical level, it would require a declaration of heresy from the Church in order for the pope to be removed.
It is all very interesting and it shows what confusing times we are in.
I myself look at it this way there are now two rites the Tridentine rite and the illicit new rite. Two rites but one pope in charge and by the way he acts and speaks I know by my catechism that he prefers to spend his time in the new rite. That does not concern me I will that to the correct hierarchy of the church
I belong to the Tridentine rite only. All this other garbage that is happening is all to do with new rite, they can do what they want it does not concern me. They have done a Luther ditch the Tridentine rite in preference for a protestant rite. They really have not touched my rite it is just harder to find.
Just as Our Lord was conceived in the womb of His Blessed Mother “in the fullness of time”, so in the Fullness of time will Almighty God step in to rectify the current situation
-
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.
TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner. I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.
-
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.
TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner.
I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.
Gosh. And just who might that be?
.
-
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.
TKGS is not referring to you, Peter. You are a conciliar kinda guy but you seem to really appreciate a different point of view when expressed in a respectful manner. I think TKGS was referring to really thin-skinned "resistance" types.
Let me get a little bit personal here to start with. I got interested in this site firstly because of its stance which was in support of the SSPX and what it stood for. There was a time when people following Ab. Lefebvre were called Lefebvrists, in an attempt to accuse them of following a man who had started up a parallel church to the Church of Our Lord. However, those who used right judgement knew very well that here was a very unique man in our modern times who truly belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. So rather than feeling put down, I was rather “proud” to be associated with such a holy man.
With this background I joined this blog to be with like-minded Catholics who were not just Traditional in name but Traditional in practice. That is, denouncing modern novelties but still holding to the One True Church with the Pope as successor of St. Peter being its head. To me a Church without a Supreme Pontiff is a Church which lacks that continuity which the Catholic Church holds to be necessary, and therefore is in Schism.
So… Actually these posters are not trying to have you banned from here, but are struggling to figure out why sedevacantist would want to even bother to come on a SSPX/Resistance site, and also attend SSPX/Resistance Masses in the first place.
All Masses said by the SSPX/Resistance mention i.e pray for the Pope in the canon. You may say that a sedevacantist does not pray for the pope that is not a pope, but in reality you do pray for the pope through the altar server. The Altar server represents the congregation at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Even if you think you are not praying for the pope by participating in the Mass you are actually praying for the pope that you think is not a pope. If you are not participating but merely attending as you would at a Protestant funeral rite in respect for a deceased person, you have not heard Mass and therefore are wasting your time there.
Surely based on the principles you stand for is not this just a little contradictory on your part. After all your stance in defending your sedevacantist position is crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s. I would have also thought that sedevacantists would have a problem with the ’62 missal.
A sedevacantist poster once mockingly accused non-sedes of fearing molestation of their women and children. The dictionary meaning of ‘molest’ is to “meddle with and injure; interfere with and trouble; disturb”. So yes, I do fear a spiritual molestation here, and not just to women and children, as I cannot any longer trust that the postings are from like-minded persons with the aim of aiding each other to their eternal salvation. There appears to be a push to convert others to sedevacantism, a push which I view to be a danger to the salvation of souls for the reasons enunciated by various theologians (and of course denounced by sedevacantists who seem to speak like self-elected ‘popes’) who rely on the goodness and majesty of God. As the train of thought goes…. As Our Lord suffered on Calvary, so too is the Holy Catholic Church getting a taste, and mind you only a taste and not the full extent, of these sufferings in her body today.
In short I cannot understand why a sedevacantist would post on this site. It is a bit bewildering. After all isn’t it the SSPX that says ‘we tolerate sedevacantists but it is not the position of the SSPX’. Well anyway that is what I have always thought, may be that has changed too. Even though he too sometimes questioned the actions of the Pope and understood with sympathy how the sedes could be led into this error, Archbishop Lefebvre stood firmly against it. The SSPX priests and the Resistance priests too both recognise the Pope as the head of the one true Church.
Now for those who think I am a sede hater etc, NO I am not. I do not agree with it, is that such a crime? In these confusing times we question everything and I cannot seem to understand the link between sedevacantists and SSPX/Resistance.
-
What does R&R stand for?
-
What does [dogmatic] R&R stand for?
You have somewhat answered your own question...
Dogmatic R&R means forget reality, Pass the Koolaide!