It's odd that Sean Johnson should bring this up, just days after both he and Samuel had a virtual falling-out with me over my apparent over-indulgence in unity on CathInfo.
.The Fruit of Fr. Cooper’s DeathMay 2, 2018The SSPX and faithful (internal resistance and accordist alike)
were mourning the death of Fr. Cooper.The Resistance blogs were all crying out for prayers for a holy priest,
and none were heard to make untimely remarks
about Fr. Cooper’s adherence to the ralliement.In Boston, Kentucky they were having a sung Requiem Mass
for the repose of the soul of Fr. Cooper.By his death, Fr. Cooper brought about what no bishops or priests
have accomplished since 2011:A momentary unity among Tradition.Like we once had not so long ago.Panic in Rome!!!For a few days, the fighting stops.What was it about Fr. Cooper that achieved this momentary unity?It was this:We all claimed him as one of ours: One of the family of Tradition.Tradition!That unity could be preserved, if those who’s opinions mattered
focused on the preservation of Tradition, rather than other things.If they had faith in the invincibility and indefectability of Tradition.This was the grace won by Fr. Cooper’s death, I believe:By his death, he momentarily reunited Tradition,
which for the briefest of moments felt its old strength return.He reminded us such a thing WAS POSSIBLE AFTER ALL.What strength Tradition could retain, if it was faithful to the grace
won by years of pain and suffering from a holy priest!!!What a force it could still be for the salvation of souls!I hope the right people will dwell on this.http://sodalitium-pianum.com/the-fruit-of-fr-coopers-death/
In fairness to Sean he is not saying anything contrary to what he said before. He has something in common with OLMC and with SSPX, all of them are R and R. They are exactly what the Archbishop was until his last breath. You didn't see him mention unity with any of the Sedevacantist positions did you? I don't see any irony at all. I also found the focus of praying for this R and R priest very refreshing!.
:facepalm:.
How is charity and prayers for those who died construde [sic] as a sign to put aside objectivity? Do principles mean anything anymore? Or is plural culture more important [to?] Mr. Johnson over doctrinal clarity? Can one not pray for those who need prayers, like the world praying for the pope when he dies, does that mean we should call for unity and join the conciliar reform? Our Lord did say pray for your enemy did he not? Doesn't mean join hands. So what were you asking again?
Or is this just another Johnson wash?
Btw, why aren't sedevacantists included to the list?
THE SSPX IS NOT TRADITION..
I wish people just wake up to this fact.
4 agreements with Rome so far. One would be enough to make them part of the conciliar Church.
Sean... won't wake up to the fact that the SSPX has lost the faith. OBJECTIVELY.
Because what we have in common with sedevacantists is that we see heresy for what it is: heresy. Liberals don't like that.
We all better get use to this behavior though of Samuel and Sean. Because there are many clerics behind them on the rise who are even more zealous against independent, truly Catholic thinking.
We all better get use to this behavior though of Samuel and Sean. Because there are many clerics behind them on the rise who are even more zealous against independent, truly Catholic thinking.
.Absolute! They all teach salvation in false religions, outside of the sacraments, and the safety of ignorance and desire.
When was the last time you heard a priest preach Outside the Church there is No Salvation from the pulpit?
Liberals don't like that, either.
And from what I've encountered, neither do sedevacantists, nor SSPX or their sympathizers.
.
In fairness to Sean he is not saying anything contrary to what he said before. He has something in common with OLMC and with SSPX, all of them are R and R. They are exactly what the Archbishop was until his last breath. You didn't see him mention unity with any of the Sedevacantist positions did you? I don't see any irony at all. I also found the focus of praying for this R and R priest very refreshing!I guess what I was trying to point out was the incoherence of his new position pushing for "unity". If he were really interested in unity among Trads, he should join me in tolerating the sane (non-dogmatic*) sedevacantists as fellow Catholics at least. Doesn't the confusion of this unprecedented Crisis in the Church allow for some measure of confusion or variance of opinion among Catholics of good will? Shouldn't we expect the sheep to be somewhat scattered, when the shepherd has been struck?
Most sedes on this board are dogmatic, even if they won't admit it. They may not denounce those who disagree with them DIRECTLY, but it only takes a short discussion before they make indirect references to heresy/schism/dogma, which proves how they REALLY view the debate over the papacy. I don't blame them; their views are influenced by the many sede priests who are, without a doubt, militant and dogmatic.
There will never be unity in Traditionalism until the clerics stop fighting like 4 yr olds. It all starts at the top.
So you can't talk about the Chair being empty, without implying at least that I'm acknowledging an anti-pope.
So as long as they don't go so far as to condemn those who aren't sedevacantist, you're good.Yet they do, implicitly. Whether or not they do DIRECTLY, by calling someone a heretic/schismatic, etc is irrelevant. Mentally, many sedes believe they are the ONLY trads who are correct, and all others are wrong...(yet they take it to the extreme and believe others are SINFULLY WRONG.) There's no way to have unity with dogmatic thinking like this.
So as long as they don't go so far as to condemn those who aren't sedevacantist, you're good. Pointing out any implicit contradictions or condemnations of other positions is kind of silly. Of course 100% the sedevacantists are sincere in their belief that the chair is empty!You underestimate the enemy. You are famous for avoiding all of those topics and discussions, except you do so for the wrong reasons. The "non dogmatic vacantists" may not confront your type with an explicit rejection of your position. No, they will confront your type with a myriad of implicit rejections of your position(and that's a real problem, not just down the road). All of which induce doubt in the ignorant and fluf the conciliatory postures of the emotional. How fortunate that such a method is regarded as "silly". Of course they will gently or "sincerely" share with you their personal opinion which always is either in this case sufficiently vacantist, or in other cases heretical. That is what is really happening. Don't equate that with mystery, and please don't use the word "deep". That is a modernist buzzword representative of the faith being the product of feeling, despite it being a fitting outcome example at the moment. It really doesn't slide off the tongue of a man too well. Which, is fortunate for us, because heretical and vacantist women do not tend to be slick.
So accepting a heretic as the Pope is now a "mystery"?The above attitude proves my point. There's no middle ground with sedes. This is why unity is impossible.
So accepting a heretic as the Pope is now a "mystery"?
Reminds me of the movie "Catholics"..
I don't blame them; their views are influenced by the many sede priests who are, without a doubt, militant and dogmatic.This is interesting. How many of the indoctrinated R&R, and indulterers, have been influenced by the SSPX and resistance clerics who are without a doubt militant and dogmatic about their own particular theology as it relates to the situation in the Church?
How many of the indoctrinated R&R, and indulterers, have been influenced by the SSPX and resistance clerics who are without a doubt militant and dogmatic about their own particular theology as it relates to the situation in the Church?I've debated with all manner of individuals and views related to the Church crisis. Without question, the group who is the quickest to call people heretics are sedes. They don't debate to understand/solve a problem; they have a "I win, you lose" mentality. This will NEVER lead to unity.
As far as clerics acting irresponsibly, and as far as unity goes, there is equal blame to go around, as they are all self interested parties who will not join togetherThere's plenty of blame for disunity to go around amoung clerics, and all of them think they're group is correct. However, the sede position is extreme in its dogmatism and consistantly uncharitable in hurling anathemas. There's a big difference between disagreeing with someone and calling them a heretic.
it can't be understood by the mind of man without explicit revelation from God, which is proven by the confusion we see in the world today.Well, it sounds like you are doomed to the destruction of the end of the world, so long as you believe that there are no checks and balances in the church. Similar to how the monk and the nun are pillars, and the mother and father are pillars, so St. Peter and St. Paul are pillars. If you cannot look to St. Peter, now you know where to look. You can blame the "great catholic monarch" and the papal suzerain for st. Paul being swept under the collegial rug.
FULLY understanding the Crisis (how, why, exact nature, endgame, solution, etc.) -- with dogmatic rather than just moral certainty -- will require a revelation from God, just like God had to tell us that He is a Trinity.
Most sedes on this board are dogmatic, even if they won't admit it. They may not denounce those who disagree with them DIRECTLY, but it only takes a short discussion before they make indirect references to heresy/schism/dogma, which proves how they REALLY view the debate over the papacy. I don't blame them; their views are influenced by the many sede priests who are, without a doubt, militant and dogmatic.There will never be unity without recognition of a pope and of his authority. Period.
There will never be unity in Traditionalism until the clerics stop fighting like 4 yr olds. It all starts at the top.