You know we won't know what might have happened if most trads went sedevacantist years ago, but we do know what happened with the SSPX etal.

How is the Resistance going Matthew...with all the infighting and drama?  Has the Vatican responded to it?

Two sides can play this game...you know inflammatory, insincere questions.

Anyone who throws out attacks of the SSPX being "the reason we are still in Crisis" needs to be MORE SPECIFIC as to what they interfered with.

How does a Crisis in the Church (like the one we're in now) get resolved?

To those extreme sedevacantists who blame the SSPX, I say: "Come on, geniuses, please give me some details on how the Crisis can/will be solved."

See, we could have had this argument in 1973 about which way is better, and we could both have it honestly.

But the fact that God has chosen, as it were, what path would develop, gives a lot of credence to the SSPX position.

I'm not about to forget Who is in charge. God is in charge. Man proposes, God disposes.

 

Anyone who throws out attacks of the SSPX being "the reason we are still in Crisis" needs to be MORE SPECIFIC as to what they interfered with.

How does a Crisis in the Church (like the one we're in now) get resolved?

To those extreme sedevacantists who blame the SSPX, I say: "Come on, geniuses, please give me some details on how the Crisis can/will be solved."

See, we could have had this argument in 1973 about which way is better, and we could both have it honestly.

But the fact that God has chosen, as it were, what path would develop, gives a lot of credence to the SSPX position.

I'm not about to forget Who is in charge. God is in charge. Man proposes, God disposes.

 

Personally, I wonder what would have happened if ABL had went sede since he wasn't completely opposed to it.  I don't know what would have happened, but I do know that despite all of the attempts by the SSPX and its spinoffs to solve the Crisis, it's still with us...and with a vengeance.

Don't put too much stock in GG's tirade.  It isn't necessarily the view of all SVs and even if it is the view of some or even most (?) you can chalk it up to the misery that all traditional Catholics find themselves in today.  Kind of like what is happening between the Resistance and the SSPX or Fr. Pheiffer and Bishop Williamson or Fr. Zendejas.  It is the scourge of traditional Catholicism where at best we have a pope whom we recognize in name only.  In normal times the Church's hierarchy, guided by the Holy Ghost, regulates all the various disagreements that arise amongst the members.  Obviously that is not happening today.

One thing to keep in mind too is that all the theologians, when contemplating the scenario of a heretic pope, expected that the situation would be resolved by the cardinals and/or bishops in council.  To my knowledge no theologian ever envisioned a scenario where only a handfull of bishops and clergy would resist a heretic pope while all the cardinals and 99.9% of the bishops all cooperated with him.  So it's understandable that there would be some disagreements on how to handle it.

And another thing that might cause some sadness for SVs is that if the handfull of bishops had agreed from the get go on what to do, they might have been able to elect a true pope.  After all at the very least Bishop de Castro Mayer was a successor of the apostles.  It could be argued that +Thuc and +Lefebvre were also since their resignations would be null if Paul VI was a public heretic.  But those opportunities are gone now.  The misery continues.

Both Clemens Maria and Sbyvl speak of "missed opportunities".

God doesn't miss anything. You still talk as if the Crisis had been meant to end after 10 years, but it's gone on for 45 thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Don't you think God is in control? If God wanted it to end 10 years ago, trust me, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Maybe it's part of the chastisement.

I suppose it could be argued that Archbishop Lefebvre played a negative but necessary role like Judas. Still, I would disagree with that. Judas committed a very clear-cut and evil mortal sin: betraying his Master. Did the Archbishop really do something like that? He kept a very Catholic mindset during the whole crisis, and up till recently, his organization the SSPX was doing the most to help souls and solve the Crisis. I just don't see the bad fruits there. On the contrary, there were countless good fruits and that is why they were so popular.

You can't use the Novus Ordo is even more popular argument to slam the SSPX. That alone says nothing. So just because it's more popular means it's worse? So...eating food is objectively wrong, and those who eat ash and dirt are the true remnant? Sometimes the majority is right!

Just because the SSPX failed eventually (under +Fellay) doesn't mean it was rotten from the beginning, as many suggest.

The lights went out, and we are in crisis. Trying to analyze and criticize each individual extension of a person's arm to feel his way around in the dark, each bump into a piece of furniture, each step taken in the wrong direction -- kind of pointless. The real problem is the fact that the lights went out! I'm sure all the men in that room were trying to find their way honestly.

Matthew,
I am not asserting that God has "missed" anything, however, I do not believe it inconsistent with Catholic theology to hold that men may fail to recognize an opportunity being presented to them by God to achieve something of benefit.  Therefore, I believe this truism may be applied to our present situation.  There were quite clearly many opportunities to resolve this Crisis several decades ago, yet here we are, fifty-seven years into the interregnum, with no end in sight.  The principal reason for this, as I and several others see it, is the overall complacent attitude of Catholics towards the situation, and their inordinate comfort in the traditionalist chapels of their choice.  Many Catholics have unfortunately begun to implicitly regard the Crisis as a semi-permanent phenomenon, and therefore have paid little, if any, thought to how the Crisis will be resolved.

Being that I would certainly not seek to compare Archbishop Lefebvre, a misguided but otherwise holy prelate, to the betrayer of Our Lord, and certainly have not done so in the past, the line of questioning you present seeking to distinguish the two is quite unnecessary.

With regards to the "Novus Ordo is more popular argument", that is the logical conclusion to the argument you presented in the opening post of this thread,that the relative popularity of the recognize-and-resist positon over the sedevacantist position can somehow be used as evidence in an attempt to prove the correctness of the R&R position, which is patently absurd.  Unfortunately, I am afraid I do not quite understand the point you attempted to convey with your analogy, so perhaps you could be so kind as to clarify that for us.

The attempts by Bishop Fellay to unite the SSPX to the Conciliar religion, and the subsequent rebellion by Bishop Williamson & Co., if nothing else serve to demonstrate for Catholics yet again the absurdity of the recognize-and-resist viewpoint.  Unfortunately, the "positon of the Archbishop" and the "position of the Society" have all but replaced Catholic theology as it pertains to the present Crisis.  On this point I refer specifically to the certainly erroneous, if not outright heretical, view of the SSPX and its adherents that a valid ecuмenical council can teach err on matters of faith and morals.  This opinion has exactly zero basis in Catholic teaching, but as it is the "position of the Society", it has been accepted by many unfortunate souls as a legitimate opinion to hold to.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Archbishop Lefebvre or his followers.  However, in this time of extraordinary crisis, I believe it is is our obligation to adhere to what the Church has taught, rathr than to a positon that is held by a particular organization we happen to like.

Quote from: Matthew

Just because the SSPX failed eventually (under +Fellay) doesn't mean it was rotten from the beginning, as many suggest.

When different followers of The Resistance can't unite on whether a traditional bishop should be suggesting attendance at the Modernist Novus Ordo mess, tell me how long will it be before The Resistance follows suit?

This is an excellent point.  Being that neither the Resistance nor the other traditionalist organizations constitute the hierarchy of the Church, there is really nothing to prevent these groups from sliding into heresy or schism, aside from the consciences of those in control of these institutions.

I think that in certain cases, the majority is likely to be right.

Think of a monastery with 100 monks. They all practice mortification, own no property, and study St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy and theology.

90 of them embrace the R&R position, while 10 of them lean towards Sedevacantism.

In my book, that is a huge argument for Recognize and Resist.

I know that the "sheeple" or "masses" are distracted by trying to earn a living, fighting with in-laws, trying to raise their children, go grocery shopping, keep the cars running, the house in one piece, etc. and some of them will get things wrong, or not have enough time to look into things to find the "best" solution. They will often go with what is convenient.

But when you have men who are detached, intelligent, holy - why wouldn't the majority be a huge argument? Doesn't the Church itself agree with me? The cardinals VOTE for who is to become the next pope. Obviously the Church says that, all things being equal, the man with the confidence of 50 cardinals is going to be better for the church than the man with 10 cardinals' confidence.

That's why I instituted (and continue to allow) CathInfo's "vote" feature. I believe the vote of devout, resistant (to modernism), Traditional Catholics means something. Obviously there is a "noise level" -- less than 3 votes is just noise.

But I have yet to see a post worth a darn that got 8 votes down and 0 votes up!  Or vice-versa: any posts with 8 or 9 upvotes and 0 or 1 downvotes are usually very good and worth reading. It has to be decisive.

I also can tell when something really divides the Trad community when it has 6 upvotes and 6 downvotes.