I was debating whether or not I should start this thread -- being as I'm not a sedevacantist, but I'm 100% for the Resistance.

This thread should be especially "interesting", since CathInfo has many sedevacantist members.

But since I've never shied away from a discussion, and I'm all for getting to the bottom of things, here goes.

NOTE: I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Please do not imply anything that isn't explicitly stated. For example, when I say, "Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top." I am not implying whether or not the person is justified for going that route. There are plenty of situations where it is called for to give up on optimism, and for frustration to lead you to try something else. Maybe you sat in gridlock traffic for 5 hours, and decided you should turn off your car, lock it, and walk away. Or if there were a widespread gasoline shortage, how long until you stop checking the local gas station every day to see if they took down the "sorry, no gas" sign?

As always, discussion is welcome -- that's the very point of this post.


Similarities of the SSPX Resistance to the Sedevacantist movement
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Both movements are decentralized, "hit and miss", with some places having daily Mass, and others never seeing a priest.

2. Related to #1, there is no absolute leader that can be the arbiter of various arguments, in-fighting, personality conflicts, etc. There is no "official" Resistance position on anything, just like there is no "official" Sedevacantist belief package. There *is* an official SSPX position on things, however, and Archbishop Lefebvre served (and still serves) as a focal point of unity. Though this is changing to a more "I, being the head, determine what is Tradition" post-Vatican-II view of things, with +Fellay slowing replacing +Lefebvre for many SSPX Catholics...

3. Numbers and chapels are scarce; strict adherence to the movement (that is, if you believe you can't go anywhere else) means you will likely end up home alone on Sundays.
3B. Some supporters, acknowledging the crucial nature of weekly Mass, believe attendance at other valid Traditional Mass centers is permissible (for example, SSPX chapels for those in the Resistance, or non-sedevacantist chapels for sedevacantists). Others are dogmatic in their stance, considering attendance at a non-Resistance/non-Sedevacantist Mass as communion with heretics, mortal sin, etc.

4. Adherence to the movement usually implies cutting off contact/communion with the corrupt version of the organization the movement hopes to more faithfully continue (the Church in the case of Sedevacantists, or the SSPX Traditional movement, in the case of the Resistance). Depending on the individual, there may or may not be a glimmer of hope for a "fixing" of the original organization in the future, with or without divine intervention.
Sedevacantists don't trouble themselves with the goings-on in the conciliar Church, or the latest "anti-pope". And strict Resistance supporters don't want to worry about the latest innovations or pro-Vatican II speeches being propagated by the SSPX.

5. To clarify #4, Sedevacantists don't want a picture of the errant Pope in their chapels, nor do they want to listen to his latest speeches or think much about him. Likewise, those in the Resistance don't want pictures of the errant Superior General, or to listen to him or think much about him. In both cases, "thinking about him" is a cause of anger, so it's best to totally cut loose.

6. To both movements, there is little-to-no hope of turning things around, at least humanly speaking (hence the "complete cutting off" mentioned in #4 and #5)

7. Both movements aren't interested in the corrupt organization's token, occasional, incremental, or "crumbs from the table" tiptoe movements toward Rectitude. Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top.

8. Both movements aim for faithfulness to Tradition and purity of doctrine. Adherents to each movement will be quick to point out that the crisis they are reacting to was not their fault, or their idea. They wish the (SSPX, Catholic Church) could somehow be restored to their original glory. When confronted with the smallness of their numbers, bleak outlook for their future, etc. they can only point out that they really have no choice: They can't compromise on doctrine, and they have to trust in God that He will sort things out and provide a solution.

9. Members of both movements prefer to recruit from "nearby" rather than from scratch. (SSPX-attendees for the Resistance, or Traditionalists for the Sedevacantists)


But there are some show-stopping differences:

1. The SSPX is not the Church founded by Christ, with His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It is only a pious union legitimately founded within the Church. Religious orders and organizations come into existence, grow, serve the purpose for which they were founded, become corrupt, decline, and die out all the time.

2. Cutting oneself off from the SSPX is a prudential choice. "Is this organization a safe harbor from Modernism, an effective way to help me and my family keep the Faith?" The answer can be "yes" or "no", depending on one's own opinions, knowledge, and prudence. Moreover, the decision to "cut oneself off" from the SSPX doesn't imply that its members are non-Catholic, so there is no question of Schism. After all, a Traditional Catholic can't be an active member in every Traditional group in order to consider that group Catholic! But there is only ONE Catholic Church, and cutting oneself off from it (or its members) is called Schism and is a grave sin, at least objectively.

3. With few exceptions, it was morally necessary for a Catholic after Vatican II to become Traditionalist to save his Faith. I make this assertion based on the historical evidence of the past 50 years, and the state of 99% of Novus Ordo-attending Catholics today. Becoming sedevacantist, on the other hand, was optional. But in the Resistance, what does a person do who just wants to keep doing what +Lefebvre promoted for decades -- militant, uncompromising opposition to Vatican II, the modern world, and those who run it? They don't have much choice.

.

This ought to be a very good discussion.  I hope it turns out that way.





Not to be critical for the sake of criticism, but rather for constructive
improvement (constructive criticism - which is a good thing!), I have
a suggestion for the following paragraph:

...NOTE: I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Please do not imply anything that isn't explicitly stated. For example, when I say, "Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top." I am not implying whether or not the person is justified for going that route. There are plenty of situations where it is called for to give up on optimism, and for frustration to lead you to try something else. Maybe you sat in gridlock traffic for 5 hours, and decided you should turn off your car, lock it, and walk away. Or if there were a widespread gasoline shortage, how long until you stop checking the local gas station every day to see if they took down the "sorry, no gas" sign? ...

My suggestion is as follows:

NOTE: I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Please do not infer that I have implied anything that isn't explicitly stated. For example, when I say, "Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top," I am not implying that the person is or is not justified for going that route. There are plenty of situations where it is reasonably called-for to give up on optimism, and where frustration could reasonably lead you to try something else.

Maybe you sat in gridlock traffic for 5 hours, and decided you should turn off your car, lock it, and walk away. Or if there were a widespread gasoline shortage, how long until you stop checking the local gas station every day to see if they took down the "sorry, no gas" sign?


These examples are sufficient, but a few more come to mind, with
concomitant implications:

Consider what events take place when a town becomes a ghost town.
What is left of the place is what people left behind when they gave up
on optimism.  And they didn't all give up at the same time.  The town
had once been a thriving community with shops, homes, mayor's
office, church, school, undertaker, B&B, maybe a saloon.  But things
'wound down' over a period of time, perhaps years, or perhaps even
a few days, or even less, depending on the reason that people started
to leave.  In the end, the "Sorry, no Gas" sign is still in the dusty,
cobweb-cornered window, barely visible through the dirty glass, with
the sharp soft noise of a tumbleweed as it rolls down Main Street,
blown by a dry hot wind.

When a vehicle's drive train fails, it usually has some symptoms first.
Like an internal combustion engine that runs low on oil starts making
a ticking, clacking sound, a noise with a ringing aspect, which any
good mechanic would know the likely cause -- the oil level has gone
down to dangerously low.  A person with no ear for that might not
even notice it, especially since it begins so quietly and very gradually
increases.  If ignored even for a few days, the engine could incur
permanent damage, and beyond that, it could actually freeze up when
one or more of the main and/or connecting rod bearings seize.  And
that happens in just a moment of time.  You could say that the parts
of the engine "give up on the optimism of getting more oil."
Also, the various parts didn't all give up on optimism at the same
time. The valve rocker arms started ticking first, then the
hydraulic lifters started knocking, then the piston bearings made a
clacking sound, and finally the connecting rod bearings began to
thwack against the crankshaft.  But it was the main bearing number
5 that actually heated up and grabbed the crank, causing the engine
to seize and stop altogether.  The parts of an engine like this cannot
"move away" or "stop going to Mass."  But they can cease to function
properly, even if their overall contribution to the system is not one
whose loss makes the engine quit running.  But when it comes to
the crankshaft, that's where the serious malfunctions are conclusive.

Another example would be John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, in at
least two-thirds of its 600 pages.


.

Not that Matthew implied that Sedevacantists are closed minded, but Ill say this anyway: If someone could come up with a complicated theological in depth EXPLINATION about how Francis 1 and his predecessors were valid popes, then I would not be a Sedevacantist. But that has not happened and the explanations I have seen did not convince me. Perhaps someone with such an explanation should start a thread about it.

Btw, this is what I used to feel in a novus ordo "mass".

Novus ordo   :rahrah: :rahrah: :chef: :dancing-banana: :guitar: :guitar: ...........ME  :light-saber:

I think your similarities are pretty accurate--in organization and practice these two broad groups are similar.

I would take issue, however, with point number 4.  Sedevacantists do "trouble themselves with the goings-on in the conciliar Church, or the latest 'anti-pope'."  We want to be sure of our position of the "pope question" and we always look for signs that the Vatican could, one day, be restored though we acknowledge that it will be a miraculous event when it happens...

I didn't want to re-post the whole thing because it's the second post in
this thread and easily found.  


But this reply by TKGS made me think of #4, 5 and 6, above:  

4. Adherence to the movement usually implies cutting off contact/communion with the corrupt version of the organization the movement hopes to more faithfully continue (the Church in the case of Sedevacantists, or the SSPX Traditional movement, in the case of the Resistance). Depending on the individual, there may or may not be a glimmer of hope for a "fixing" of the original organization in the future, with or without divine intervention.  Sedevacantists don't trouble themselves with the goings-on in the conciliar Church, or the latest "anti-pope". And strict Resistance supporters don't want to worry about the latest innovations or pro-Vatican II speeches being propagated by the SSPX.

5. To clarify #4, Sedevacantists don't want a picture of the errant Pope in their chapels, nor do they want to listen to his latest speeches or think much about him. Likewise, those in the Resistance don't want pictures of the errant Superior General, or to listen to him or think much about him. In both cases, "thinking about him" is a cause of anger, so it's best to totally cut loose.

6. To both movements, there is little-to-no hope of turning things around, at least humanly speaking (hence the "complete cutting off" mentioned in #4 and #5)

7. Both movements aren't interested in the corrupt organization's token, occasional, incremental, or "crumbs from the table" tiptoe movements toward Rectitude. Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top.

I think TKGS is correct, that SOME sedes trouble themselves with the
goings-on in the conciliar Church.   It seems to me those are the ones
who are not that much firmly resigned to sedevacantism, that is, they
hold out a glimmer of hope for a RESTORATION.  

And the same can be said about SSPX-ers and Resistance Trads.  There
are those who are not real interested in the latest quips from the XSPXSG,
but at the same time they hold out a glimmer of hope that HEBF will
somehow 'convert' and become a real Catholic again.  

(If he ever was in the first place -- at least he was able to act as if
he was.  If it ever comes out that +F was just in it for the ride, there
are going to be a lot of really upset Fellayites running around!)

To be more specific, the attitude of the sede priests might be fairly
hard-line, but not all their faithful are likewise so.  And when a layman
sits down with a such a hard-line sede priest, and puts the word in that
he has no business demanding his faithful to pass judgment on the
pope the way he does, if the priest has any right reason or humility,
he can hardly refuse to accept this admonition.  If he does refuse, then
he really is no longer Catholic.  


And then, like anything else, there are the other extreme.  There are
people who are neither sedevacantist or non-sedevacantist, but who
nonetheless think of themselves as being Catholic, but they don't think
that a 'deal' with modernist Rome is a problem for the Society, nor do
they think that no 'deal' is problematic.  They assist equally at sede
Masses as they do at independent, Resistance or Society Mass.  They
don't care if the priest omits parts of the Canon that he disagrees with
nor are they worried about which Trad missal is used.  They don't even
care to know what the Saint of the Day is because they don't pay any
attention to the Propers anyway.  They prefer to just pray their Rosary
at Mass, and avoid any discussion that entails the mention of dogma,
because then people get 'upset' and there's no fun in that.  Church
should be fun, and, perhaps a place to 'pick up' girls.

.

I think TKGS is correct, that SOME sedes trouble themselves with the goings-on in the conciliar Church.   It seems to me those are the ones who are not that much firmly resigned to sedevacantism, that is, they hold out a glimmer of hope for a RESTORATION.  

There must be a glimmer of hope for a "restoration", or, more correctly, for a true pope to once again rule the Catholic Church.  Catholics cannot believe that the papacy is dead, for that would be heresy.

The papacy is an intrinsic attribute of the Catholic Church, while the Superior General of the SSPX is not.  The hope for a restoration of the Society may or not be a fool's hope.  The restoration of the pope is most definitely not.

Matthew,

In my opinion, there is no practical difference between the resistance and non-dogmatic Sedevacantists.  

We have all made judgments about many things, prior to the judgment of the Church.

The Resistance makes the judgment that they must avoid the Paul VI missal, avoid the Conciliar confirmation rite, reject all or part of the 1983 Code, reject the Catechism of The Catholic Church, reject attending their local parishes in communion with their local bishops, and on and on the list could go.  The Resistance and many SSPX people make these judgments without the benefit of authority.  

Sedevacantists, likewise, make all the same judgments, but we carry it to its next logical step, the man who gave us these things are not successors of St. Peter.  

Archbishop Lefebvre taught us that this judgment could be made in 1986, and stated that someday we may have to make it if the evidence compels us.  Is the evidence now not more clear than ever?  I can see how Catholics were confused during Ratzinger's time as he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, but Bergoglio looks and acts like a wolf, and just like John Paul II has exposed himself, making it easy for Catholics to see him for the heretic that he is.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

This ought to be a very good discussion.  I hope it turns out that way.





Not to be critical for the sake of criticism, but rather for constructive
improvement (constructive criticism - which is a good thing!), I have
a suggestion for the following paragraph:

Quote

...NOTE: I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Please do not imply anything that isn't explicitly stated. For example, when I say, "Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top." I am not implying whether or not the person is justified for going that route. There are plenty of situations where it is called for to give up on optimism, and for frustration to lead you to try something else. Maybe you sat in gridlock traffic for 5 hours, and decided you should turn off your car, lock it, and walk away. Or if there were a widespread gasoline shortage, how long until you stop checking the local gas station every day to see if they took down the "sorry, no gas" sign? ...

My suggestion is as follows:

NOTE: I have attempted to be as objective as possible. Please do not infer that I have implied anything that isn't explicitly stated. For example, when I say, "Optimism has run out, and frustration has come out on top," I am not implying that the person is or is not justified for going that route. There are plenty of situations where it is reasonably called-for to give up on optimism, and where frustration could reasonably lead you to try something else.

Maybe you sat in gridlock traffic for 5 hours, and decided you should turn off your car, lock it, and walk away. Or if there were a widespread gasoline shortage, how long until you stop checking the local gas station every day to see if they took down the "sorry, no gas" sign?


These examples are sufficient, but a few more come to mind, with
concomitant implications:

Consider what events take place when a town becomes a ghost town.
What is left of the place is what people left behind when they gave up
on optimism.  And they didn't all give up at the same time.  The town
had once been a thriving community with shops, homes, mayor's
office, church, school, undertaker, B&B, maybe a saloon.  But things
'wound down' over a period of time, perhaps years, or perhaps even
a few days, or even less, depending on the reason that people started
to leave.  In the end, the "Sorry, no Gas" sign is still in the dusty,
cobweb-cornered window, barely visible through the dirty glass, with
the sharp soft noise of a tumbleweed as it rolls down Main Street,
blown by a dry hot wind.

When a vehicle's drive train fails, it usually has some symptoms first.
Like an internal combustion engine that runs low on oil starts making
a ticking, clacking sound, a noise with a ringing aspect, which any
good mechanic would know the likely cause -- the oil level has gone
down to dangerously low.  A person with no ear for that might not
even notice it, especially since it begins so quietly and very gradually
increases.  If ignored even for a few days, the engine could incur
permanent damage, and beyond that, it could actually freeze up when
one or more of the main and/or connecting rod bearings seize.  And
that happens in just a moment of time.  You could say that the parts
of the engine "give up on the optimism of getting more oil."
Also, the various parts didn't all give up on optimism at the same
time. The valve rocker arms started ticking first, then the
hydraulic lifters started knocking, then the piston bearings made a
clacking sound, and finally the connecting rod bearings began to
thwack against the crankshaft.  But it was the main bearing number
5 that actually heated up and grabbed the crank, causing the engine
to seize and stop altogether.  The parts of an engine like this cannot
"move away" or "stop going to Mass."  But they can cease to function
properly, even if their overall contribution to the system is not one
whose loss makes the engine quit running.  But when it comes to
the crankshaft, that's where the serious malfunctions are conclusive.

Another example would be John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, in at
least two-thirds of its 600 pages.

Neil- I mean this in all charity: Did anyone ever tell you that what goes on in one's mind need not be completely and entirely 'penned'? You make some good points (some of which I disagree with), but for the sake of God and your posts- if you care if anyone reads them-, please, clean up your posts. Its dizzying trying to read them: 5 hour traffic, gas signs, clutches and then the Grapes of Wrath...- none of this makes sense. If you're trying to make a point that everyone else can understand, you're failing. God bless you.

Also, not to be uncharitable, but I tend not to read them simply because of the length and the format.  Those two together are lethal for me.

Matthew,

In my opinion, there is no practical difference between the resistance and non-dogmatic Sedevacantists.  

We have all made judgments about many things, prior to the judgment of the Church.

The Resistance makes the judgment that they must avoid the Paul VI missal, avoid the Conciliar confirmation rite, reject all or part of the 1983 Code, reject the Catechism of The Catholic Church, reject attending their local parishes in communion with their local bishops, and on and on the list could go.  The Resistance and many SSPX people make these judgments without the benefit of authority.  

Sedevacantists, likewise, make all the same judgments, but we carry it to its next logical step, the man who gave us these things are not successors of St. Peter.  

Archbishop Lefebvre taught us that this judgment could be made in 1986, and stated that someday we may have to make it if the evidence compels us.  Is the evidence now not more clear than ever?  I can see how Catholics were confused during Ratzinger's time as he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, but Bergoglio looks and acts like a wolf, and just like John Paul II has exposed himself, making it easy for Catholics to see him for the heretic that he is.

The above comment is pretty much telling it like it is.  The key is that these are in essence not questions of dogma but of reasoned juridical decision.  Dogmatic Sedevacantists indulge in Fideism and remove reason from the operations of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic episcopacy.  The Novus Ordo does much the same by subverting Catholic rationality and replacing it with a Fideist blind obedience to authority, however anarchic and false said authority may be.  Both the Dogmatic Sedevacantists and the Novus Ordo are guilty of Fideism, or the historic mentality of the Protestant heresy.  In essence both groups have Protestant minds that willingly conform to the Marxist status quo of Fox News and MSNBC.

The infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is confederal and therefore against irrational Fideist tyranny.  Romanity is also confederal in the tradition of the confederacy of the historic Roman and Holy Roman Empire and Church.  Our confederal Magisterium is rational and encourages the use of the relatively intact virtues of our existing human nature.  Hence adult Catholics are responsible adults capable of understanding the reasoned public judgments of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy.

It is the false Fideist heresy of both Dogmatic Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Judaized Ex-Catholic apostates that must be rejected by the Catholic Remnant or Resistance.  Because Catholics believe in the relatively intact integrity of human nature and reason we reject the Fideist denial of a reasoned Catholic Magisterium that functions within the institutional context of a confederal Roman and Christian liberty.

And if we have the Roman Catholic courage to use our reason then we will recognize the Signs of the Times and appreciate that we are living in the midst of the Last Days of the Apocalypse.  Then we will comprehend that we are not living in the days of St. Emperor Constantine or Blessed Emperor Charlemagne but in the Last Days of the greatest Marian Saints.  The only rational or intelligent solution to the current Crisis of the Church and human race is to place our confidence entirely in God and humbly perceive the dawning Second Coming of Our Lord among us.

The Apocalypse is now.  The Catholic Remnant is the Apocalypse of the Lord!

Such a brave witness to the truth is the Roman Catholic intelligence and loyalty that is required of us.  If we truly want to accompany Our Lord in His great victory over the Antichrist, then we must go forward and have the clear-eyed sobriety and daring courage to do so.