Author Topic: Sede-friendly still too ambiguous, Sean (Read 745 times)

Matthew · « **on:** January 01, 2014, 11:22:38 PM »

What does "Sede-friendly" mean?

Consider Sedevacantists Catholic?
Consider that Sedevacantism and being of good will are compatible, at least theoretically?
Understanding why some Sedevacantists choose that route?
Consider Sedevacantism to be *ONE* legitimate reaction to this Crisis?
Considering Sedevacantism myself?
Having outright Sedevacantist conviction?

When it comes right down to it, you just don't want anyone to be anything other than a dogmatic sedeplenist. You are upset that we don't share your visceral (gut) reaction to sedevacantism. The majority on CathInfo are *sane* Catholics, which is why most reject your dogmatic sedeplenism.

I disagree with the dogmatic sedeplenist position, just as I disagree with the dogmatic sedevacantist position. They are both erroneous and quite foolish.

The idea that dogma can be brought into the discussion as to what, practically speaking, a Catholic should do in this crisis is ridiculous. There are no dogmas for this situation. No specific advice. Most Church Fathers and writers didn't fathom that we'd ever be in this situation.

This whole crisis is a matter for prudence, not dogma. Which course is most prudent to help ourselves (and our families) save their souls. That's it.

If by "Sede-friendly" you mean "friendly to Sedevacantists: we treat them with charity as our brethren in the Faith that they are" then you GOT THAT ONE RIGHT. CathInfo is chock full of such men and women, and God forbid that should ever change!

I hope CathInfo is always dominated by non-schismatics and Catholics who know what Charity is (and have a working Sensus Catholicus).

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2014, 11:31:20 PM »

And I'd like to add one other thing:

I remember what you said earlier, how you have been with the SSPX for 11 years. That's a good thing of course.

BUT. If you persist in this path (dogmatic sedeplenism), there is a danger of "snapping" at some point in the future, and giving up the Faith altogether. Extreme and erroneous positions are always dangerous in the long term.

Today you insist that you can't fathom a Church without a Pope -- but what happens when the Pope personally starts persecuting Catholics? Believe me, it could get worse than it is today. If it does, either you will descend into the deepest depths of blindness and continue to defend him, or you'll flip around 180 degrees and give up Catholicism altogether. In theory you could embrace Sedevacantism at that point, but 99 humans out of 100 don't work that way. Maybe you'll be the exception; God only knows.

cathman7 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:48:04 AM »

Excellent posts, Matthew.

Such dogmatism from either side will lead to an irrationality bordering on the insane. Sometimes people love to theorize but lack any basic practical sense.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2014, 08:41:24 AM »

I'm not sure who is the new priest at IHM, but he must be extremely anti-Sede or Mr. Johnson has always been that way.