Novus Ordo Watch is beyond reproach when it comes to intellectual honesty.  No agendas.  Just the truth.  I believe it is one of the more solid websites in existence.  

Matthew:

Quote

There obviously is more to it than any of you understand. Maybe it's just the feebleness of your intellect, in which case I should overlook it.

I'm trying to understand the meaning of this quote.

No offense intended but I will list the possibilities from the harshest down.

3. Only the SVs who are "extremists" "insane" and "crazy" and do not like attending a Mass offered in union with the ... anti-Pope ... are feeble in mind.

4.  Something else.

I am specifically trying to figure out who is meant by "any of you".  I believe the implication is if we are not feeble of intellect we would be banned.  But because of our slow wit and invincible ignorance you/he will over look it. I want to know if I need to thank the feebleness of my mind for being allowed on this forum.

Also are the dogmatic anti-BOD's feeble of mind?  Plenty are allowed to roam around here.  They call those who teach BOD heretics.  If that is not dogmatic anti-BOD I'm not sure what is.

Fixed it for you. (Removed the ridiculous assertions, which could only serve to inflame passions and muddy the waters).

I am saying the same thing I have always said.

You can have your opinion about the Pope, and I have mine.

But when EITHER OF US tries to act like it's cut-and-dried, so simple a baby could figure it out, or that the conclusion is obvious for any man of good will -- that's where I get angry.

There are WAY too many good Catholics on both sides of the issue for it to be that clear-cut.

Anyone who thinks it's that simple is just that -- a simple-minded person. Someone who doesn't appreciate the complexity of the issue, perhaps because of his limited intellect.

Can't some of us who assert are position confidently and in a way that cannot be refuted be something other than "smiple-minded and of "limited intellect".  Perhaps the real "problem" is that we are correct.  We can't both be wrong and we can't both be right.  You should not get angry unless SVs start calling R & Rs simple-minded or some other derogatory term IMO.

Like non-Catholic?

That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about dogmatic sedevacantists, or those who are headed in that direction by forgetting just how complex and unprecedented this Crisis is.

Yes, only one of us can be objectively right.

But you don't know you're right, and neither do I. Only God could step in and confirm one of our positions. And so far He hasn't deigned to do so.

But actually, right now, in this state of ignorance, BOTH of us could very well be subjectively in-the-right in God's eyes. However, as soon as charity starts to be forgotten, THAT we will answer for.

So we remain in the state where we must give benefit of the doubt to all Catholics doing their best in this Great Chastisement (greater than WW1 and WW2).

And actually, "limited intellect" is the charitable interpretation. Talking about a sedevacantist who looks at the situation with his untrained theological mind, decides on a position, and goes ahead and casts off as "non-Catholic/malicious" much greater, trained minds than himself, just because they don't see things as he does -- I would actually be tempted to blame malice and/or pride.

But out of charity, I'll give such a one the benefit of the doubt and just say he's simple-minded.

So there you have it.

.

Typo............

Quote from: 2Vermont

Just found this (haven't read through it all yet though):


http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.UvQsxiyYbCk

The NovusOrdoWatch author resorts to sleight of hand in his attempt to drive a point home:  

Quote

Regarding the issue of whether the papal claimants after Pope Pius XII, who died in 1958, have been real Popes, Bp. Williamson makes a most startling assertion: "The question is not of prime importance", he says. Really? The question of whether the men who have brought about world apostasy and the demise of Christendom were genuine Vicars of Christ or diabolical charlatans is "not of prime importance"?? What, then, is? Bp. Williamson's weekly Eleison Comments?

An interesting quote from Abp. Lefebvre comes to mind at this point, one Williamson perhaps forgot:

"Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts."
(Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Address to Seminarians, March 30, 1986; underlining added.)

It should be obvious to anyone that if the Pope is not important in the Church, then no one is. Certainly Our Blessed Lord and His holy Apostles never displayed this carefree attitude of Bp. Williamson regarding whether the person claiming to be our Chief Shepherd is in fact the rightful shepherd or a usurper, a hireling, even a wolf (see Mt 24:24; Jn 10:12-13; Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thess 2:3; etc.).

By the time you get through these 3 paragraphs, if you're not paying close attention, you'll probably have forgotten what +W had actually said in the first place -- because it's been overshadowed by a new message!  

The new message is "a carefree attitude" that whether the pope is a heretic or an imposter is "of no importance."  

But is that what +W said?  Maybe you should go back and see.

It is +W's primary thesis, that the overly-simplistic sede approach would have everything black or white, either one extreme or the other, with nothing in between.  Fr. Pfeiffer has pointed out on several occasions that this is a very feminine outlook, that "it's all or nothing;  always or never." That's the way women are made, he says.  




Maybe NovusOrdoWatch is written by a woman, then.  That would explain a lot.


.

LOL, now why isn't this a simple-minded conclusion?  

Many Catholic saints were simple-minded people.  Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions about anyone Matthew.

Re-read my posts.

I have nothing against the simple-minded. I just said that's the charitable interpretation of someone who judges thousands of Catholics in one fell swoop.

Anyone who points at the crisis and claims it's "so simple" has created a real conundrum. Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and hundreds of SSPX priests didn't manage to catch that "simple truth". Are they all malicious, or stupid? Which is it?

If the Crisis is so simple a child could see it, there are only those two possibilities.

Understand my point now?

You have to admit you rightly have no tolerance for dogmatic sedes, yet you let all dogmatic sedeplentists slide. You also have a soft spot for the revolving door of so-called "feeneyites" who post all sorts of errors here.

 :pop:

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Matthew:

Quote

There obviously is more to it than any of you understand. Maybe it's just the feebleness of your intellect, in which case I should overlook it.

I'm trying to understand the meaning of this quote.

No offense intended but I will list the possibilities from the harshest down.

3. Only the SVs who are "extremists" "insane" and "crazy" and do not like attending a Mass offered in union with the ... anti-Pope ... are feeble in mind.

4.  Something else.

I am specifically trying to figure out who is meant by "any of you".  I believe the implication is if we are not feeble of intellect we would be banned.  But because of our slow wit and invincible ignorance you/he will over look it. I want to know if I need to thank the feebleness of my mind for being allowed on this forum.

Also are the dogmatic anti-BOD's feeble of mind?  Plenty are allowed to roam around here.  They call those who teach BOD heretics.  If that is not dogmatic anti-BOD I'm not sure what is.

Fixed it for you. (Removed the ridiculous assertions, which could only serve to inflame passions and muddy the waters).

I am saying the same thing I have always said.

You can have your opinion about the Pope, and I have mine.

But when EITHER OF US tries to act like it's cut-and-dried, so simple a baby could figure it out, or that the conclusion is obvious for any man of good will -- that's where I get angry.

There are WAY too many good Catholics on both sides of the issue for it to be that clear-cut.

Anyone who thinks it's that simple is just that -- a simple-minded person. Someone who doesn't appreciate the complexity of the issue, perhaps because of his limited intellect.

You have to admit you rightly have no tolerance for dogmatic sedes, yet you let all dogmatic sedeplentists slide. You also have a soft spot for the revolving door of so-called "feeneyites" who post all sorts of errors here.

This is my impression as well, and it makes me wonder why.  I like this forum a lot but this is my biggest gripe.

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

I have a question concerning sedevacantism:

It seems to me that if we cannot judge this man, Francis, who repudiates fundamental Catholic dogmas, to be outside of the Church as a consequence, we cannot judge ANYBODY who professes to be a Catholic to be outside of the Church. If we admit that Francis is a member of the Church, then we must also admit that ALL people who deny the truth of a Catholic religion are members of the Church, that people who deny the need to convert non-Catholics are members of the Church, that people who believe that all religions lead to God are members of the Church. Doesn't this mean, as a consequence, that we must accept everybody who professes to be a Catholic as true Catholics and members of the Church? Doesn't this mean that even those who deny the Trinity, deny the Resurrection, deny the existence of the soul etc are also members of the Church?

As far as I can see, to accept that Francis is a Catholic is to accept that the Church can hold contradictory beliefs. What, then, is the Catholic Church?

Sure, if you confuse "The Pope" with "Joe Heretic on the street" then you might have a point. Call me a nit-picker, but I don't think they're equivalent.

Of course we can say this or that person is a heretic, and outside the Church because he doesn't have the Faith. But even in the case of unimportant individuals we laymen don't have the authority to formally excommunicate them, nevermind declare them vitandi (to be shunned). We can't bind this obligation to shun them on the conscience of any other. We can only avoid this or that apostate because it seems to us he's dangerous. We might even recommend this course of action to others. But we're still toothless sheep when it comes to having real power.

But the highest office in the land, the Papacy? That's a different matter. We only have ONE pope. It's no big deal if this or that individual isn't a Catholic. The pope, however?

Hopefully you can see there's a difference between the one and only Vicar of Christ and Joe Schmoe on the street.

I guess this is the typical simplistic thinking to be expected of sedevacantists...

Seriously, everyone seems to want to make everything so simple. But it's not simple. If people would get that thought into their thick heads, maybe we wouldn't have so much Dimond Bros-style schism and cult mentality going around. As well as rash judgment of our fellow Catholics.

If it were as simple as you think, everyone would have become Sedevacantist long ago. What you think is the matter with Abp. Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and even myself? Hard core diabolical malice? Ignorance? No, and no.

I don't think every Sedevacantist is malicious or ignorant either. It's one solution to the Crisis -- it's just not the only one (and to get into the realm of opinion, it's not the best one either)

There obviously is more to it than any of you understand. Maybe it's just the feebleness of your intellect, in which case I should overlook it.

You're right.  They're not equivalent.  What the "pope" says and does is MUCH more important. Joe Schmoe can talk until he's blue in the face about how Mary called God a liar at the foot of the Cross. That person would be a heretic, but yeah, that person is not the pope.  But it was the man who is supposed to be POPE who said this.  If anything, he is MORE culpable than Joe Schmoe. How is it that we can recognize Joe Schmoe as a non-Catholic/heretic, but not the Pope?  Recognizing is not the same as judging.  IMO, to recognize this man as the pope is to recognize he is a Catholic.

But he is not.  And a non-Catholic can not possibly be pope.  Otherwise we might as well recognize the Dalai Lama as pope.

But hey, I'm just a simple sede.

A simple minded sede, and quite possibly crazy and or insane and not blessed like others who are not sede but a half-dead zombie.  These are all pretty strong arguments against the principles behind the SV reality BTW.  Didn't you notice?   :alcohol: