-
Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCXLII - 342
SEDEVACANTIST ANXIETY II
1 Either one recognizes the Conciliar Popes all the way (like the liberals – God forbid !), or one refuses them all the way (like the sedevacantists). To recognize them partly, and partly not, is to pick and choose what one will recognize, as did Luther, as do all heretics (in Greek, “choosers”).
That is true if one picks and chooses according to one’s own personal choice, but it is not true if, like Archbishop Lefebvre, one judges in accordance with Catholic Tradition, which can be found in 2000 years’ worth of Church docuмents. In that case one is judging with 260 Popes against a mere six, but that does not prove the invalidity of these six.
2 But the Conciliar Popes have poisoned the Faith and endangered the eternal salvation of millions upon millions of Catholics. That is contrary to the Church’s indefectibility.
In the Arian crisis of the 4th century, Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East. For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary. However that meant neither that Liberius was not Pope nor that Athanasius was Pope. Similarly the indefectibility of the Church today goes through the faithful followers of the line taken by Archbishop Lefebvre, but that need not mean that Paul VI was not Pope.
3 What the bishops of the world teach, in union with the Pope, is the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which is infallible. Now for the last 50 years the world’s bishops in union with the Conciliar Popes have taught Conciliar nonsense. Therefore these Popes cannot have been true Popes.
If the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium were to go outside Tradition, it would no longer be “Ordinary”, but most extraordinary, because Church doctrine admits of no novelties, the “Universal” being in time as well as space. Now Conciliar doctrine goes way outside Tradition (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism). Therefore doctrine proper to the Council does not come under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and it cannot serve to prove that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes.
4 Modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies”(Pius X). But the Conciliar Popes have all been “public and manifest” modernists, i.e. heretics of such a kind as St Robert Bellarmine declared cannot be members of the Church, let alone its head.
See last week’s “Comments”. Things were much more clear, or “public and manifest”, in Bellarmine’s day, than they are amidst today’s confusion of minds and hearts. The objective heresy of the Concilar Popes (i.e. what they say) is public and manifest, but not their subjective or formal heresy (i.e. their conscious and resolute intention to deny what they know to be unchangeable Catholic dogma). And to prove their formal heresy could only be done by a confrontation with the Church’s doctrinal authority, e.g. the Inquisition or the Holy Office, call it what one will (“A rose by any name would smell as sweet”, says Shakespeare). But the Pope is himself the Church’s highest doctrinal authority, above and behind today’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. How then can he be proved to be that kind of heretic that is incapable of being head of the Church ?
5 But in that case the Church is in a hopeless mess !
Again, see last week’s “Comments”. Men’s minds are today so universally messed up that God alone can straighten out the mess. But this objection may prove rather that he must intervene (and soon !) than that the messed up Popes are not Popes. Patience. God is putting us to the trial, as he has every right to do.
Kyrie eleison.
-
I forgot to put "Eleison Comments" in the title header. Perhaps the moderator rectify that.
-
If the cardinals of the CDF are freemasons and if he is right about the authority of a pope, then there will be no end to the heresies and outrageous apostasy of the vatican.
Unless they convert.
-
This is a good summation by Bishop Williamson.
-
My dear Catholic people,
During the month of December I traveled to England primarily to conduct the interview of a prospective seminarian from that country. I also managed, however, to give two conferences, one in London, and the other in the North, in the city of Durham.
My trip was not very successful. The prospective seminarian stood me up, even though he lived only twelve minutes away from where I was staying. In London, despite a good deal of internet publicity, I attracted only four people to the conference. Durham was a little better, with perhaps fifteen. I did manage to see some magnificent medieval cathedrals, those of Durham, York, and Lincoln. Although they are now pitifully in the hands of the Anglican heretics, they nevertheless continue to speak, by their grandeur and solemnity, the Catholicism which built them. From the point of view of sightseeing, my trip was very successful.
Why the poor showing in England? There are a number of reasons, I think. First, the Society of Saint Pius X has a very tight grip on the minds and lives of the traditional Catholics of England. It has thoroughly convinced them of the impossible formula that you must on the one hand recognize the Modernist “popes,” but at the same time resist them in practically all things, including those things in which the pope is the organ of the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility. The SSPX also has a grip on their lives inasmuch as it provides a full-service ecclesiastical life for them: Mass, priests, seminaries, schools, nuns, and many other activities. Families are so deeply involved with them that to step out of the SSPX is in many cases the equivalent of stepping out of the family. For this reason, they are afraid even to go and listen to what we are presenting, lest they be considered disloyal. This phenomenon is found not only in England, but nearly everywhere. In fact, it is only in the United States that the SSPX does not exercise such a heavy and exclusive influence.
The second reason for the low attendance is that most people are happy if they have a traditional Latin Mass. They really are not interested in anything beyond it. I will address this problem later.
The third reason is that it was a very bad day, particularly in London, inasmuch as it was the last Saturday before Christmas. Many were unable to come for reasons of Christmas preparations.
I am not daunted, however, by the setback. I remember saying Mass for very small groups back in 1975 and 1976 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware. Perseverance is the key, and I am not about to step back from England. The English do need, however, to do some work on their side, in order to make it possible for one of our priests to serve them eventually.
Why do we insist on converting people to the sedevacantist position? Some may be inclined to say: Why travel to England to convert people away from the Society of Saint Pius X to the sedevacantist position, when they already have the traditional Latin Mass from the SSPX? There are four reasons why we do this.
THE FIRST REASON: IT IS THE TRUTH. The Catholic Church is God’s agency for the proposal of supernatural truth to the world. Catholic clergy can never remain indifferent when error concerning the faith, or what flows from the faith, is spreading among the faithful.
The sedevacantist position is the only Catholic position in response to the Modernist takeover of Catholic institutions. It squarely declares that Vatican II and its reforms are a substantial change of the Catholic religion. It is a whole new religion which has replaced the Catholic religion in all buildings which were once Catholic. In this the Novus Ordo is no different from the heresy of Anglicanism which invaded and took away from us the magnificent structures built for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament. Just like protestantism, Modernism has stripped from the minds of people the Catholic faith, replacing it with a rationalistic and relativistic dogma-less Christianity.
Sedevacantism boldly declares that Modernism will not pass, no, not ever, for Roman Catholicism. The SSPX, on the other hand, regards Vatican II’s Modernism and the reforms as a legitimate form of Roman Catholicism, since they have repeatedly expressed their desire and willingness to live in ecclesiastical communion and cooperation with the Modernists. Their insistence on regarding the Modernists as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church is an implicit admission that “Novus Ordo Catholicism” is indeed substantially Catholic. They have consistently sought to have a niche of tradition in the Novus Ordo cathedral, and they have not abandoned this idea to this day.
It must never be forgotten that when any true pope dies, every Catholic must be a sedevacantist, i.e., must say that the Roman See is vacant, in order to remain Catholic. If he were to regard some false pope as the true pope when the Roman See is vacant, he would place himself outside of the true Church by committing a sin of schism.
The truth, therefore concerning the non-papacy of the Vatican II “popes” is of extreme importance to Catholics.
THE SECOND REASON: THE IMMORALITY INVOLVED IN RECOGNIZING THE VATICAN II HIERARCHY AS HAVING THE POWER TO TEACH, RULE, AND SANCTIFY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The sedevacantist position holds to this entirely Catholic principle: That those who promulgate to the Church false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines cannot constitute the Roman Catholic hierarchy, since the true Roman Catholic hierarchy is protected by Christ from doing such things.
The SSPX position, evident through its actions, is this: That the Roman Catholic hierarchy has promulgated to the Catholic Church false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines, but at the same time remains the legitimate Roman Catholic hierarchy.
The SSPX preaches this doctrine by its actions, because it has organized a worldwide apostolate in order to protect Catholics from the Novus Ordo religion, and to draw them away from it. They urge people to be disobedient to what they say is the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for the reason that this Roman Catholic hierarchy has promulgated false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines.
The SSPX position, however, is immoral on numerous points. In the first place, it implicitly preaches the heresy that the Catholic Church is capable of defection from her God-given nature and purpose, which is the salvation of souls, which is accomplished by the teaching of true doctrine. I emphasize the word implicitly, that is, they preach it through their actions. However, they do not profess this heresy by any means.
They preach this heresy, nonetheless, by implicitly telling their people that the Novus Ordo religion is a defection from Catholicism, but is at the same time promulgated by the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church. They preach that it is a defection from Catholicism inasmuch as they establish an apostolate everywhere on the planet in an attempt to draw people away from the Novus Ordo religion. They have even taken the radical step of consecrating bishops without a mandate from pope in order, precisely, to protect the faithful from the false doctrines, the false liturgy, and the wicked disciplines of the Novus Ordo.
Second, the SSPX position is immoral on grounds that it establishes a spirit of disobedience among its people. They falsely invoke the true principle that you ought not to obey a superior who tells you to do something wrong. The reason why it is falsely invoked in this case is that in the promulgation of Catholic doctrine, Catholic liturgy, and Catholic discipline to the universal Church, the Catholic hierarchy cannot err. The Church’s infallibility and indefectibility consist in this very immunity from error in these matters. To disobey the Catholic hierarchy in these matters is a mortal sin, for it is a disobedience to Christ who preserves the hierarchy from error in teaching doctrine to the whole Church, in making universal liturgical laws, and in prescribing universal disciplines.
Third, because this disobedience is systematic, long-term, and universal, inasmuch as the SSPX adherents obey virtually nothing that the “pope” tells them to do, it becomes a spirit of schism. The SSPX acts as though there is no pope. They set up altar against altar, that is, they defiantly establish an apostolate of the Mass and sacraments against the purported pope and bishops. “Altar against altar” is St. Augustine’s term for schism. The Novus Ordo hierarchy considers them to be a schismatic sect, and the shoe fits if we admit that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is the true Roman Catholic hierarchy. But to be schismatic is to be in mortal sin. No schismatic will go to heaven.
Fourth, the SSPX position engenders a spirit of hypocrisy, for they say one thing, and do its opposite. They say that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff, whom they identify with “there-is-no-Catholic-God” Francis. They hang his picture in their chapels, and they offer the Mass with him by placing his name in the Canon. They pray for him at Benediction. They scorn and condemn sedevacantists as not being subject to the Holy Father.
Yet they are not subject to him. They ignore him. They act as if he does not exist. They vilify him. They carry on their apostolate as if there is no pope. They say: “we are with the pope.” But this is false, since the pope is not with them! It is impossible to be with someone unless that person is also with you. In other words, their supposed subjection to the Novus Ordo pope is a big lie.
Hypocrisy and lying are sins, and could be mortal sins in a grave matter, and certainly subjection to the Roman Pontiff is grave matter.
THE THIRD REASON: THE EXTREME DANGER TO WHICH THE SSPX ADHERENTS ARE SUBJECTED. Every Catholic is naturally inclined to submission to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX preaches to its faithful that “there-is-no-Catholic-God” Francis is the true Roman Pontiff. The SSPX consequently invites all their faithful to incorporate themselves into the Novus Ordo structure by regularizing their relationship with the Modernist hierarchy.
This is no empty accusation. The Society of Saint Pius X was born in the Novus Ordo in 1970, and was suppressed by the Novus Ordo in 1974. Ever since, it has repeatedly sought to be reconciled to the Novus Ordo, coming very, very close only two years ago under Ratzinger. They came so close, in fact, that one of their bishops has broken away and is now leading a resistance movement against the reconciliationists.
By recognizing Francis as the Roman Catholic pope, one is implicitly saying that the religion he believes and practices is the Roman Catholic religion, that his liturgy is Roman Catholic, that his disciplines are Roman Catholic, that Vatican II is in conformity with the Roman Catholic Faith.
The very act of trying to reconcile with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, and become recognized as a legitimate congregation working within the Novus Ordo, is an implicit admission that Vatican II and its reforms are in conformity with Roman Catholicism.
These implicit admissions put the Catholic in the extreme danger of apostasy inasmuch as they plant all of the logic in his mind of the necessity to join the Novus Ordo. They reduce the position of Catholic resistance to Modernism to one of being merely a preference for some liturgical traditions, and/or being the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo reformation. I say apostasy, since the Novus Ordo is not merely a heresy but an apostasy, since, through ecuмenism, it denies all dogma by the very destruction of the notion and principle of dogma. We saw this spirit of apostasy in the immortal words of Francis: “There is no Catholic God.”
Sedevacantism, however, turns the faithful away from these apostates, and protects them. Sedevacantists have no inclination to be reconciled with persons whom they consider to be bogus clergy.
In addition, the SSPX faithful are subjected to the una cuм Mass, which is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with a hierarchy which has defected into heresy and apostasy. The una cuм Mass equates “Pope Francis” with Our Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as it associates the apostate with the action of Jesus Christ as the Eternal High Priest. For we must never forget that Christ is the principal offerer of every Mass, and that the ordained priest is merely His minister and tool in the sacred action. To place the apostate’s name in the Canon is to assert that the apostate Bergoglio is legitimately empowered by Christ Himself to offer the pleasing sacrifice to God His Father, and to represent Him [Christ] at the altar of God.
No one has to be a theologian in order to understand that such an assertion, in the very center of the most sacred action of the Mass, is most displeasing to God.
Sedevacantism, however, keeps the heretics and apostates out of the Holy Mass, and does not declare the blasphemy that these destroyers of our holy religion are in fact our legitimate representatives at the altar of God, and cooperate with Jesus Christ in the offering of the Catholic Mass.
THE FOURTH REASON: SEDEVCANTISM IS BASED ON SOLID CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES, WHEREAS THE SSPX POSITION IS BASED ON PRINCIPLES CONDEMNED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
It is the universal teaching of Catholic theologians that a public heretic could not be a true pope. This doctrine is upheld by Pope Innocent III and Pope Paul IV, as well as by Saint Robert Bellarmine, who is a Doctor of the Church.
On the other hand, the system of the SSPX is based on principles which have been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent, for example, condemns the “disdain of the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church,” and furthermore condemns those who say that “the ceremonies of the Church are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety.” But the SSPX falls under this condemnation by their refusal of the New Mass and reformed sacraments.
Furthermore Pope Pius IX condemned the very principle upon which the SSPX bases its operation, namely the principle of recognizing the pope but ignoring what he says. On Sept. 1, 1876, Pope Pius IX wrote these words to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean rite:
“What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of Saint Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over the declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the act that obedience is recognized as a duty?”
Such words fall incontestably upon the Society of Saint Pius X adherents, who are constantly waving the flag of submission to the pope, but who are at the same time giving the lie to these fine words, as Pope Pius IX said, by their actions.
Pope Pius IX also calls schismatic those who obstinately refuse to obey the Catholic hierarchy. On January 6, 1873, he wrote to the Armenians:
“For the Catholic Church has always considered schismatic all those who obstinately resist the authority of her legitimate prelates, and especially her Supreme Pastor, and any who refuse to execute their orders and even to recognize their authority. The members of the Armenian faction of Constantinople having followed this line of conduct, no one, under any pretext can believe them innocent of the sin of schism, even if they had not been denounced as schismatic by Apostolic authority.”
The same Roman Pontiff, in the same docuмent, condemns the notion of claiming that an excommunication was unjust and therefore invalid, and that it may be therefore ignored:
“But since the neo-schismatics cannot reap any advantage from it [the recognition of the Roman Pontiff] they have applied to themselves to follow in the footsteps of modern heretics; they have excused themselves by saying that the sentence of excommunication pronounced against them in Our name by Our venerable Brother the Archbishop of Tyana, Apostolic delegate to Constantinople, was unjust and therefore null and void.”
Pope Clement XI condemned in 1703 the idea of the Jansenists that one is free to ignore an excommunication which one considers to be unjust. [Denz. 1441]. Yet the Society of Saint Pius X holds that they are free to ignore their excommunication, on the grounds that it is unjust.
It is the constant teaching of the Church, furthermore, that to carry on an apostolate which is not in union with the local bishop and the pope, is schismatic. Pope Pius IX addressed these words to all who refuse to submit to the authority of the pope: “‘He that gathereth not with me, scattered! (Luke XI: 23). He [the Pope] will say to all of them that he who is not united to the Pope cannot hope to reap: he is sowing the wind and will never harvest fruit, unless it be the fruit of iniquity.” (Allocution to the German pilgrims, May 13, 1875)
We can go to heaven without the Mass, but we cannot go to heaven without the faith. Catholics today think that it is sufficient to find a valid and traditional Latin Mass, and once found, their troubles are over. They are not interested in any issue beyond what is a valid and traditional Latin Mass. They ‘‘just want to go to Mass.”
This is known as Latin Mass-ism, and it is rampant. A valid and traditional Latin Mass, however, is merely one aspect of our faith. It is necessary, for example, that we condemn heresy, avoid heretics, be submitted to the Roman Pontiff, believe all the truths of the Faith, and act in a way that is in accordance with the Faith. In fact, even if we were cut off from the Mass through no fault of our own, we could still gain heaven by the profession of the true Faith and the practice of good morals. It is furthermore true that the celebrant of the Mass must be a truly Catholic priest. He is not a truly Catholic priest if he declares himself to be in communion with public heretics and apostates, and what is more, if he offers his Mass in union with these heretics and apostates.
I have pointed out that (1) the SSPX position is not an accurate assessment of the nature of the Modernist takeover of the Vatican, but a system fraught with error and inconsistency; (2) the SSPX position is an occasion of many sins: it engenders a spirit of disobedience and a spirit of schism in the minds of the faithful, as well as hypocrisy and disingenuousness concerning their stance on the pope; (3) the SSPX is logically committed by their position to rejoin the Novus Ordo one day, and has repeatedly tried to do so in the past, thereby creating an extreme danger for its adherents; (4) the SSPX position rests on principles that are already condemned by the Church.
It is for these reasons that we dedicate our lives to bring the faithful to a proper Catholic understanding of the Church’s current problem, and to a true and integrally Catholic reaction to it. For there is no pleasing God without adherence to the truth.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rector
-
I enjoy listening to Bishop Sanborn's recorded sermons on You Tube and also Fr. Anthony Cekada's. In fact, I have Fr. Cekada's excellent book on the New Mass, "The Work of Human Hands."
I've admittedly flip-flopped regarding the sedevacantist position various times. I love it's air-tight simplicity and logical coherence.
At this point, I can only say that I believe it's a real possibility. Jorge Bergoglio is making an unbelievable mockery of the papacy and has the makings of the "Destroyer" that St. Francis of Assisi prophesied toward the end of his earthly life.
I honestly don't know enough about sedevacantism to criticize it, and I'm no longer just willing to dismiss it because Fr. Pfeiffer has a problem with it or because someone says its bad or unacceptable.
-
By the grace of God, I find myself more anti-sedevecantist (position) now than I was before Pope Francis.
I am also more anti-NewChurch than I have ever been.
They are both erroneous, and their error stems from the same and similar premises.
-
.
Pope Francis is driving a wedge into the faith of Catholics. Never before in the history of the Church has there been such a thing. The Faithful are getting suspicious of good priests who refuse to say anything critical of Francis' antics. It's as if we are all being pushed to the limit of what we can endure and yet keep from stepping out of the last stand.
Priests who had been holding the line are starting to step aside; they were saying we shouldn't draw attention to the things Francis says that offend pious ears. But just a few months later, they're starting to call him out on his scandals. So there is change in the works.
It is getting to be as if any time now, all will seem to be lost, that we are as if standing on the edge of a precipice but it's not so clear. I was once at the Grand Canyon in Colorado when there was a heavy fog, and there were flashing lights set up and warnings posted not to go near when the visibility is low.
When Our Lord was born, the cattle were lowing -- and visible.
(Christmas carol, "Away in a Manger")
But today, the Church's visibility is lowing.
-
By the grace of God, I find myself more anti-sedevecantist (position) now than I was before Pope Francis.
I am also more anti-NewChurch than I have ever been.
They are both erroneous, and their error stems from the same and similar premises.
"By the grace of God"? Are you a dogmatic sedeplenist now?
-
.
Pope Francis is driving a wedge into the faith of Catholics. Never before in the history of the Church has there been such a thing. The Faithful are getting suspicious of good priests who refuse to say anything critical of Francis' antics. It's as if we are all being pushed to the limit of what we can endure and yet keep from stepping out of the last stand.
Will not 'the faithful' be more or less conciliarised by now and accept his antics as personal expressions to contrast with those of his predecessor? I would find it difficult recognising a "good priest" in the mainstream. How could they tolerate a system that goes against their nature for so long? Has not the modern church squeezed out anything that looks like tradition by now or converted it into a useful 'cultural asset'? Passing by the local diocesan church has no impact on me whatsoever. It has become a meeting place for a breed of portly middle-class middle-aged folk whose only religious activity is to scurry along to their 'golf Masses' in their new cars on a Saturday eve. One religion makes way for another with an air of such comfortable accommodation. Does rebellion grow under such conditions?
I think we have to look upon the politics of the mainstream as bystanders; in life we struggle to manoeuvre around it whether spititually, socially or financially because we lack the material muscle and will-power to challenge it head-on. To criticise is to challenge 'the system' a little bit but "good priests" know how far to go; they operate 'the system' with a degree of forebearance that has grown over the years. So much so that there is no mistaking a priest that is cut from a different cloth!
-
My dear Catholic people,
During the month of December I traveled to England primarily to conduct the interview of a prospective seminarian from that country. I also managed, however, to give two conferences, one in London, and the other in the North, in the city of Durham.
My trip was not very successful. The prospective seminarian stood me up, even though he lived only twelve minutes away from where I was staying. In London, despite a good deal of internet publicity, I attracted only four people to the conference. Durham was a little better, with perhaps fifteen. I did manage to see some magnificent medieval cathedrals, those of Durham, York, and Lincoln. Although they are now pitifully in the hands of the Anglican heretics, they nevertheless continue to speak, by their grandeur and solemnity, the Catholicism which built them. From the point of view of sightseeing, my trip was very successful.
Why the poor showing in England? There are a number of reasons, I think. First, the Society of Saint Pius X has a very tight grip on the minds and lives of the traditional Catholics of England. It has thoroughly convinced them of the impossible formula that you must on the one hand recognize the Modernist “popes,” but at the same time resist them in practically all things, including those things in which the pope is the organ of the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility. The SSPX also has a grip on their lives inasmuch as it provides a full-service ecclesiastical life for them: Mass, priests, seminaries, schools, nuns, and many other activities. Families are so deeply involved with them that to step out of the SSPX is in many cases the equivalent of stepping out of the family. For this reason, they are afraid even to go and listen to what we are presenting, lest they be considered disloyal. This phenomenon is found not only in England, but nearly everywhere. In fact, it is only in the United States that the SSPX does not exercise such a heavy and exclusive influence.
The second reason for the low attendance is that most people are happy if they have a traditional Latin Mass. They really are not interested in anything beyond it. I will address this problem later.
The third reason is that it was a very bad day, particularly in London, inasmuch as it was the last Saturday before Christmas. Many were unable to come for reasons of Christmas preparations.
I am not daunted, however, by the setback. I remember saying Mass for very small groups back in 1975 and 1976 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware. Perseverance is the key, and I am not about to step back from England. The English do need, however, to do some work on their side, in order to make it possible for one of our priests to serve them eventually.
Why do we insist on converting people to the sedevacantist position? Some may be inclined to say: Why travel to England to convert people away from the Society of Saint Pius X to the sedevacantist position, when they already have the traditional Latin Mass from the SSPX? There are four reasons why we do this.
THE FIRST REASON: IT IS THE TRUTH. The Catholic Church is God’s agency for the proposal of supernatural truth to the world. Catholic clergy can never remain indifferent when error concerning the faith, or what flows from the faith, is spreading among the faithful.
The sedevacantist position is the only Catholic position in response to the Modernist takeover of Catholic institutions. It squarely declares that Vatican II and its reforms are a substantial change of the Catholic religion. It is a whole new religion which has replaced the Catholic religion in all buildings which were once Catholic. In this the Novus Ordo is no different from the heresy of Anglicanism which invaded and took away from us the magnificent structures built for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament. Just like protestantism, Modernism has stripped from the minds of people the Catholic faith, replacing it with a rationalistic and relativistic dogma-less Christianity.
Sedevacantism boldly declares that Modernism will not pass, no, not ever, for Roman Catholicism. The SSPX, on the other hand, regards Vatican II’s Modernism and the reforms as a legitimate form of Roman Catholicism, since they have repeatedly expressed their desire and willingness to live in ecclesiastical communion and cooperation with the Modernists. Their insistence on regarding the Modernists as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church is an implicit admission that “Novus Ordo Catholicism” is indeed substantially Catholic. They have consistently sought to have a niche of tradition in the Novus Ordo cathedral, and they have not abandoned this idea to this day.
It must never be forgotten that when any true pope dies, every Catholic must be a sedevacantist, i.e., must say that the Roman See is vacant, in order to remain Catholic. If he were to regard some false pope as the true pope when the Roman See is vacant, he would place himself outside of the true Church by committing a sin of schism.
The truth, therefore concerning the non-papacy of the Vatican II “popes” is of extreme importance to Catholics.
THE SECOND REASON: THE IMMORALITY INVOLVED IN RECOGNIZING THE VATICAN II HIERARCHY AS HAVING THE POWER TO TEACH, RULE, AND SANCTIFY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The sedevacantist position holds to this entirely Catholic principle: That those who promulgate to the Church false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines cannot constitute the Roman Catholic hierarchy, since the true Roman Catholic hierarchy is protected by Christ from doing such things.
The SSPX position, evident through its actions, is this: That the Roman Catholic hierarchy has promulgated to the Catholic Church false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines, but at the same time remains the legitimate Roman Catholic hierarchy.
The SSPX preaches this doctrine by its actions, because it has organized a worldwide apostolate in order to protect Catholics from the Novus Ordo religion, and to draw them away from it. They urge people to be disobedient to what they say is the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for the reason that this Roman Catholic hierarchy has promulgated false doctrines, non-Catholic liturgies, and evil disciplines.
The SSPX position, however, is immoral on numerous points. In the first place, it implicitly preaches the heresy that the Catholic Church is capable of defection from her God-given nature and purpose, which is the salvation of souls, which is accomplished by the teaching of true doctrine. I emphasize the word implicitly, that is, they preach it through their actions. However, they do not profess this heresy by any means.
They preach this heresy, nonetheless, by implicitly telling their people that the Novus Ordo religion is a defection from Catholicism, but is at the same time promulgated by the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church. They preach that it is a defection from Catholicism inasmuch as they establish an apostolate everywhere on the planet in an attempt to draw people away from the Novus Ordo religion. They have even taken the radical step of consecrating bishops without a mandate from pope in order, precisely, to protect the faithful from the false doctrines, the false liturgy, and the wicked disciplines of the Novus Ordo.
Second, the SSPX position is immoral on grounds that it establishes a spirit of disobedience among its people. They falsely invoke the true principle that you ought not to obey a superior who tells you to do something wrong. The reason why it is falsely invoked in this case is that in the promulgation of Catholic doctrine, Catholic liturgy, and Catholic discipline to the universal Church, the Catholic hierarchy cannot err. The Church’s infallibility and indefectibility consist in this very immunity from error in these matters. To disobey the Catholic hierarchy in these matters is a mortal sin, for it is a disobedience to Christ who preserves the hierarchy from error in teaching doctrine to the whole Church, in making universal liturgical laws, and in prescribing universal disciplines.
Third, because this disobedience is systematic, long-term, and universal, inasmuch as the SSPX adherents obey virtually nothing that the “pope” tells them to do, it becomes a spirit of schism. The SSPX acts as though there is no pope. They set up altar against altar, that is, they defiantly establish an apostolate of the Mass and sacraments against the purported pope and bishops. “Altar against altar” is St. Augustine’s term for schism. The Novus Ordo hierarchy considers them to be a schismatic sect, and the shoe fits if we admit that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is the true Roman Catholic hierarchy. But to be schismatic is to be in mortal sin. No schismatic will go to heaven.
Fourth, the SSPX position engenders a spirit of hypocrisy, for they say one thing, and do its opposite. They say that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff, whom they identify with “there-is-no-Catholic-God” Francis. They hang his picture in their chapels, and they offer the Mass with him by placing his name in the Canon. They pray for him at Benediction. They scorn and condemn sedevacantists as not being subject to the Holy Father.
Yet they are not subject to him. They ignore him. They act as if he does not exist. They vilify him. They carry on their apostolate as if there is no pope. They say: “we are with the pope.” But this is false, since the pope is not with them! It is impossible to be with someone unless that person is also with you. In other words, their supposed subjection to the Novus Ordo pope is a big lie.
Hypocrisy and lying are sins, and could be mortal sins in a grave matter, and certainly subjection to the Roman Pontiff is grave matter.
THE THIRD REASON: THE EXTREME DANGER TO WHICH THE SSPX ADHERENTS ARE SUBJECTED. Every Catholic is naturally inclined to submission to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX preaches to its faithful that “there-is-no-Catholic-God” Francis is the true Roman Pontiff. The SSPX consequently invites all their faithful to incorporate themselves into the Novus Ordo structure by regularizing their relationship with the Modernist hierarchy.
This is no empty accusation. The Society of Saint Pius X was born in the Novus Ordo in 1970, and was suppressed by the Novus Ordo in 1974. Ever since, it has repeatedly sought to be reconciled to the Novus Ordo, coming very, very close only two years ago under Ratzinger. They came so close, in fact, that one of their bishops has broken away and is now leading a resistance movement against the reconciliationists.
By recognizing Francis as the Roman Catholic pope, one is implicitly saying that the religion he believes and practices is the Roman Catholic religion, that his liturgy is Roman Catholic, that his disciplines are Roman Catholic, that Vatican II is in conformity with the Roman Catholic Faith.
The very act of trying to reconcile with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, and become recognized as a legitimate congregation working within the Novus Ordo, is an implicit admission that Vatican II and its reforms are in conformity with Roman Catholicism.
These implicit admissions put the Catholic in the extreme danger of apostasy inasmuch as they plant all of the logic in his mind of the necessity to join the Novus Ordo. They reduce the position of Catholic resistance to Modernism to one of being merely a preference for some liturgical traditions, and/or being the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo reformation. I say apostasy, since the Novus Ordo is not merely a heresy but an apostasy, since, through ecuмenism, it denies all dogma by the very destruction of the notion and principle of dogma. We saw this spirit of apostasy in the immortal words of Francis: “There is no Catholic God.”
Sedevacantism, however, turns the faithful away from these apostates, and protects them. Sedevacantists have no inclination to be reconciled with persons whom they consider to be bogus clergy.
In addition, the SSPX faithful are subjected to the una cuм Mass, which is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with a hierarchy which has defected into heresy and apostasy. The una cuм Mass equates “Pope Francis” with Our Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as it associates the apostate with the action of Jesus Christ as the Eternal High Priest. For we must never forget that Christ is the principal offerer of every Mass, and that the ordained priest is merely His minister and tool in the sacred action. To place the apostate’s name in the Canon is to assert that the apostate Bergoglio is legitimately empowered by Christ Himself to offer the pleasing sacrifice to God His Father, and to represent Him [Christ] at the altar of God.
No one has to be a theologian in order to understand that such an assertion, in the very center of the most sacred action of the Mass, is most displeasing to God.
Sedevacantism, however, keeps the heretics and apostates out of the Holy Mass, and does not declare the blasphemy that these destroyers of our holy religion are in fact our legitimate representatives at the altar of God, and cooperate with Jesus Christ in the offering of the Catholic Mass.
THE FOURTH REASON: SEDEVCANTISM IS BASED ON SOLID CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES, WHEREAS THE SSPX POSITION IS BASED ON PRINCIPLES CONDEMNED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
It is the universal teaching of Catholic theologians that a public heretic could not be a true pope. This doctrine is upheld by Pope Innocent III and Pope Paul IV, as well as by Saint Robert Bellarmine, who is a Doctor of the Church.
On the other hand, the system of the SSPX is based on principles which have been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent, for example, condemns the “disdain of the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church,” and furthermore condemns those who say that “the ceremonies of the Church are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety.” But the SSPX falls under this condemnation by their refusal of the New Mass and reformed sacraments.
Furthermore Pope Pius IX condemned the very principle upon which the SSPX bases its operation, namely the principle of recognizing the pope but ignoring what he says. On Sept. 1, 1876, Pope Pius IX wrote these words to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean rite:
“What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of Saint Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over the declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the act that obedience is recognized as a duty?”
Such words fall incontestably upon the Society of Saint Pius X adherents, who are constantly waving the flag of submission to the pope, but who are at the same time giving the lie to these fine words, as Pope Pius IX said, by their actions.
Pope Pius IX also calls schismatic those who obstinately refuse to obey the Catholic hierarchy. On January 6, 1873, he wrote to the Armenians:
“For the Catholic Church has always considered schismatic all those who obstinately resist the authority of her legitimate prelates, and especially her Supreme Pastor, and any who refuse to execute their orders and even to recognize their authority. The members of the Armenian faction of Constantinople having followed this line of conduct, no one, under any pretext can believe them innocent of the sin of schism, even if they had not been denounced as schismatic by Apostolic authority.”
The same Roman Pontiff, in the same docuмent, condemns the notion of claiming that an excommunication was unjust and therefore invalid, and that it may be therefore ignored:
“But since the neo-schismatics cannot reap any advantage from it [the recognition of the Roman Pontiff] they have applied to themselves to follow in the footsteps of modern heretics; they have excused themselves by saying that the sentence of excommunication pronounced against them in Our name by Our venerable Brother the Archbishop of Tyana, Apostolic delegate to Constantinople, was unjust and therefore null and void.”
Pope Clement XI condemned in 1703 the idea of the Jansenists that one is free to ignore an excommunication which one considers to be unjust. [Denz. 1441]. Yet the Society of Saint Pius X holds that they are free to ignore their excommunication, on the grounds that it is unjust.
It is the constant teaching of the Church, furthermore, that to carry on an apostolate which is not in union with the local bishop and the pope, is schismatic. Pope Pius IX addressed these words to all who refuse to submit to the authority of the pope: “‘He that gathereth not with me, scattered! (Luke XI: 23). He [the Pope] will say to all of them that he who is not united to the Pope cannot hope to reap: he is sowing the wind and will never harvest fruit, unless it be the fruit of iniquity.” (Allocution to the German pilgrims, May 13, 1875)
We can go to heaven without the Mass, but we cannot go to heaven without the faith. Catholics today think that it is sufficient to find a valid and traditional Latin Mass, and once found, their troubles are over. They are not interested in any issue beyond what is a valid and traditional Latin Mass. They ‘‘just want to go to Mass.”
This is known as Latin Mass-ism, and it is rampant. A valid and traditional Latin Mass, however, is merely one aspect of our faith. It is necessary, for example, that we condemn heresy, avoid heretics, be submitted to the Roman Pontiff, believe all the truths of the Faith, and act in a way that is in accordance with the Faith. In fact, even if we were cut off from the Mass through no fault of our own, we could still gain heaven by the profession of the true Faith and the practice of good morals. It is furthermore true that the celebrant of the Mass must be a truly Catholic priest. He is not a truly Catholic priest if he declares himself to be in communion with public heretics and apostates, and what is more, if he offers his Mass in union with these heretics and apostates.
I have pointed out that (1) the SSPX position is not an accurate assessment of the nature of the Modernist takeover of the Vatican, but a system fraught with error and inconsistency; (2) the SSPX position is an occasion of many sins: it engenders a spirit of disobedience and a spirit of schism in the minds of the faithful, as well as hypocrisy and disingenuousness concerning their stance on the pope; (3) the SSPX is logically committed by their position to rejoin the Novus Ordo one day, and has repeatedly tried to do so in the past, thereby creating an extreme danger for its adherents; (4) the SSPX position rests on principles that are already condemned by the Church.
It is for these reasons that we dedicate our lives to bring the faithful to a proper Catholic understanding of the Church’s current problem, and to a true and integrally Catholic reaction to it. For there is no pleasing God without adherence to the truth.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rector
This is from Bishop Sanborn? He is getting closer to the radicals of pride like their "Pope Micheal"; of course Bishop Sanborn is Sedevacantist, yet, is again hypocritical and disobedient to his own Sedevacantist Pope -"Pope Michael".
Such is the case for a Sedevacantist, a split mind is always splintered in doing their own thing.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
-
Sedevacantist anxiety indeed! The bogeyman lives!
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
No post-Vatican II school of traditionalism is free of apparent paradox. Trad standard procedure is to harp on the paradoxes of competing schools while ignoring those of one's own. Most trads will not go so far as to excommunicate competing schools, yet at the same time exist in a state of schism from same. Charity requires a willingness to cooperate with all non-material heretics remaining in the Church.
Consistency requires either excommunication or cooperation among trads. Anything else manifests an heretical belief in partial communion.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You say that as if conclavists are the majority of sedevacantists, when in fact conclavism is a ridiculous minority of trads. Of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of sedevacantists, MAYBE 500 have attempted a conclave. It's simply ridiculous to conflate conclavism with sedevacantism.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
According to the interpretation of those who adhere to it.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You say that as if conclavists are the majority of sedevacantists, when in fact conclavism is a ridiculous minority of trads. Of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of sedevacantists, MAYBE 500 have attempted a conclave. It's simply ridiculous to conflate conclavism with sedevacantism
All Sedevacantists are "conclavists". Hence the mentality to split off as a side group of "Samaritans" within the Church.
Mind you, as Sedevacantism is like Protestantism in that every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views, that the Doctors and Theologians of the Church did not even agree on this question; yet, the private interpretation of individual Sedevacantists can? Unless in your version, you are a "dogmatic" Sedevacantist? That would be worse still.
Under the appearance of good also comes disorder.
-
Here is the dilemma for me, when JPII pronounces;
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
and
He says this "Muslims worship the One True God. "
Which is in Lumen Gentium 16
(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
In my first example JPII is speaking as "Pope" by tradition,period.
In the 2nd example he is repeating what is a tenet of Vatican II a docuмent that is not of the tradition of the Catholic Church. If it is not of tradition disregard it.
So I disregard Vatican II, that is not of tradition and I disregard the Pope when he is in error in by repeating teachings of Vatican II.
I follow the Pope when he speaks as "Pope"; "I declare that the Church..."
I do not follow until a Pope is in formal heresy; as a example only; speaking " I declare that the Church does not need the sacrament of Baptism to attain eternal salvation"
or he is not elected by tradition.
The big question is how will god judge me in this matter,because their is no ambiguity with God.
I could say clarity will come,but that does not help for those Catholics that live and die before it comes.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
I notice your "posture" maintains a doctrinal vacuмn.
Either you recognize the Pope as a Pope and resist the errors (the Scriptural form of Recognize and Resist based on God's Authority), or you do not (you are a Sedevacantist that you say you abhor); which of the two are you?
There is no middle position; unless you are a professing "protestant-catholic" and anything goes and changes at whim for you. In other words, you have no "Rock" to stand on.
If you are a Baptized Catholic, you do have "eggs" in the basket.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
-
Here is the dilemma for me, when JPII pronounces;
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
and
He says this "Muslims worship the One True God. "
Which is in Lumen Gentium 16
(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
In my first example JPII is speaking as "Pope" by tradition,period.
In the 2nd example he is repeating what is a tenet of Vatican II a docuмent that is not of the tradition of the Catholic Church. If it is not of tradition disregard it.
So I disregard Vatican II, that is not of tradition and I disregard the Pope when he is in error in by repeating teachings of Vatican II.
I follow the Pope when he speaks as "Pope"; "I declare that the Church..."
I do not follow until a Pope is in formal heresy; as a example only; speaking " I declare that the Church does not need the sacrament of Baptism to attain eternal salvation"
or he is not elected by tradition.
The big question is how will god judge me in this matter,because their is no ambiguity with God.
I could say clarity will come,but that does not help for those Catholics that live and die before it comes.
The Catholic "anchor" is to follow the Perennial teaching of the Church; and avoid the novelties of new doctrine (St. Paul).
However, one cannot despise the Authority of God which He had appointed to be on the "Chair of Peter".
The state of emergency, through the doctrine of necessity, is to keep the Faith in God, in His Authority, and resist the novelties from the sin of men until God manifests His will otherwise. No different from those taking the same course in the Old Testament against the sinfulness of the Rulers of the time.
The Son of God already made the example for us...we need to follow Him in Faith and confidence without whim from our weaknesses, or from the weaknesses of others.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
[/quote]
You need to grasp this, when you have no "head", pope, or leader settling disputes, you may/can have private interpretation. This is why a "head" is necessary. However, like the chopped off ear of Malchus that our Lord healed, our headless(worst case scenario) "head" can be and needs to be healed. Vacantists, privationists, and even plenists can be and are Catholic.
It is our practice that divides or unites us(and I am not talking footwear).
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You need to grasp this, when you have no "head", pope, or leader settling disputes, you may/can have private interpretation. This is why a "head" is necessary. However, like the chopped off ear of Malchus that our Lord healed, our headless(worst case scenario) "head" can be and needs to be healed. Vacantists, privationists, and even plenists can be and are Catholic.
It is our practice that divides or unites us(and I am not talking footwear).
-
Sorry for my previous post, I didn't quote correctly.
-
By the grace of God, I find myself more anti-sedevacantist (position) now than I was before Pope Francis.
I am also more anti-NewChurch than I have ever been.
They are both erroneous, and their error stems from the same and similar premises.
This plainly Catholic view has gotten six down thumbs already. What this sad fact demonstrates conclusively is that whatever may be true of Chilean sea bass and great auks, this planet has no shortage of ignorant twenty-something know-it-alls. Or is it that they simply all congregate at CI because of Matthew's tolerance for an unusually wide range of comment, arrogant witlessness being no bar?
Now, if a great auk were to turn up here as a commenter, Matthew and his family would be free of financial problems for several generations. I wish him well on that score.
-
This is a good summation by Bishop Williamson.
I thought it was too!
Some parts seemed a little short but Bishop Williamson was writing a short article and not some major dissertation.
-
Bear in mind that it is usually the commentators or writers that are ascribing the appellation of "Sede Vacantist" to their fellow Catholics. Since most have no idea what they mean by the term, painting with a broad brush the label "Sede Vacantist" is incorrect, and wrong.
If Bishop Sanborn states he is a Sede-Vacantist; that's fine. Just be sure that you have the exact same meaning in your mind when you repeat, or comment on his statements.
There are some 40 or 50 dioceses throughout the world today which have no Bishop. In all of those Dioceses, the SEE is Vacant. However, I would doubt very highly that most of the people considered themselves Sede Vacantist, in the way most of the CathInfo and ABL commentators are using the word.
Likewise. when Benedict Ratzinger decided that the heat in the kitchen was too hot, and he threw in the towel, the "See" of Peter was supposedly Vacant. Yet-- did most members of the conciliar church declare themselves "Sede-Vacantist"? We think not.
As the first wisps of white smoke rose from the Sistine Chapel at the reported election of Cardinal Siri to the Papal throne, many. many observers declared "we have a Pope!" But when the Illuminati manipulators of the conclave then managed to get some black smoke to rise, the world moaned "Oh-- we have no pope!" Finally, when the heretic Roncalli was appointed by the assembled Cardinals and Masons, many of the blind sheep rejoiced: "We have a Pope." But others, realizing that this was the man banished from Rome on "suspicion of heresy";this was the man who, in strict violation of Canon 1325, assisted heresy and heretical activites in France throughout the ( leftist) Priest's Workers Movement, which was finally and officially condemned by the ( Catholic) Church in 1954; This is the man, who stated to assembled socialists and communists in Venice when he was charged with that Diocese:" I am happy to be among you busy people...they way to be Christian is to do good...some here do not call themselves Christian...but I (acknowledge)them as Christian because of their good deeds
...I (therefore) give my Paternal Blessing to all without distinction!"
Yes, those were (some) of the words and deeds of the man the illuminists claimed to have made pope! So, many Roman Catholics, knowing very well that a heretic loses the faith, AND loses his office, KNEW that there still was no replacement for Pius XII--at least there was none publicly admitted.
Therefore, to "stick" a label on someone as a "Sede-Vacantist", knowing full well that just about THE ENTIRE WORLD knows there is someone in Rome, Italy that is called "Pope", and that all your readers will therefore
assume that the person you have so labeledas Sede-Vacantist is significantly out of touch with reality. This is not just.
Obviously, those who follow "pope" Michael, or "pope" whoever, are not sedes-- they just haven't fallen for the lies of the mainstream church and media in accepting Bergoglio as pope (they have fallen for other things-- but that is a different matter).
But there are many, many Catholics who know that an
anti-Catholic cannot be pope of the Holy, Roman,Catholic Church;
they know that an anti-Christian cannot be pope; they know that a pro-communist cannot be pope; they know that an atheist and humanist cannot be pope; and they know that a heretic cannot be pope. It is manifestly unjust to label these people with a name which fails to recognize the true nature of their position-- hoping that readers will be sufficiently shocked by the appellation that they will never try to understand the position held, and will therefore remain bamboozled by the SSPX leaders.
www..com
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
J.Paul.
Why do you continue to include Archbishop Lefebvre's position, and his followers, of the Scriptural form of Recognize and Resist with the Indult people?
Archbishop Lefebvre deplores the Indult position. Further, the Indult position may recognize the residing Pope, they certainly do NOT resist the errors; only the novelties of the errors. That is a BIG difference.
I hope this understanding helps you to see the issue better.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You need to grasp this, when you have no "head", pope, or leader settling disputes, you may/can have private interpretation. This is why a "head" is necessary. However, like the chopped off ear of Malchus that our Lord healed, our headless(worst case scenario) "head" can be and needs to be healed. Vacantists, privationists, and even plenists can be and are Catholic.
It is our practice that divides or unites us(and I am not talking footwear).[/quote]
I do not quite understand your reference.
Are you judging that there is no Pope? If so, then on what authority does one have to do so?
If you are simply stating the obvious fact that the "Head" is not providing the leadership he is vested in, then that does not excuse anyone to have a "private interpretation" of anything; in is only a measure of the crisis and our Baptism to continue to follow the norms of Catholicism and Her Traditions (St. Paul).
Additionally, nowhere have I denied that others in those groups are not Catholic; though their "personal interpretations" can lead them to be outside of the Church.
This devastating crisis, and all crises in the Catholic Church, needs to be look at through the "glasses" of our Catechism; not from "private interpretations".
Would you not agree?
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
If R&R is necessary, which it is, it is objectively so. If it is "inconsistent" to some people's understanding, then it is on those who do not understand that it is based on the scriptural teaching of obeying God's Authority -because it is God's Authority- not based on man's authority; which in itself is vain. Hence the "inconsistencies" out there.
-
Calling David Bawden "+Sanborn's pope" makes about as much sense as calling Lucian Pulvermacher "Machabees' pope."
By Sedavacantist standards, David Bawden is more sincere, though radical like the rest of Sedevacantism, by following its standards to its conclusions; Sedevacantism has a "pope".
The question remains: will Sedevacantists obey him, or continue in a "split" mentality?
Machabees, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism is that there isn't currently a pope, not that those with no authority can elect a pope!
That's not logical at all. It's like saying the logical conclusion of not having a priest in your local area is that a layman start offering mass.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You say that as if conclavists are the majority of sedevacantists, when in fact conclavism is a ridiculous minority of trads. Of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of sedevacantists, MAYBE 500 have attempted a conclave. It's simply ridiculous to conflate conclavism with sedevacantism.
But, but ,but Mith it's soooo much more fun (and convenient) to make believe we're all conclavists!!
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
If R&R is necessary, which it is, it is objectively so. If it is "inconsistent" to some people's understanding, then it is on those who do not understand that it is based on the scriptural teaching of obeying God's Authority -because it is God's Authority- not based on man's authority; which in itself is vain. Hence the "inconsistencies" out there.
It is not consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure. Even a child could see this. You may argue that said inconsistency is justified, but cannot deny its existence.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
If R&R is necessary, which it is, it is objectively so. If it is "inconsistent" to some people's understanding, then it is on those who do not understand that it is based on the scriptural teaching of obeying God's Authority -because it is God's Authority- not based on man's authority; which in itself is vain. Hence the "inconsistencies" out there.
It is not consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure. Even a child could see this. You may argue that said inconsistency is justified, but cannot deny its existence.
It is actually very "consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure". St. Paul has done so, as with other numerous examples in Scripture that obliges us to. Also in example for us , even the Son of God had done so repeatedly...
Such is our guide to recognize God's true Authority; while resisting any of man's errors of that same Authority.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
If R&R is necessary, which it is, it is objectively so. If it is "inconsistent" to some people's understanding, then it is on those who do not understand that it is based on the scriptural teaching of obeying God's Authority -because it is God's Authority- not based on man's authority; which in itself is vain. Hence the "inconsistencies" out there.
It is not consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure. Even a child could see this. You may argue that said inconsistency is justified, but cannot deny its existence.
It is actually very "consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure". St. Paul has done so, as with other numerous examples in Scripture that obliges us to. Also in example for us , even the Son of God had done so repeatedly...
Such is our guide to recognize God's true Authority; while resisting any of man's errors of that same Authority.
Only if the authority figure is legitimate.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
I notice your "posture" maintains a doctrinal vacuмn.
Either you recognize the Pope as a Pope and resist the errors (the Scriptural form of Recognize and Resist based on God's Authority), or you do not (you are a Sedevacantist that you say you abhor); which of the two are you?
There is no middle position; unless you are a professing "protestant-catholic" and anything goes and changes at whim for you. In other words, you have no "Rock" to stand on.
If you are a Baptized Catholic, you do have "eggs" in the basket.
You are talking ragtime, and you seem not to be able to exist with others who do not agree with the SSPX world view without labeling and characterizing them into the comfortable compartments of the SSPX's list of dissenting miscreants.
Did I say that I abhor sedevacantists? Are you projecting your own animus toward them upon me?
I am not at all preoccupied with whether the pope is the pope. I am however quite concerned as to whether he and his hierarchy are heretics or apostates while they are in a position to lead millions of souls to Hell, and that Rome is occupied by a sect practicing a false religion.
-
Machabees,
"Pope" Michael is a stand alone guy claiming to be pope.
The sedes, like the SSPV and CMRI and all the independent sedes do not see "Pope" Michael as a pope. They view him as a mentally unstable man. If they didn't view him as mentally unstable, then they would be forced to view him as an anti-pope.
-
"Pope" Michael is a stand alone guy claiming to be pope.
I sometimes watch "Pope Michael's" (David Bawden's) videos on youtube. They don't get a lot of views. The funny thing about "Pope Michael" is that he is a lot less heretical than the Vatican II "Popes".
In fact, I never heard him say anything that I thought was heretical, like the Vatican II "popes" often do, like, for example, saying that the old covenant was never revoked and thus Jews can get to heaven without believing in Christ.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
There is no inconsistency in "recognize and resist". It is called the doctrine of necessity.
How true: "It is called the doctrine of necessity."
This is delusional. Even if R&R is necessary (and I agree it is), that in no way alters the fact that it is objectively inconsistent.
If R&R is necessary, which it is, it is objectively so. If it is "inconsistent" to some people's understanding, then it is on those who do not understand that it is based on the scriptural teaching of obeying God's Authority -because it is God's Authority- not based on man's authority; which in itself is vain. Hence the "inconsistencies" out there.
It is not consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure. Even a child could see this. You may argue that said inconsistency is justified, but cannot deny its existence.
It is actually very "consistent to simultaneously recognize and resist an authority figure". St. Paul has done so, as with other numerous examples in Scripture that obliges us to. Also in example for us , even the Son of God had done so repeatedly...
Such is our guide to recognize God's true Authority; while resisting any of man's errors of that same Authority.
You ignore the plain meaning of the word to assert that R&R cannot be inconsistent because St. Paul did it. I did not say R&R was wrong. Disobedience to a sitting pope is clearly inconsistent with the principle of obedience to the pope... and that's okay!
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
I have no eggs in the sedevacantists basket and so I am not interested in their particular inconsistencies, However, it is not for the staunch recognize and resister to throw stones at anyone about having a "split mentality" when your position ,so similar to the indult posture, is based upon splitting your mind to maintain that position.
Without going further, that is the reality.
I notice your "posture" maintains a doctrinal vacuum.
Either you recognize the Pope as a Pope and resist the errors (the Scriptural form of Recognize and Resist based on God's Authority), or you do not (you are a Sedevacantist that you say you abhor); which of the two are you?
There is no middle position; unless you are a professing "protestant-catholic" and anything goes and changes at whim for you. In other words, you have no "Rock" to stand on.
If you are a Baptized Catholic, you do have "eggs" in the basket.
You are talking ragtime, and you seem not to be able to exist with others who do not agree with the SSPX world view without labeling and characterizing them into the comfortable compartments of the SSPX's list of dissenting miscreants.
Did I say that I abhor sedevacantists? Are you projecting your own animus toward them upon me?
I am not at all preoccupied with whether the pope is the pope. I am however quite concerned as to whether he and his hierarchy are heretics or apostates while they are in a position to lead millions of souls to Hell, and that Rome is occupied by a sect practicing a false religion.
Ragtime J.Paul? Your apathy in avoiding questions raised to you within this crisis on these serious questions of whether a Baptized Catholic recognizes the residing Pope or not, is paramount to the doctrinal vacuum you wish to maintain.
You ascribe to "promoting a crusade" to fight against modernism in Rome without a foundation. The crisis is based in the "Head of Peter". If you do not know what is at stake, how do you fight in your crusade? What do you fight with? You have an aimless position against the wrong target that you do not see.
So why be on an Archbishop Lefebvre positioned forum, Cathinfo: heading "SSPX Resistance", if you do not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX position and banter us with your own unstable position?
Many have invited you for a progression of ideas; not for a position without a foundation, and without wanting a conviction of that foundation. You place yourself as the opposite extreme of Sedevacantist; far left.
Please reconsider that you are driving without a steering wheel.
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You need to grasp this, when you have no "head", pope, or leader settling disputes, you may/can have private interpretation. This is why a "head" is necessary. However, like the chopped off ear of Malchus that our Lord healed, our headless(worst case scenario) "head" can be and needs to be healed. Vacantists, privationists, and even plenists can be and are Catholic.
It is our practice that divides or unites us(and I am not talking footwear).
I do not quite understand your reference.
Are you judging that there is no Pope? If so, then on what authority does one have to do so?
If you are simply stating the obvious fact that the "Head" is not providing the leadership he is vested in, then that does not excuse anyone to have a "private interpretation" of anything; in is only a measure of the crisis and our Baptism to continue to follow the norms of Catholicism and Her Traditions (St. Paul).
Additionally, nowhere have I denied that others in those groups are not Catholic; though their "personal interpretations" can lead them to be outside of the Church.
This devastating crisis, and all crises in the Catholic Church, needs to be look at through the "glasses" of our Catechism; not from "private interpretations".
Would you not agree?
[/quote]
Own up, you are basically calling sedes protestants. And, there is no way that Francis is to be considered "officially"(and don't tell me that sedes dogmatize it) no different that Pius X. The heresy has to carry consequences with it(bad fruit comes from what we "call" a "bad tree"). However, plenists do not see it that way. And, to this day, they are involved in a process of accepting saints coming from Rome they find Catholic enough, while rejecting the ones they don't(private interpretation?).
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You need to grasp this, when you have no "head", pope, or leader settling disputes, you may/can have private interpretation. This is why a "head" is necessary. However, like the chopped off ear of Malchus that our Lord healed, our headless(worst case scenario) "head" can be and needs to be healed. Vacantists, privationists, and even plenists can be and are Catholic.
It is our practice that divides or unites us(and I am not talking footwear).
I do not quite understand your reference.
Are you judging that there is no Pope? If so, then on what authority does one have to do so?
If you are simply stating the obvious fact that the "Head" is not providing the leadership he is vested in, then that does not excuse anyone to have a "private interpretation" of anything; in is only a measure of the crisis and our Baptism to continue to follow the norms of Catholicism and Her Traditions (St. Paul).
Additionally, nowhere have I denied that others in those groups are not Catholic; though their "personal interpretations" can lead them to be outside of the Church.
This devastating crisis, and all crises in the Catholic Church, needs to be look at through the "glasses" of our Catechism; not from "private interpretations".
Would you not agree?
Own up, you are basically calling sedes protestants. And, there is no way that Francis is to be considered "officially"(and don't tell me that sedes dogmatize it) no different that Pius X. The heresy has to carry consequences with it(bad fruit comes from what we "call" a "bad tree"). However, plenists do not see it that way. And, to this day, they are involved in a process of accepting saints coming from Rome they find Catholic enough, while rejecting the ones they don't(private interpretation?).
I am sorry you do not quite understand. I have stated many times that Sedes position their practice as a protestant; self-interpretation is their rule. They say so as well.
You cannot accept something that is erroneous from any authority figure; nor is there any "picking and choosing". Either one is Catholic and follows all of the Perennial teachings or not. No admixture; nor novelties.
There are two natures to the Catholic Church: one Divine, the other human.
This crisis is a human problem within the human part of the Church; not within the Divine part of the Church. Therefore, the R&R position is based on the fidelity to the Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church, and to resist the human errors.
The confusion within this crisis it that many do not distinguish this; and live accordingly.
-
I am new to this forum. Briefly, I have taken what seems to be a fairly typical route - Novus Ordo to Indult to SSPX - and this has led me to the conclusion that Sedevacantism is the most logical and non-contradictory position from which to view the ongoing crisis in the Church.
Resisting a pope's evil commands does not extend to refusing his teachings when made in union with the bishops of the world. Because these teachings are infallible, guaranteed to be so by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church.
A pope's evil command might be something like - go and sell those gold candlesticks and buy me some cocaine. A Catholic would be right not to obey in this instance, but this is nowhere near the same as refusing to submit to the pope when he is exercising his infallibility through the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
There are, in fact, three organs of infallibility in the Church. The first is the pope teaching ex Cathedra, the second is the pope teaching in union with an ecuмenical council. Both of these comprise the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. It is a fact that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium was not invoked by the Fathers of Vatican II. Everybody knows this.
But what a lot of Catholics don't realise is that if the Conciliar popes are true popes, then Vatican II can claim the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is also infallible. It seems from what I have read that many Catholics are confused on this point and fail to distinguish between the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible and the Ordinary Magisterium which is not.
Both at the Council and during the subsequent fifty years, the Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world. What's more, they have imposed Conciliar disciplines and liturgical practices on the Church, also in union with the bishops of the world.
If these men are true popes, the teachings, disciplines and liturgical practices of Vatican II are guaranteed to be true and good by the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. What's more, as Catholics we are bound not only to accept and obey them, but also to trust them.
The mistake of the 'Recognise and Resist' position is to make doctrine the criterion of infallibility. In other words, if the doctrine is not sufficiently Traditional, it can't be infallible.
But the true and therefore Catholic position is that infallibility guarantees the doctrine.
Vatican II claims that doctrine can evolve. The whole point of the Council was to reconcile Catholic teaching with modern thought. The Conciliar popes have been teaching this, through the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, for fifty years. If they are true popes, then this teachings is guaranteed to be infallible and Catholics have to accept it.
If you believe that the Conciliar popes are true popes then you must accept their teaching that Church doctrine can evolve and that the teachings, disciplines and liturgical practices of Vatican II - the result of this evolution - are Catholic and therefore true. You must accept this because if they are true popes, then these teachings are guaranteed by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
This is as much as I have been able to glean from my research into Sedevacantism so far.
It seems to me from the above argument alone that the R&R position just doesn't hold water.
-
Hello and welcome AC!
Both at the Council and during the subsequent fifty years, the Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world. What's more, they have imposed Conciliar disciplines and liturgical practices on the Church, also in union with the bishops of the world.
If these men are true popes, the teachings, disciplines and liturgical practices of Vatican II are guaranteed to be true and good by the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. What's more, as Catholics we are bound not only to accept and obey them, but also to trust them.
If you don't mind, I'd like to post something writted here by ManOfTheWest some time ago. I will PM him to see why his position seems to have changed on this matter. However, it should address much of your points above.
There is a point where the pope does not retain his infallibility. So infallibility also says that you must be within the teaching of the Roman Catholic faith; as soon as you step out of that circle, on your own accord, as an individual, he does not necessarily speak infallibly.
Our friend s2srea has put his finger on the crux of the matter. The pope's infallibility flows from the truth of the faith, not the other way around; i.e. the truth-value of any article of faith does not derive from the pope's authority to proclaim it. Statements concerning the faith (like statements concerning anything whatsoever) are either true or not true before anybody -- even the pope -- issues a ruling on the statement. They are true or false entirely of themselves. When the pope teaches the true faith then he is infallible, but only because the faith he teaches is of itself indefectible.
But then what does there remain to differentiate the pope from the ordinary Catholic? For if the faith itself is indefectible, then anyone who holds the true faith and teaches it would be "infallible" as far it goes. And this is exactly right. The difference consists only in this, that the pope and the bishops united with him are the only ones vested with the authority to make pronouncements concerning what the true faith actually is. When there is a question involving an article of faith, definitive judgment can only be rendered by the Magisterium, and decisively so by the pope himself (who holds plenipotentiary authority to make such rulings for the universal Church).
That is the entire sum of infallibility -- and that's it. When the pope is not actually engaging his special power of ruling on a question of faith for the universal Church, then he is no more infallible than you or I; and he may even, in his personal beliefs and actions, be undermining the very faith he is supposed to uphold (cf. Peter eating with the Judaizers). What the pope believes or does has no bearing on his infallibility and isn't even germane to the problem. It is what the pope rules that counts. Only rulings can be considered infallible.
What this all implies for the sede position I have not yet fully thought through. One can see at a glance, however, that it is not obviously useful to them unless they can cite evidence of a papal claiment ruling at variance with the known truth. Such a person, by reductio, would therefore be a pretender and not a true pope.
I am not aware of any such evidence. On the other hand, I fully respect the opinions of sedes who wish to wash their hands of a line of popes who disgust them and who injure the faith that they hold dear. I am not yet ready to join their ranks, but I have nothing against them. I believe that, for the time being, the sede position remains an opinion and not an established fact, as they themselves usually concede.
-
I am new to this forum.
Welcome. :cheers:
-
Ragtime J.Paul? Your apathy in avoiding questions raised to you within this crisis on these serious questions of whether a Baptized Catholic recognizes the residing Pope or not, is paramount to the doctrinal vacuum you wish to maintain.
Yes, apathy is the word for the actual avoidance of the question which is posed by your dogmatic recognize/resist position.
I have no doctrinal vacuum, that is your invention and I do not subscribe to Extra SSPX Nulla Salus.
-
"Pope" Michael is a stand alone guy claiming to be pope.
I sometimes watch "Pope Michael's" (David Bawden's) videos on youtube. They don't get a lot of views. The funny thing about "Pope Michael" is that he is a lot less heretical than the Vatican II "Popes".
In fact, I never heard him say anything that I thought was heretical, like the Vatican II "popes" often do, like, for example, saying that the old covenant was never revoked and thus Jews can get to heaven without believing in Christ.
Interesting point, Matto.
David Bawden is obviously not pope.
But so far as I can gather, he is Catholic.
Delusional, but Catholic.
-
The pope's infallibility flows from the truth of the faith, not the other way around; i.e. the truth-value of any article of faith does not derive from the pope's authority to proclaim it.
Statements concerning the faith (like statements concerning anything whatsoever) are either true or not true before anybody -- even the pope -- issues a ruling on the statement.
They are true or false entirely of themselves.
When the pope teaches the true faith then he is infallible, but only because the faith he teaches is of itself indefectible.
:judge:
And THAT is why they (conciliar church) dare not make any dogmatic or infallible pronouncements.
Because it is then that they will be considered schismatic, heretical, etc.
:nunchaku: :light-saber: :dwarf:
And THEN, the guns will come out a'blazin, because THEN they will be identified as a false church.
By avoiding these pronouncements, they get to play in the sandbox and mess everything up!
-
As I have mentioned many times before, Sedevacantism is like Protestantism, every Sedevacantists has their own private interpretation on the matter and claims those views. Hence the "split" mentality.
You say that as if conclavists are the majority of sedevacantists, when in fact conclavism is a ridiculous minority of trads. Of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of sedevacantists, MAYBE 500 have attempted a conclave. It's simply ridiculous to conflate conclavism with sedevacantism.
Exactly!
Some people exist in a mental state absent logic, they look at something they do not know, they pick some exceptional case, and they use it to define the whole class. Then they make judements about the whole class, based on the exception. That requires a certain stubborn denial of the facts re the rest of the class.
One has to wonder how they ever did finish high school.
And adult Catholics who have not been separated from their brains are supposed to accept it, as if it it is normal mental operation for an adult human.
Thank you Mithrandylan, for taking it apart. You have more patience than I.
Additionally, one has to wonder about why anyone would posit such a massively skewed judgement on the whole class. It is simply not honest, not Catholic.
Tell that to the rest of the Sedevacantists...
The hundreds of thousands of Sede Vacantists are Catholic adults who finished high school. As such they don't need to be told that the entire class cannot be judged by the exception.
The 500 or so exceptions cannot be told, they suffer similar mental challenges.
There are nutcases in every group, pray for them, don't listen to them.
You're most welcome.
If you haven't figured it out by now, most of the arguments against the sedevacantist position per se. are strawmen. I'm inclined to believe the strawmen are erected in good (albeit ignorant) will, as the SSPX after the death of ABL has a reputation for being largely anti sedevacantist (distinct from simply being "not" sedevacantist) and most traditional Catholics, having ties to the SSPX, begin with the premise that sedevacantism is impossible and an error, because they've simply taken it as gospel from the pulpit.
Under further exposition, it is usually revealed that the opponents of it know nothing about it, and find anomalies and exceptions which actually have nothing to do with the very basic and distilled fact of a vacant Holy See to hedge their arguments against.
There is a very, very good and helpful talk by John Daly where he points out that sedevacantism is the belief that the See of Peter is currently vacant. As such, it is NOT a movement, and therefore does not have any goals proper to it. Sedevacantism is a conclusion, and a logical one proceeding from certain premises.
There are certain beliefs common among sedevacantists (e.g., the invalidity of the NREC) but there really are not beliefs common among them that are actual logical consequences of not having a pope (with the obvious exceptions of the absolute invalidity of all post-conciliar decrees, laws, catechisms, etc.). Even the invalidity of the NREC (which, to my knowledge, ALL sedevacantists adhere to) is not actually logically related to sede vacante. Conclavism is certainly not "logically concluded" from such a state of affairs.
-
What's all this silly interest in "pope" Michael all about here in catholic info. Let me know when y'all are through infatuating over that guy ok. Thanks. :smoke-pot:
-
Disobedience to a sitting pope is clearly inconsistent with the principle of obedience to the pope...
This is only an apparent inconsistency. It would be true if the authority of the pope was absolute; it is not. Absolute obedience is owed only to God. The authority of the pope is given to him by God for the purpose of saving souls. If he opposes this purpose then he is abusing his authority. Disobedience would then be legitimate.
-
Bp. Williamson continues to wage war on the former N.E region of the SSPX US District with his clinging for dear life to his mentor's idiosyncratic view(s) of Roman authority. He is not interested in generating a large following .... save a few with some very deep pockets .... because his likely audience wants a more dynamic approach to the 'crisis' and he ain't going to adopt it! Therefore, no olive branch to the SVs. In reply, they may comment as follows to his EC points:
1) The bishop does not allow himself the luxury of establiahing a precedent when it comes to Roman disputes, yet he uses them frequently. In any case, the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
2) If popes can be bypassed so easily to protect the faith, why not replace them for the good of the faith when things become impossible, the faith being more important than dubious elections as Fr. Pfeiffer keeps telling us?
3) The conciliar church positions herself outside Catholic Tradition where it matters and is all novelty where it matters. This notion of having one pope heading two churches is wearing pretty thin and there is little yardage in basing legalisms on expressions of superficial continutity. Mitred processions and cheering crowds do not cut the mustard; they are the stuff of culture not faith.
4) Things are very clear today, including yhe idiological beliefs and practices of those that run the new church. Again, these officials are unlikely to condemn themselves! Extraordinary measures must be entertained to reconstruct the Church elsewhere.
5) And if God does not intervene, the bishop is up the creek without a paddle with just his ideas dor company. It is a passive and pessimistic answer to the crisis which was not ABL's. But it is a common one informing many independent apostolates. THe world gets too big so they retire to contemplate their navels and leave it to the Almighty.
-
Bp. Williamson continues to wage war on the former N.E region of the SSPX US District with his clinging for dear life to his mentor's idiosyncratic view(s) of Roman authority. He is not interested in generating a large following .... save a few with some very deep pockets .... because his likely audience wants a more dynamic approach to the 'crisis' and he ain't going to adopt it! Therefore, no olive branch to the SVs. In reply, they may comment as follows to his EC points:
1) The bishop does not allow himself the luxury of establiahing a precedent when it comes to Roman disputes, yet he uses them frequently. In any case, the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
2) If popes can be bypassed so easily to protect the faith, why not replace them for the good of the faith when things become impossible, the faith being more important than dubious elections as Fr. Pfeiffer keeps telling us?
3) The conciliar church positions herself outside Catholic Tradition where it matters and is all novelty where it matters. This notion of having one pope heading two churches is wearing pretty thin and there is little yardage in basing legalisms on expressions of superficial continutity. Mitred processions and cheering crowds do not cut the mustard; they are the stuff of culture not faith.
4) Things are very clear today, including yhe idiological beliefs and practices of those that run the new church. Again, these officials are unlikely to condemn themselves! Extraordinary measures must be entertained to reconstruct the Church elsewhere.
5) And if God does not intervene, the bishop is up the creek without a paddle with just his ideas dor company. It is a passive and pessimistic answer to the crisis which was not ABL's. But it is a common one informing many independent apostolates. THe world gets too big so they retire to contemplate their navels and leave it to the Almighty.
Great observations and conclusions.
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
-
Disobedience to a sitting pope is clearly inconsistent with the principle of obedience to the pope...
This is only an apparent inconsistency. It would be true if the authority of the pope was absolute; it is not. Absolute obedience is owed only to God. The authority of the pope is given to him by God for the purpose of saving souls. If he opposes this purpose then he is abusing his authority. Disobedience would then be legitimate.
R&R is consistent in one regard and inconsistent in another.
-
Disobedience to a sitting pope is clearly inconsistent with the principle of obedience to the pope...
This is only an apparent inconsistency. It would be true if the authority of the pope was absolute; it is not. Absolute obedience is owed only to God. The authority of the pope is given to him by God for the purpose of saving souls. If he opposes this purpose then he is abusing his authority. Disobedience would then be legitimate.
R&R is consistent in one regard and inconsistent in another.
Please expound.
-
Disobedience to a sitting pope is clearly inconsistent with the principle of obedience to the pope...
This is only an apparent inconsistency. It would be true if the authority of the pope was absolute; it is not. Absolute obedience is owed only to God. The authority of the pope is given to him by God for the purpose of saving souls. If he opposes this purpose then he is abusing his authority. Disobedience would then be legitimate.
R&R is consistent in one regard and inconsistent in another.
Please expound.
Obedience to God requires knowledge of His will. Such knowledge is communicated through the "oracle" of authorized teaching. Practically speaking, we have had no authorized guidance since prior to Vatican II. Catholics back then very much ignored divine guidance. Use it or lose it. For instance, Russia was never properly consecrated.
Presumably then, time-sensitive divine guidance is now withdrawn as a punishment. Likely, it will not be returned until we are sufficiently repentant and appreciative enough toward the generosity of such guidance to follow it.
Obviously, R&R is inconsistent with ordinary obedience to the pope. R&R may be consistent with God's will, but He has yet to confirm that. One can only hold fast to pre-Vatican II orthodoxy because there is no Fatima-style or Church authorized guidance on how to best react to the crisis. Perhaps this is a test of Catholics by fire. What is the highest ranking virtue?
-
Obviously, R&R is inconsistent with ordinary obedience to the pope. R&R may be consistent with God's will, but He has yet to confirm that. One can only hold fast to pre-Vatican II orthodoxy because there is no Fatima-style or Church authorized guidance on how to best react to the crisis. Perhaps this is a test of Catholics by fire.
The problem is not with R&R; it is with the conciliar popes who have made ordinary obedience virtually impossible. It is they who have been/are being inconsistent with the office of the papacy, which resulted/results in R&R.
I agree that we must hold fast to pre-Vatican II orthodoxy in this crisis and that is exactly what the Archbishop did.
-
To s2srea
I haven't got the hang of how to post replies yet, but in reply to your reply, I have read what you posted from ManoftheWest.
While I'm not quite sure where this leaves us, if you or MotW, or indeed anyone else, could help me out on the following question I would be extremely grateful.
On another forum it is repeatedly asserted that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not infallible unless it teaches what the Church has always taught. They are insisting that 'Universal' means across both place AND time, ie the pope speaking in union with the bishops of the world and throughout time. The Sedevacantist sources I have read, on the other hand, say that 'Universal' means across place only - hence the Pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world only.
Any ideas on the correct interpretation?
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
So, the status quo no matter how bad it gets has to be accepted because as yet there is no viable alternative structure to replace it? And does not the practice of retrospective condemnation show up the terrible shortcomings of the Church and turn thinking people off her? The meat and potatoes of this crisis; one minute, a doctrine is right, next minute, wrong. This is like the SSPX writ large!
For those concerned about such huge 'flexibility', we then speculate on the nature of the authority that would choose a pope as a feature of this restoration. I dare say that the only time there would be a substantial call for such a thing would be when the Catholic vacuum grew so large and a number of notable clerics got together for some joint action. The question seems to come down to the legitimacy of the authority and the qualifications of the papal electors .... if an obvious pope does not emerge without the need for such an election.
I am not speaking here of a need to correct the conciliar church. I doubt whether she will ever return to the traditions of the past; she is building her own traditions! The problem is in designing a strategy that effectively enables the Church on earth to exist and prosper better than as a number of scattered outposts. These small beginnings may have been at some time on the mind of ABL whose initiative evolved as far as consecrating a number of bishops. And the same with Fr. Pfeiffer but he has difficulty finding a committed bishop who would then go on to consecrate more bishops. Needless to say, passivity, inertia and resignation are the enemies of restoration. And tradition means nothing more than nostalgia.
-
If the cardinals of the CDF are freemasons and if he is right about the authority of a pope, then there will be no end to the heresies and outrageous apostasy of the vatican.
Unless they convert.
Right. Truth. Error. What does it matter? It's all good. He's still the Pope. Can someone please pass the barf bag?
-
By the grace of God, I find myself more anti-sedevecantist (position) now than I was before Pope Francis.
I am also more anti-NewChurch than I have ever been.
That is quite a trick! :alcohol:
-
Can someone please pass the barf bag?
I'm afraid that mine are all used up from your BoD threads.
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
So, the status quo no matter how bad it gets has to be accepted because as yet there is no viable alternative structure to replace it? And does not the practice of retrospective condemnation show up the terrible shortcomings of the Church and turn thinking people off her? The meat and potatoes of this crisis; one minute, a doctrine is right, next minute, wrong. This is like the SSPX writ large!
For those concerned about such huge 'flexibility', we then speculate on the nature of the authority that would choose a pope as a feature of this restoration. I dare say that the only time there would be a substantial call for such a thing would be when the Catholic vacuum grew so large and a number of notable clerics got together for some joint action. The question seems to come down to the legitimacy of the authority and the qualifications of the papal electors .... if an obvious pope does not emerge without the need for such an election.
I am not speaking here of a need to correct the conciliar church. I doubt whether she will ever return to the traditions of the past; she is building her own traditions! The problem is in designing a strategy that effectively enables the Church on earth to exist and prosper better than as a number of scattered outposts. These small beginnings may have been at some time on the mind of ABL whose initiative evolved as far as consecrating a number of bishops. And the same with Fr. Pfeiffer but he has difficulty finding a committed bishop who would then go on to consecrate more bishops. Needless to say, passivity, inertia and resignation are the enemies of restoration. And tradition means nothing more than nostalgia.
A post restoration leadership? Perhaps no such leadership will emerge given the current anemic efforts of Traditional Catholicism to reassert itself. Unless they leave all of the bull work for God Himself to accomplish, there might not be a restoration.
What ever happened to go throughout the world baptizing and converting souls?
Relatively speaking, so called Tradition passively endures the Sect going about the world converting so many souls to its paganistic pantheon while Tradition is content to convert those occasional weary souls who wander into camp out of the desert.
ABL's original response was perhaps an effective holding action for a few years or a decade but it has been overtaken by the longevity, intensity , and success of the revolution. Circuмstances and reality have rendered it a strategy of recognize and enable. Resistance has become a toothless philosophy of resistance without substance save a lot of talking and writing about it.
Wessex points to an important reality, we could have had a substantially rebuilt hierarchy by now if the current Catholic Bishops could have set aside their prejudices and fear of the apostates in Rome and united around the Catholic religion and a singular purpose of restoring orthodoxy to the Church.
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
So, the status quo no matter how bad it gets has to be accepted because as yet there is no viable alternative structure to replace it? And does not the practice of retrospective condemnation show up the terrible shortcomings of the Church and turn thinking people off her? The meat and potatoes of this crisis; one minute, a doctrine is right, next minute, wrong. This is like the SSPX writ large!
For those concerned about such huge 'flexibility', we then speculate on the nature of the authority that would choose a pope as a feature of this restoration. I dare say that the only time there would be a substantial call for such a thing would be when the Catholic vacuum grew so large and a number of notable clerics got together for some joint action. The question seems to come down to the legitimacy of the authority and the qualifications of the papal electors .... if an obvious pope does not emerge without the need for such an election.
I am not speaking here of a need to correct the conciliar church. I doubt whether she will ever return to the traditions of the past; she is building her own traditions! The problem is in designing a strategy that effectively enables the Church on earth to exist and prosper better than as a number of scattered outposts. These small beginnings may have been at some time on the mind of ABL whose initiative evolved as far as consecrating a number of bishops. And the same with Fr. Pfeiffer but he has difficulty finding a committed bishop who would then go on to consecrate more bishops. Needless to say, passivity, inertia and resignation are the enemies of restoration. And tradition means nothing more than nostalgia.
A post restoration leadership? Perhaps no such leadership will emerge given the current anemic efforts of Traditional Catholicism to reassert itself. Unless they leave all of the bull work for God Himself to accomplish, there might not be a restoration.
What ever happened to go throughout the world baptizing and converting souls?
Relatively speaking, so called Tradition passively endures the Sect going about the world converting so many souls to its paganistic pantheon while Tradition is content to convert those occasional weary souls who wander into camp out of the desert.
ABL's original response was perhaps an effective holding action for a few years or a decade but it has been overtaken by the longevity, intensity , and success of the revolution. Circuмstances and reality have rendered it a strategy of recognize and enable. Resistance has become a toothless philosophy of resistance without substance save a lot of talking and writing about it.
Wessex points to an important reality, we could have had a substantially rebuilt hierarchy by now if the current Catholic Bishops could have set aside their prejudices and fear of the apostates in Rome and united around the Catholic religion and a singular purpose of restoring orthodoxy to the Church.
Well-stated.
-
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?
-
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?
Exactly. There is no rhyme or reason to the novel idea that one can recognize a public heretic as being valid while resisting what he (if he is a valid Pope as they insist upon) binds on the Church. That is not a Catholic position to take. Resisting the novelties is Catholic but not refusing to submit to one you insist is the Pope.
-
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.
-
By the grace of God, I find myself more anti-sedevecantist (position) now than I was before Pope Francis.
I am also more anti-NewChurch than I have ever been.
They are both erroneous, and their error stems from the same and similar premises.
"By the grace of God"? Are you a dogmatic sedeplenist now?
:laugh1:
I'm sorry s2srea. I've always enjoyed your posts, but 2Vermont's reply was funny.
These labels and categories are just beginning to become a bit humorous. I wish we'd start being simply "orthodox' or not.
-
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.
-
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.
But it is simple, isn't it? To be a Catholic one must profess the Catholic faith, not a false faith. That's one of the fundamental teachings of the Church. The man who cannot grasp that is the man of feeble intellect. The one who accepts it, one the other hand, far from being a simpleton, is simply assenting to the teaching of the Church.
We need not formally excommunicate them, that is obviously ridiculous. We need simply recognise that heretics place themselves outside of the Church, as Catholics have always recognised. This is necessary in order to maintain the unity of the faith . If heretics are not outside of the Church, then the Church teaches contradiction.
I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, and I support Williamson, Lefebvre, and many others who adhere to the recognise/resist position. That said, none of them have provided convincing arguments against the sedevacantist position - indeed they cannot do so, because in practical terms they are sedevacantists, since they ignore the authority of the current papal claimant.
-
.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something (perhaps because I'm a simpleton!) .........
... in practical terms they are sedevacantists, since they ignore the authority of the current papal claimant.
Could you please repeat your identification of whom it was among the Resistance who has ignored the authority of the "current papal claimant?"
.
-
.
Simple Sede Joe Schmoe Recognizes Dalai Lama as Pope
[/size]
[/font]
...
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.
.
-
Just found this (haven't read through it all yet though):
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.UvQsxiyYbCk
-
If the cardinals of the CDF are freemasons and if he is right about the authority of a pope, then there will be no end to the heresies and outrageous apostasy of the vatican.
Unless they convert.
Right. Truth. Error. What does it matter? It's all good. He's still the Pope.
Can someone please pass the barf bag?
Here you go, buddy!!
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002230289/2610452610_ObamaBarfBag_744277_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)
.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29765&min=60#p3)
To s2srea
I haven't got the hang of how to post replies yet, but in reply to your reply, I have read what you posted from ManoftheWest.
When you see a post you want to reply to, just click the blue "QUOTE" box in the top right corner of the post.
While I'm not quite sure where this leaves us, if you or MotW, or indeed anyone else, could help me out on the following question I would be extremely grateful.
On another forum it is repeatedly asserted that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not infallible unless it teaches what the Church has always taught. They are insisting that 'Universal' means across both place AND time, ie the pope speaking in union with the bishops of the world and throughout time. The Sedevacantist sources I have read, on the other hand, say that 'Universal' means across place only - hence the Pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world only.
Any ideas on the correct interpretation?
Since infallibility only carries weight because of its consistency with God's reality, there is therefore a time element.
In God's reality, there is no time. God exists outside of time.
When a Pope defines a dogma it is in regards to faith or morals, and it puts into our world the revelation of God, since it is a truth that has always existed in God's reality.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into heaven is an event in time, but just as the Crucifixion of Our Lord and the parting of the Red Sea, which were also events in time, they all were realities in the mind of God from eternity.
If the Church attempts to teach something NEW, that has never been part of the Church teaching in the past, it cannot be presumed to be infallible, UNLESS it is coming to us by God's divine revelation -- but even that is very unlikely to happen. But it is possible.* It would be a matter for the Pope to define ex-cathedra, though, not for the ordinary and universal Magisterium, because the Magisterium only 'knows' what has always been there in Church teaching. Its purpose is not to teach something NEW. And the pope isn't very likely going to define something new by his own authority.
Remember that the Magisterium is not one or more people. Magisterium is a NEUTER noun in Latin, and it refers not to people but to the teaching OFFICE of the Church, which includes all of the docuмents and history of the Church through the ages. Neuter means neither male nor female, so it excludes human beings. (By today's 'standards', that might be hard to comprehend!)
*An example of something new being revealed by God would be the time and date of the end of the world. We know that the end will come, but we are not given the time or the date. When it does come, then that will be something NEW that is being revealed. But what will it matter to anyone, because there will be no more tomorrow at that point. IOW there won't be people around arguing over whether or not it was true, because they'll all be dead.
.
-
Just found this (haven't read through it all yet though):
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.UvQsxiyYbCk
The NovusOrdoWatch author results to sleight of hand to attempt to drive his point home:
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 5 paragraphs, if you're not paying close attention, you'll probably have forgotten what +W had 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.
But 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 make sense.
.
-
.
I left some things out....................
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29765&min=60#p3)
To s2srea
I haven't got the hang of how to post replies yet, but in reply to your reply, I have read what you posted from ManoftheWest.
When you see a post you want to reply to, just click the blue "QUOTE" box in the top right corner of the post.
While I'm not quite sure where this leaves us, if you or MotW, or indeed anyone else, could help me out on the following question I would be extremely grateful.
On another forum it is repeatedly asserted that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not infallible unless it teaches what the Church has always taught. They are insisting that 'Universal' means across both place AND time, ie the pope speaking in union with the bishops of the world and throughout time. The Sedevacantist sources I have read, on the other hand, say that 'Universal' means across place only - hence the Pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world only.
Any ideas on the correct interpretation?
Since infallibility only carries weight because of its consistency with God's reality, there is therefore a time element.
In God's reality, there is no time. God exists outside of time.
When a Pope defines a dogma it is in regards to faith or morals, and it puts into our world the revelation of God, since it is a truth that has always existed in God's reality.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary body and soul into heaven is an event in time, but just as the Crucifixion of Our Lord and the parting of the Red Sea, which were also events in time, they all were realities in the mind of God from eternity.
The fact that you are now reading this message
is something that God knew would happen,
even before He created the world.
If the Church attempts to teach something NEW, that has never been part of the Church teaching in the past, it cannot be presumed to be infallible, UNLESS it is coming to us by God's divine revelation -- but even that is very unlikely to happen. But it is possible.* It would be a matter for the Pope to define ex-cathedra, though, not for the ordinary and universal Magisterium [to teach WITHOUT the power of the pope],** because the Magisterium only 'knows' what has always been there in Church teaching. Its purpose is not to teach something NEW. And the pope isn't very likely going to define something new by his own authority.***
Remember that the Magisterium is not one or more people. Magisterium is a NEUTER noun in Latin, and it refers not to people but to the teaching OFFICE of the Church, which includes all of the docuмents and history of the Church through the ages. Neuter means neither male nor female, so it excludes human beings. (By today's 'standards', that might be hard to comprehend!)
*An example of something new being revealed by God would be the time and date of the end of the world. We know that the end will come, but we are not given the time or the date. When it does come, then that will be something NEW that is being revealed. But what will it matter to anyone, because there will be no more tomorrow at that point. IOW there won't be people around arguing over whether or not it was true, because they'll all be dead.
.
**It is not the place of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to teach infallibly WITHOUT the power of the Pope defining. For example, in regards to an oecuмenical council, without the pope present, there can be no definition with the note of infallibility attached. The council has the power of infallibility, but it ONLY has that power BECAUSE of the presence of the pope. Take the pope out of the picture, and the council cannot then be infallible, on its own.
***While it is, in a stretch, possible for the pope to define infallibly something new, it could never be something that is CONTRADICTORY to previously defined dogma or Apostolic Tradition which has not been defined. There could be something new, as a wild stretch of the imagination, but for what purpose? How could something be so important that it would be worth setting aside the norm to define something new? That is a topic ripe for speculation!
.
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
So, the status quo no matter how bad it gets has to be accepted because as yet there is no viable alternative structure to replace it? And does not the practice of retrospective condemnation show up the terrible shortcomings of the Church and turn thinking people off her? The meat and potatoes of this crisis; one minute, a doctrine is right, next minute, wrong. This is like the SSPX writ large!
For those concerned about such huge 'flexibility', we then speculate on the nature of the authority that would choose a pope as a feature of this restoration. I dare say that the only time there would be a substantial call for such a thing would be when the Catholic vacuum grew so large and a number of notable clerics got together for some joint action. The question seems to come down to the legitimacy of the authority and the qualifications of the papal electors .... if an obvious pope does not emerge without the need for such an election.
I am not speaking here of a need to correct the conciliar church. I doubt whether she will ever return to the traditions of the past; she is building her own traditions! The problem is in designing a strategy that effectively enables the Church on earth to exist and prosper better than as a number of scattered outposts. These small beginnings may have been at some time on the mind of ABL whose initiative evolved as far as consecrating a number of bishops. And the same with Fr. Pfeiffer but he has difficulty finding a committed bishop who would then go on to consecrate more bishops. Needless to say, passivity, inertia and resignation are the enemies of restoration. And tradition means nothing more than nostalgia.
A post restoration leadership? Perhaps no such leadership will emerge given the current anemic efforts of Traditional Catholicism to reassert itself. Unless they leave all of the bull work for God Himself to accomplish, there might not be a restoration.
What ever happened to go throughout the world baptizing and converting souls?
Relatively speaking, so called Tradition passively endures the Sect going about the world converting so many souls to its paganistic pantheon while Tradition is content to convert those occasional weary souls who wander into camp out of the desert.
ABL's original response was perhaps an effective holding action for a few years or a decade but it has been overtaken by the longevity, intensity , and success of the revolution. Circuмstances and reality have rendered it a strategy of recognize and enable. Resistance has become a toothless philosophy of resistance without substance save a lot of talking and writing about it.
Wessex points to an important reality, we could have had a substantially rebuilt hierarchy by now if the current Catholic Bishops could have set aside their prejudices and fear of the apostates in Rome and united around the Catholic religion and a singular purpose of restoring orthodoxy to the Church.
Trying to restore orthodoxy to the Church without a pope is, to use another commenter's phrase, like putting the cart before the horse. Why is the desire for a Catholic pope mocked and denigrated as "conclavism"? I don't understand that. Isn't it a natural Catholic desire to elect a pope when the See of Peter is vacant? Are we so afraid of another "Pope Michael" that we are unwilling to ever allow for the possibility that an election by traditionalists might actually result in a legitimate pope?
I'm reading a book now by the title "Behind Locked Doors". It is a history of papal elections and some of the "elections" that resulted in legitimate popes make Pope Michael look like serious business. One pope (Fabian) was immediately crowned after a dove landed on his shoulder. Several were crowned after they promised benefices to key electors (simony). The Great Western Schism was started when a Roman mob threatened the cardinals with violence if they didn't elect an Italian pope. One pope was exiled by the army and a new pope elected despite the previous pope not being dead nor having resigned. The Roman Pontificalis lists them as reigning simultaneously for about a year.
Not only do I think that the election of a Catholic pope is possible, I think it is the only way this crisis will be resolved and I think it will happen in the not too distant future. So be careful when you mock "conclavism", you just might have to eat your words.
-
Sorry J.Paul I didn't intend that to look like I was picking on you personally. I don't even recall if you mocked conclavism or not.
-
.
Typo............
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:
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.
.
-
the "mere six" conciliar popes disqualify themselves from being regarded as being part of "Catholic Tradition" ..... or must the Church be saddled with a succession of conciliar popes to infinity?
Post-restoration leadership could easily declare these to be anti-popes, but there is no indisputable and unified authority to do so now. Also, there is no indisputable and unified college of electors to replace the deposed pope.
Why declare the seat empty when unprepared to refill it? That's putting the cart before the horse.
So, the status quo no matter how bad it gets has to be accepted because as yet there is no viable alternative structure to replace it? And does not the practice of retrospective condemnation show up the terrible shortcomings of the Church and turn thinking people off her? The meat and potatoes of this crisis; one minute, a doctrine is right, next minute, wrong. This is like the SSPX writ large!
For those concerned about such huge 'flexibility', we then speculate on the nature of the authority that would choose a pope as a feature of this restoration. I dare say that the only time there would be a substantial call for such a thing would be when the Catholic vacuum grew so large and a number of notable clerics got together for some joint action. The question seems to come down to the legitimacy of the authority and the qualifications of the papal electors .... if an obvious pope does not emerge without the need for such an election.
I am not speaking here of a need to correct the conciliar church. I doubt whether she will ever return to the traditions of the past; she is building her own traditions! The problem is in designing a strategy that effectively enables the Church on earth to exist and prosper better than as a number of scattered outposts. These small beginnings may have been at some time on the mind of ABL whose initiative evolved as far as consecrating a number of bishops. And the same with Fr. Pfeiffer but he has difficulty finding a committed bishop who would then go on to consecrate more bishops. Needless to say, passivity, inertia and resignation are the enemies of restoration. And tradition means nothing more than nostalgia.
A post restoration leadership? Perhaps no such leadership will emerge given the current anemic efforts of Traditional Catholicism to reassert itself. Unless they leave all of the bull work for God Himself to accomplish, there might not be a restoration.
What ever happened to go throughout the world baptizing and converting souls?
Relatively speaking, so called Tradition passively endures the Sect going about the world converting so many souls to its paganistic pantheon while Tradition is content to convert those occasional weary souls who wander into camp out of the desert.
ABL's original response was perhaps an effective holding action for a few years or a decade but it has been overtaken by the longevity, intensity , and success of the revolution. Circuмstances and reality have rendered it a strategy of recognize and enable. Resistance has become a toothless philosophy of resistance without substance save a lot of talking and writing about it.
Wessex points to an important reality, we could have had a substantially rebuilt hierarchy by now if the current Catholic Bishops could have set aside their prejudices and fear of the apostates in Rome and united around the Catholic religion and a singular purpose of restoring orthodoxy to the Church.
Trying to restore orthodoxy to the Church without a pope is, to use another commenter's phrase, like putting the cart before the horse. Why is the desire for a Catholic pope mocked and denigrated as "conclavism"? I don't understand that. Isn't it a natural Catholic desire to elect a pope when the See of Peter is vacant? Are we so afraid of another "Pope Michael" that we are unwilling to ever allow for the possibility that an election by traditionalists might actually result in a legitimate pope?
I'm reading a book now by the title "Behind Locked Doors". It is a history of papal elections and some of the "elections" that resulted in legitimate popes make Pope Michael look like serious business. One pope (Fabian) was immediately crowned after a dove landed on his shoulder. Several were crowned after they promised benefices to key electors (simony). The Great Western Schism was started when a Roman mob threatened the cardinals with violence if they didn't elect an Italian pope. One pope was exiled by the army and a new pope elected despite the previous pope not being dead nor having resigned. The Roman Pontificalis lists them as reigning simultaneously for about a year.
Not only do I think that the election of a Catholic pope is possible, I think it is the only way this crisis will be resolved and I think it will happen in the not too distant future. So be careful when you mock "conclavism", you just might have to eat your words.
Which puts into sharp focus the overblown insistence on correct procedure and how authority is claimed or even stolen amid much drama and accepted as part of political life. I have always marvelled at how folk in remote places, especially America, see Rome as some seat of perfection rivalling Disneyland. Has she not been reconstructed in Las Vegas?
As Catholics of the old school, are we not entitled to the graces that surely must flow upon taking back the real estate and those titles that immediately denote respectability and authority? Well, if 'doctrinal talks' and millions of rosaries have not done the trick .... quite the opposite .... then, a more robust approach is necessary. But this is where our 'brave' trad institutions and priests fall down. They bask in the glory of their own rectitude which seems to immobilise their limbs and they then cite 'legal' obstacles. They even wildly assume their air of superiority has an effect on the usurpers; that pilgimage to Rome in 2000 was such a charade and the Romans were laughing their socks off!
-
Wessex,
As Catholics of the old school, are we not entitled to the graces that surely must flow upon taking back the real estate and those titles that immediately denote respectability and authority? Well, if 'doctrinal talks' and millions of rosaries have not done the trick .... quite the opposite .... then, a more robust approach is necessary. But this is where our 'brave' trad institutions and priests fall down. They bask in the glory of their own rectitude which seems to immobilise their limbs and they then cite 'legal' obstacles. They even wildly assume their air of superiority has an effect on the usurpers; that pilgrimage to Rome in 2000 was such a charade and the Romans were laughing their socks off!
What more needs be said? Another fifty years hence they will still be basking in the shade of legal obstacles.
-
Matthew:
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 worst heretic apostate anti-Pope in history 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.
-
Wessex,
As Catholics of the old school, are we not entitled to the graces that surely must flow upon taking back the real estate and those titles that immediately denote respectability and authority? Well, if 'doctrinal talks' and millions of rosaries have not done the trick .... quite the opposite .... then, a more robust approach is necessary. But this is where our 'brave' trad institutions and priests fall down. They bask in the glory of their own rectitude which seems to immobilise their limbs and they then cite 'legal' obstacles. They even wildly assume their air of superiority has an effect on the usurpers; that pilgrimage to Rome in 2000 was such a charade and the Romans were laughing their socks off!
What more needs be said? Another fifty years hence they will still be basking in the shade of legal obstacles.
I think a good case for the election of a pope can be made to each of the factions of traditionalists. To the R&R folks we can point to Popes St Silverius (1 June 536 - 11 November 537) and Vigilius (29 March 537 - 7 June 555) who reigned simultaneously for several months. Pope Francis gives all appearances of refusing to reign over the Church ("who am I to judge?") so even if for some technical reason he is still the pope, he is incapacitated by modernism and we should elect a new Catholic pope to replace him. For the privationists, we can simply say that Francis has obviously renounced jurisdiction. For the sedevacantists we can say that as long as the Roman clergy accept the new pope, even if there were a few technical deficiencies in the election, he is still a legitimate pope. What acceptance by the Roman clergy means is not well-defined but Our Lord and Our Lady will certainly guide us.
-
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.
-
One more comment I would like to add is that the idea that it is OK for traditionalists to resist authority but not OK to assert it is from the devil. Unfortunately, it seems to me that all traditionalists are more or less paralyzed by a fear of overstepping the bounds of authority. Whereas worldly men inordinately desire and seek to possess authority even going so far as to obtain it immorally, traditionalists have an inordinate fear of possessing or asserting it even when they have a legitimate right to it. And too often they do not recognize when they have a right to it.
-
Matthew:
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.
-
Matthew:
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.
1. All forum members have a feeble intellect compared to Matthew
2. Only those who hold the SV position are feeble of mind.
3. Only the SVs who are "extremists" "insane" and "crazy" and do not like attending a Mass offered in union with the worst heretic apostate anti-Pope in history 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.
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.
I have no problem with the above until the last paragraph where the term "simple-minded person" and "limited intellect" enter in. There is no doubt that there are good Catholics on both side of the issue. And it is good you can live and let live when someone disagrees with you. But you argue against it and do so in a subjective way where you attack the people who are SVs rather than discuss the principles of SV.
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.
-
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.
-
Many Catholic saints were simple-minded people. Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions about anyone Matthew.
-
.
Typo............
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:
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?
-
One more comment I would like to add is that the idea that it is OK for traditionalists to resist authority but not OK to assert it is from the devil. Unfortunately, it seems to me that all traditionalists are more or less paralyzed by a fear of overstepping the bounds of authority. Whereas worldly men inordinately desire and seek to possess authority even going so far as to obtain it immorally, traditionalists have an inordinate fear of possessing or asserting it even when they have a legitimate right to it. And too often they do not recognize when they have a right to it.
I think it's called Catholic guilt. :laugh1:
-
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?
-
Matthew:
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.
-
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:
-
So many clever minds have spent their time justifying convoluted positions that one flees to the side of simpler minds and a reliance on commonsense. One warms to people who say their religion is rooted in the natural world because it is at least real and they do not have to pay heavily for elaborate formulae in the spiritual world. Who can say that the growth of Catholicism and her derivatives are not a breeding ground for excessive bouts of erudition and ultimate contradiction that is drowning out an underlying faith? Am sure Christ had in mind a simple creed for the masses to understand and not the monster the institution eventually became with a plethora of unnessary spiritual expression developed to an extent approaching incomprehension. Against which the rosary mantra is meant to serve a purpose for the common people; Bp. Fellay knows his audience too well!
-
Matthew:
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.
-
yet you let all dogmatic sedeplentists slide.
Are there many dogmatic sedeplenists here? I remember Laramie Hirsh is one, but are there many others?
-
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:
-
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.
But it is simple, isn't it? To be a Catholic one must profess the Catholic faith, not a false faith. That's one of the fundamental teachings of the Church. The man who cannot grasp that is the man of feeble intellect. The one who accepts it, one the other hand, far from being a simpleton, is simply assenting to the teaching of the Church.
We need not formally excommunicate them, that is obviously ridiculous. We need simply recognise that heretics place themselves outside of the Church, as Catholics have always recognised. This is necessary in order to maintain the unity of the faith . If heretics are not outside of the Church, then the Church teaches contradiction.
I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, and I support Williamson, Lefebvre, and many others who adhere to the recognise/resist position. That said, none of them have provided convincing arguments against the sedevacantist position - indeed they cannot do so, because in practical terms they are sedevacantists, since they ignore the authority of the current papal claimant.
Well-stated. SSPX has been known to kick you out on your arse without any notice if you speak publicly in favor of SV and are clergy. Many have been trained to avoid thinking logically on this issue in order to avoid speaking logically on the issue.
-
Would you mind looking at and responding to this if you have a second.
Thanks! :)
(4th post down sir)
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29765&min=45&num=5
Hi [s2srea],
Thank you for bringing up this issue. I was wondering if and when it would come to light that I was now expressing an opinion contrary to my earlier one. As it turns out, the answer is, it didn't take very long at all. I'm sorry about this delayed response but I want you to know I haven't been blowing you off. I've actually been thinking very carefully about how to answer you since you first sent me this message. The conclusion I've come to is this.
There was nothing wrong with my earlier argument about papal infallibility. That argument remains both valid and sound and perfectly orthodox, so there is no need to abandon it or correct it. The problem is, that argument doesn't apply to the subject matter in the way I used to think it did. It would have been the correct argument to raise if we were talking about a morally debauched pope, a pope who was greedy or licentious, or who waged war against the princes of Europe to take their lands, or any of the other immoral things popes have been known to do. But it is not the correct argument to make when a putative pope manifestly departs from the faith. In fact, the very same argument from papal infallibility now seems to me to prove the Sedevacantist position correct.
If we begin with the premise that true popes are infallible when the necessary conditions for infallibility are enjoined (which is certainly true), then there are only four possible explanations of the Conciliar Reforms, especially the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.
1. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms engaged the conditions of papal infallibility; therefore the reforms are true teachings of the Church and must be obeyed. (Hard Conciliarism, e.g. ecuмenism and everything we've come to expect from the Church of Nice.)
2. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms did not engage the conditions of papal infallibility, but they are permissible because there is nothing inherently wrong with them; and even though they appear to lead to various abuses and distortions of faith, that cannot be blamed on the Pope. (Soft Conciliarism, e.g. Fellayism and Michael Voris.)
3. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms are not to be obeyed because there is something intrinsically wrong with them; but the conditions of papal infallibility were never engaged so this does not impact the legitimacy of the conciliar pontiffs. (Recognize and Resist, classic SSPX position, e.g. Bishop Williamsom.)
4. The Conciliar reforms are intrinsically wrong and are not to be obeyed; a true pope cannot bind intrinsically disordered reforms upon the Church, yet this however was done by a putative pope; therefore the Conciliar Popes are not true popes. (Sedevacantism, e.g. Fr. Cekada.)
It is clear from the parsing above that the concept of papal infallibility is going to act as reductio in this argument. The question however is, which side of the argument is going to get reduced, which "direction" does the entailment run in; or in other words, who's going to end up biting the bullet?
Now to begin with, all Trads quite sensibly agree with the commonsense notion that the Conciliar reforms are intrinsically wrong. If there was any doubt about that, a reading of the loathsome docuмent Nostra Aetate should clear it up. This is what separates true Trads from the "but the docuмents are beautiful" crowd. But if the reforms are wrong then we can already toss out (1) and (2), because they contain the contradictory premise. That leaves us with (3) and (4).
Option (3) may seem like a plausible alternative at first blush, but in the light of additional information it leads to a fatal flaw. For it can now no longer be disputed that the Conciliar Popes and the Conciliar docuмents teach heresy, not merely "error." That is to say, they contradict previously defined and fully clarified doctrinal teachings of the Church, or they at least conduce to heretical beliefs or scandalous breakdowns of morals and discipline. There are numerous ways one could try to argue around this and preserve the legitimacy of the Conciliar pontificates, not all of which I will examine in great detail because some of them are patently absurd, but in general the arguments are these.
3A. Deny that there is a crisis at all. "These are not the droids you're looking for." Timothy Dolan actually said the exact words, "It's not like, God forbid, we're in a crisis." This option is degenerate because we can assume that no Trad actually believes there is no crisis. He would have no justification for being a Trad if he believed that.
3B. Distort the nature or downplay the severity of the crisis. "It's all the liberal bishops' fault," is an argument Michael Voris often makes. This is usually employed in conjunction with:
3C. A thought-stopping bromide. "Oh well, Christ promised that His Church would never fail, so it can't be that horrible."
3D. The reforms themselves are okay, the abuses are somebody elses fault, and the pope is too ignorant/powerless/busy to fix things. (Malachi Martin, Prisoner of the Vatican.)
3E. The Hermeneutic of Continuity. (Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificuм.)
3F. "Popes can teach heresy, they just can't define heresy." (Another argument Michael Voris has made.)
3G. "Submission to the Roman Pontiff is a necessary condition of remaining in the Catholic Church." (Or alternatively, the Pope is judged by no one, etc.)
Without going any further with the examples (which might be multiplied and distinguished endlessly), I would like to draw your attention to the emerging pattern. Option (3) is what I would call a "decaying" position. It is a position with a short half-life that cannot remain stable for very long. 3A-3F all contain elements that push them toward Option (2) which we have already rejected, while 3G, when honestly expressed, morphs into a doctored version of Option (3) which we might call 3-prime.
3'. The Conciliar reforms are intrinsically disordered, so we must resist them; but obedience to the Roman Pontiff is law of the faith which trumps all others, so we must recognize him.
Option (3'), which is the only logical way of maintaining (3) while rejecting (2), simply begs the question on papal infallibility. It assumes that which needs to be proven, viz. that the Conciliar Popes are true popes, but doesn't prove it. Furthermore, it makes obedience to any putative pontiff into the sine qua non of Catholic identity (something even Archbishop Lefebvre himself never did). In fact, there is no way of maintaining (whether proven or unproven) that the Conciliar Popes are true popes without having (3) reduce to (2) or (1). But we've already rejected (2) and (1), so that leaves us with Option (4). The argument from papal infallibility, then, entails that Sedevacantism is correct.
At this point I would be willing to say that 'Recognize and Resist' is nothing but a word salad which doesn't express any coherent idea. This is not, of course, meant to insult, impugn, or damn anybody who holds that position, but hopefully to contrast it with the clarity of Sedevacantism.
-Man of the West
-
Would you mind looking at and responding to this if you have a second.
Thanks! :)
(4th post down sir)
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29765&min=45&num=5
Hi [s2srea],
Thank you for bringing up this issue. I was wondering if and when it would come to light that I was now expressing an opinion contrary to my earlier one. As it turns out, the answer is, it didn't take very long at all. I'm sorry about this delayed response but I want you to know I haven't been blowing you off. I've actually been thinking very carefully about how to answer you since you first sent me this message. The conclusion I've come to is this.
There was nothing wrong with my earlier argument about papal infallibility. That argument remains both valid and sound and perfectly orthodox, so there is no need to abandon it or correct it. The problem is, that argument doesn't apply to the subject matter in the way I used to think it did. It would have been the correct argument to raise if we were talking about a morally debauched pope, a pope who was greedy or licentious, or who waged war against the princes of Europe to take their lands, or any of the other immoral things popes have been known to do. But it is not the correct argument to make when a putative pope manifestly departs from the faith. In fact, the very same argument from papal infallibility now seems to me to prove the Sedevacantist position correct.
If we begin with the premise that true popes are infallible when the necessary conditions for infallibility are enjoined (which is certainly true), then there are only four possible explanations of the Conciliar Reforms, especially the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.
1. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms engaged the conditions of papal infallibility; therefore the reforms are true teachings of the Church and must be obeyed. (Hard Conciliarism, e.g. ecuмenism and everything we've come to expect from the Church of Nice.)
2. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms did not engage the conditions of papal infallibility, but they are permissible because there is nothing inherently wrong with them; and even though they appear to lead to various abuses and distortions of faith, that cannot be blamed on the Pope. (Soft Conciliarism, e.g. Fellayism and Michael Voris.)
3. The Conciliar Popes are true popes; the Vatican II reforms are not to be obeyed because there is something intrinsically wrong with them; but the conditions of papal infallibility were never engaged so this does not impact the legitimacy of the conciliar pontiffs. (Recognize and Resist, classic SSPX position, e.g. Bishop Williamsom.)
4. The Conciliar reforms are intrinsically wrong and are not to be obeyed; a true pope cannot bind intrinsically disordered reforms upon the Church, yet this however was done by a putative pope; therefore the Conciliar Popes are not true popes. (Sedevacantism, e.g. Fr. Cekada.)
It is clear from the parsing above that the concept of papal infallibility is going to act as reductio in this argument. The question however is, which side of the argument is going to get reduced, which "direction" does the entailment run in; or in other words, who's going to end up biting the bullet?
Now to begin with, all Trads quite sensibly agree with the commonsense notion that the Conciliar reforms are intrinsically wrong. If there was any doubt about that, a reading of the loathsome docuмent Nostra Aetate should clear it up. This is what separates true Trads from the "but the docuмents are beautiful" crowd. But if the reforms are wrong then we can already toss out (1) and (2), because they contain the contradictory premise. That leaves us with (3) and (4).
Option (3) may seem like a plausible alternative at first blush, but in the light of additional information it leads to a fatal flaw. For it can now no longer be disputed that the Conciliar Popes and the Conciliar docuмents teach heresy, not merely "error." That is to say, they contradict previously defined and fully clarified doctrinal teachings of the Church, or they at least conduce to heretical beliefs or scandalous breakdowns of morals and discipline. There are numerous ways one could try to argue around this and preserve the legitimacy of the Conciliar pontificates, not all of which I will examine in great detail because some of them are patently absurd, but in general the arguments are these.
3A. Deny that there is a crisis at all. "These are not the droids you're looking for." Timothy Dolan actually said the exact words, "It's not like, God forbid, we're in a crisis." This option is degenerate because we can assume that no Trad actually believes there is no crisis. He would have no justification for being a Trad if he believed that.
3B. Distort the nature or downplay the severity of the crisis. "It's all the liberal bishops' fault," is an argument Michael Voris often makes. This is usually employed in conjunction with:
3C. A thought-stopping bromide. "Oh well, Christ promised that His Church would never fail, so it can't be that horrible."
3D. The reforms themselves are okay, the abuses are somebody elses fault, and the pope is too ignorant/powerless/busy to fix things. (Malachi Martin, Prisoner of the Vatican.)
3E. The Hermeneutic of Continuity. (Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificuм.)
3F. "Popes can teach heresy, they just can't define heresy." (Another argument Michael Voris has made.)
3G. "Submission to the Roman Pontiff is a necessary condition of remaining in the Catholic Church." (Or alternatively, the Pope is judged by no one, etc.)
Without going any further with the examples (which might be multiplied and distinguished endlessly), I would like to draw your attention to the emerging pattern. Option (3) is what I would call a "decaying" position. It is a position with a short half-life that cannot remain stable for very long. 3A-3F all contain elements that push them toward Option (2) which we have already rejected, while 3G, when honestly expressed, morphs into a doctored version of Option (3) which we might call 3-prime.
3'. The Conciliar reforms are intrinsically disordered, so we must resist them; but obedience to the Roman Pontiff is law of the faith which trumps all others, so we must recognize him.
Option (3'), which is the only logical way of maintaining (3) while rejecting (2), simply begs the question on papal infallibility. It assumes that which needs to be proven, viz. that the Conciliar Popes are true popes, but doesn't prove it. Furthermore, it makes obedience to any putative pontiff into the sine qua non of Catholic identity (something even Archbishop Lefebvre himself never did). In fact, there is no way of maintaining (whether proven or unproven) that the Conciliar Popes are true popes without having (3) reduce to (2) or (1). But we've already rejected (2) and (1), so that leaves us with Option (4). The argument from papal infallibility, then, entails that Sedevacantism is correct.
At this point I would be willing to say that 'Recognize and Resist' is nothing but a word salad which doesn't express any coherent idea. This is not, of course, meant to insult, impugn, or damn anybody who holds that position, but hopefully to contrast it with the clarity of Sedevacantism.
-Man of the West
:applause:
-
Would you mind looking at and responding to this if you have a second.
Thanks! :)
(4th post down sir)
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29765&min=45&num=5
Hi [s2srea],
Thank you for bringing up this issue
MoTW- thank you for responding! :)
At the very least I am happy that while you are not consistent with your position (not a dig, just recognizing a fact), you are consistent with your clear, thoughtful, and thoroughly worded posts.
-
Man of the West- Very good! Now, how do we convince, if we can, those who are in the New Order and think they can change things from within, like Mike Voris?
-
Man of the West,
3C. A thought-stopping bromide. "Oh well, Christ promised that His Church would never fail, so it can't be that horrible."
At this point I would be willing to say that 'Recognize and Resist' is nothing but a word salad which doesn't express any coherent idea.
MotW,
You have done some critical thinking, that is certain.
I think that R&R is objectively as you have said, two opposing ideas cobbled together with the glue of perceived necessity, but one always pulling against the other trying to escape the contradiction that to hold the one by its own nature must deny the other.
And being that we speaking of a reality which the Church has never known. We have had popes who do not delve into one or two doctrinal aberrations but rather popes who have no longer believe that which is absolutely necessary for one to be Catholic and in the Church. A wholesale defection from almost all that is Catholic and a relentless abusing of the Church and the Faith of its members.
We know what kind of men these are, they are faithless destroyers and heretics. But we are terrified to think of saying that out loud mostly due to the issue raised in your 3C.
It appears that with such a man, when you raise your voice to say "I recognize you as the True Pope",
then whether you voice the consequence of that or not, you have also said at the same time in the subtext, "I recognize that the Church has defected"
What should be called objectively the recognize and recognize position.
I think that the resist element is actually resistance to facing the consequence of the first act of recognition which it seems in inescapable.( not recognition as such, but recognition under these particular and extreme circuмstances)
R&R has serious problems and the Sede position is surely more logical and a cleaner easier concept to understand, but that is not to say that it does not enjoy its own contradictions and dead ends.
There is no logical way around this situation now. Something needed to be done immediately after the Council but it was not. To quote Saint Francis DeSales:
"That which would have been easily remedied at first, becomes incurable by time and habit"
God Bless
-
....There is no logical way around this situation now. Something needed to be done immediately after the Council but it was not. To quote Saint Francis DeSales:
"That which would have been easily remedied at first, becomes incurable by time and habit"
God Bless
Some have given up the faith altogether whilst others have gone over to Evangelical Christianity where the theology is radical but/and the music is good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_00dOP-R0k
-
....There is no logical way around this situation now. Something needed to be done immediately after the Council but it was not. To quote Saint Francis DeSales:
"That which would have been easily remedied at first, becomes incurable by time and habit"
God Bless
Some have given up the faith altogether whilst others have gone over to Evangelical Christianity where the theology is radical but/and the music is good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_00dOP-R0k
And the folks are more well groomed.....
-
I forget what this thread was about, but to comment on its title "Sedevacantist Anxiety" I say that I have no anxiety. I feel very sure about my beliefs that Francis is an antipope and can demonstrate that this is the case using several arguments - none of which are sentimental.
On the other hand all I have ever seen from Francis'ers is emotional reasoning why he is the pope - despite everything. I feel very sure of myself on this matter. Thats all I want to say on this.
-
O but Soulguard How could the gates of hell prevail over the church????
Answer:
If the cardinals lost the faith and endorsed vatican 2, they were not of the church were they, because they did not have the faith. The church is composed only of those who hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.
1 loss of faith by hierarchy
2 hierarchy excommunicated for heresy
3 council - FALSE COUNCIL PURPORTING TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
4 spread of error
5 error adopted by laity
6 laity excommunicated for heresy
7 Traditional Catholics remain
Conclusion = The gates of hell did not prevail over the Catholic church because we are still here.
:smash-pc: