FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(02-06-2013, 10:43 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 09:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 09:00 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 02:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone
There is a crisis. No doubt about that. But the SSPX has declared that there is a state of Emergency within the Church.
That is false. There is no state of emergency. That is just a strawman argument in order to carry on with illicit dispensation of sacraments.
Again, there is a crisis. We would not be here if there weren't one.

Really? And yet you revere JP2, curious.

What about me? I tend to agree with CK, but far from revering JP2, I think he was one of the worst Popes in history, that it is entirely possible that a future Pope or Council in union with the Holy See will denounce him as an heretic, that canonising him would be a profound prudential error on the part of the Church and I was once admonished on this forum for referring to him as John Paul the Small.
What about you?
(02-07-2013, 12:07 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 11:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]So, as I read this, what it boils down to is that every time I say "crisis", what I really mean is "state of emergency", whereas when the people on the other side say "crisis", they mean "crisis."

I'm not sure I like to yield on the vocabulary.  Possibly it's because I wouldn't refer to it as a crisis if I didn't believe there was also a state of emergency-- without the SSPX, who, as it seems to me, use the terms pretty much interchangeably-- there's a good chance I would never have used either term.  And as INPEFESS commented in another thread, can a crisis really go on for this long, at this level of severity, without a state of emergency?  I don't see it.

Other point:  I don't believe I've ever explicitly complained about the forum being anti-SSPX, or more liberal, neo-con, etc.  What I did say, or at least what I meant, in the post quoted above, is that it saddens me that people don't think the SSPX is justified in what it's doing.  I hate to see these priests that I love and respect treated as little better than schismatics.  Again, if that makes me one of those who, in the minds of some, complain that the forum has become more liberal, fiat.

Words have meanings.  "Crisis" does not mean "we can do whatever we want, canon law be damned."

I'm well aware that words have meanings.  In case you're not aware of the fact, this post came off as rather condescending.  You recently commented that your only contact with those who attend SSPX Masses is through this forum, and it has not improved your view of them.  I would say that there are not that many people here from the other side who make me feel that much better about them, either.  This post, and posts that say things like "state of emergency is JUST a strawman argument to continue administering illicit sacraments," which seems to imply the bad faith of the entire SSPX, rather demonstrates what I mean.

Now, to address your actual point, the argument of the SSPX is more along the lines of "crisis [or, if you prefer, state of emergency] means we can do whatever we need to for the salvation of souls."  If we're going to talk about strawman arguments, let's at least recognize them when we see them.

If the argument were "canon law be damned," then there wouldn't be so many arguments that try to justify what the SSPX does via canon law.
Saying (as trads do) that the doctrines, disciplines and forms of worship officially promulgated by the post-Vatican hierarchy are contain error or are harmful necessarily leads debates back to the authority of the hierarchy that promulgated them, for the faith tells us that the Church cannot give error or evil.

Every judgement against the new doctrines, etc. is thus at least implicitly a judgement against the authority of those who promulgated them.

Inevitably, discussing these judgements leads back to the question of the pope — and it is only natural that sedevacantism figure in these discussions.

So, I guess you can count me as a belated "yes" vote.
(02-07-2013, 10:09 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 12:07 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 11:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]So, as I read this, what it boils down to is that every time I say "crisis", what I really mean is "state of emergency", whereas when the people on the other side say "crisis", they mean "crisis."

I'm not sure I like to yield on the vocabulary.  Possibly it's because I wouldn't refer to it as a crisis if I didn't believe there was also a state of emergency-- without the SSPX, who, as it seems to me, use the terms pretty much interchangeably-- there's a good chance I would never have used either term.  And as INPEFESS commented in another thread, can a crisis really go on for this long, at this level of severity, without a state of emergency?  I don't see it.

Other point:  I don't believe I've ever explicitly complained about the forum being anti-SSPX, or more liberal, neo-con, etc.  What I did say, or at least what I meant, in the post quoted above, is that it saddens me that people don't think the SSPX is justified in what it's doing.  I hate to see these priests that I love and respect treated as little better than schismatics.  Again, if that makes me one of those who, in the minds of some, complain that the forum has become more liberal, fiat.

Words have meanings.  "Crisis" does not mean "we can do whatever we want, canon law be damned."

I'm well aware that words have meanings.  In case you're not aware of the fact, this post came off as rather condescending.  You recently commented that your only contact with those who attend SSPX Masses is through this forum, and it has not improved your view of them.  I would say that there are not that many people here from the other side who make me feel that much better about them, either.  This post, and posts that say things like "state of emergency is JUST a strawman argument to continue administering illicit sacraments," which seems to imply the bad faith of the entire SSPX, rather demonstrates what I mean.

Now, to address your actual point, the argument of the SSPX is more along the lines of "crisis [or, if you prefer, state of emergency] means we can do whatever we need to for the salvation of souls."  If we're going to talk about strawman arguments, let's at least recognize them when we see them.

If the argument were "canon law be damned," then there wouldn't be so many arguments that try to justify what the SSPX does via canon law.

But that's the thing: the "state of emergency" arguments are novel, non-traditional and have no basis in canon law.  The only reason they stand as they do now is that the Vatican doesn't like to make waves.

Acknowledging that the Church is in crisis is in no way necessarily connected to believing in a theoretical, mystical "state of emergency" that gives carte blanche to suspended priests to act with universal jurisdiction.
(02-07-2013, 03:21 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 10:09 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 12:07 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 11:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]So, as I read this, what it boils down to is that every time I say "crisis", what I really mean is "state of emergency", whereas when the people on the other side say "crisis", they mean "crisis."

I'm not sure I like to yield on the vocabulary.  Possibly it's because I wouldn't refer to it as a crisis if I didn't believe there was also a state of emergency-- without the SSPX, who, as it seems to me, use the terms pretty much interchangeably-- there's a good chance I would never have used either term.  And as INPEFESS commented in another thread, can a crisis really go on for this long, at this level of severity, without a state of emergency?  I don't see it.

Other point:  I don't believe I've ever explicitly complained about the forum being anti-SSPX, or more liberal, neo-con, etc.  What I did say, or at least what I meant, in the post quoted above, is that it saddens me that people don't think the SSPX is justified in what it's doing.  I hate to see these priests that I love and respect treated as little better than schismatics.  Again, if that makes me one of those who, in the minds of some, complain that the forum has become more liberal, fiat.

Words have meanings.  "Crisis" does not mean "we can do whatever we want, canon law be damned."

I'm well aware that words have meanings.  In case you're not aware of the fact, this post came off as rather condescending.  You recently commented that your only contact with those who attend SSPX Masses is through this forum, and it has not improved your view of them.  I would say that there are not that many people here from the other side who make me feel that much better about them, either.  This post, and posts that say things like "state of emergency is JUST a strawman argument to continue administering illicit sacraments," which seems to imply the bad faith of the entire SSPX, rather demonstrates what I mean.

Now, to address your actual point, the argument of the SSPX is more along the lines of "crisis [or, if you prefer, state of emergency] means we can do whatever we need to for the salvation of souls."  If we're going to talk about strawman arguments, let's at least recognize them when we see them.

If the argument were "canon law be damned," then there wouldn't be so many arguments that try to justify what the SSPX does via canon law.

But that's the thing: the "state of emergency" arguments are novel, non-traditional and have no basis in canon law.  The only reason they stand as they do now is that the Vatican doesn't like to make waves.

Acknowledging that the Church is in crisis is in no way necessarily connected to believing in a theoretical, mystical "state of emergency" that gives carte blanche to suspended priests to act with universal jurisdiction.

Indeed, clearly, those stupid SSPX priests Eye-roll
(02-07-2013, 03:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, clearly, those stupid SSPX priests Eye-roll

Not what I said.  But their arguments are not very compelling to those looking in from the outside (i.e., most orthodox Catholics).
(02-07-2013, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 03:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, clearly, those stupid SSPX priests Eye-roll

Not what I said.  But their arguments are not very compelling to those looking in from the outside (i.e., most orthodox Catholics).

Perhaps but that is no doubt to ignorance or wilful blindness. They are based on very basic principles of moral theology.
(02-07-2013, 03:56 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2013, 03:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, clearly, those stupid SSPX priests Eye-roll

Not what I said.  But their arguments are not very compelling to those looking in from the outside (i.e., most orthodox Catholics).

Perhaps but that is no doubt to ignorance or wilful blindness. They are based on very basic principles of moral theology.

All non-SSPX priests and laity are ignorant or willfully blind to the truth.  Got it.
(02-07-2013, 03:21 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 11:07 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]If the argument were "canon law be damned," then there wouldn't be so many arguments that try to justify what the SSPX does via canon law.

But that's the thing: the "state of emergency" arguments are novel, non-traditional and have no basis in canon law.  The only reason they stand as they do now is that the Vatican doesn't like to make waves.

If by "stand," you mean "are not explicitly condemned by the Vatican," I'll agree with you.  However, your first sentence I can't agree with.  If they had NO basis in canon law, there would be no need to refer to it whatsoever.  Unless my memory fails me, canon law explicitly provides for the idea of a "state of emergency."  One can argue that what we have today is a purely "theoretical, mystical state of emergency," but one can't claim that it's unforeseen by the Church, and thus must always be purely "theoretical and mystical."

I'll agree that in some measure, the "state of emergency" arguments are novel.  I would even agree that they are "non-traditional," insofar as they force us to go against the usual way of doing things.  They are not, however, non-traditional, in the sense of giving primary importance to the Faith.

Let me say this.  If there were a group that were regularized in the Church screaming nearly as loud as the SSPX does for the authorities in the Church to teach the Faith, and not whatever's been made up since V2, then I would steer clear of the SSPX.  Their argument that they can't do that within the structures would be void.  As it is, all the evidence seems to be on their side.

Does Rome listen to the FSSP?  Does Rome listen to the ICK?  They barely listen to the SSPX:  "OK, we had doctrinal discussions.  Now make a deal."  "Uh, but, we didn't settle anything."  "What?"

Quote:Acknowledging that the Church is in crisis is in no way necessarily connected to believing in a theoretical, mystical "state of emergency" that gives carte blanche to suspended priests to act with universal jurisdiction.

K.  So now every time I want to talk about a situation so bad that I literally can't understand how modern Rome can square it's teaching with the Rome of 100 years ago, I can't use the six-letter word "crisis," even though for me personally,  it does constitute a crisis of conscience.  Instead, I have to type out the 18-character "state of emergency" every time.  That's fine.  I can cope.  I don't think it's particularly reasonable, but I can cope.

(02-07-2013, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Not what I said.  But their arguments are not very compelling to those looking in from the outside (i.e., most orthodox Catholics).

There are days that I don't even find them very compelling.  I do, however, find them far more compelling than the idea that the pope and other high-ranking churchmen haven't reneged on the teachings of Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, and on back.
They will never, ever say it, but by the things the Society alludes to seems as if they believe they are always right when it comes to Church teaching, which in turn alludes to them believing that they are the Magisterium and not the Holy See.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35