FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(04-09-2021, 03:27 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: [ -> ](SeekerofChrist, this is in response to your last post. I'm having a hell of a time trying to reply to the post)

I just want you to know that wasn't me trying to attack you or anyone.

I was just trying to make the point that the holy order issue is more complicated that some make it out to be.

I didn't take it as an attack.  I'm still fairly new to the sedeprivationist position and haven't really worked out all the details on many issues.  Sedes of all stripes have a tendency, at least among our prominent figures, to also hold to positions that I do not (e.g. the invalidity of NO holy orders).  I'm also quite sure that I'm one of the few sedes that will receive sacraments from NO clergy on a regular basis.  How, then, to describe my position on the present crisis in a concise (i.e. two or three words) manner?  I don't know.
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
BINGO! The exact reason I refuse to doubt the validity of NO Orders. Would God allow us to worship bread?
(04-09-2021, 04:39 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
BINGO! The exact reason I refuse to doubt the validity of NO Orders. Would God allow us to worship bread?

I mean, He allowed Anglicans to do so for hundreds of years before Leo XIII said Anglican orders were invalid. One could argue that given the extremes of the current hierarchy in their heterodoxy and error, one would have to be blind not to see they aren't the Church.
(04-09-2021, 04:41 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:39 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
BINGO! The exact reason I refuse to doubt the validity of NO Orders. Would God allow us to worship bread?

I mean, He allowed Anglicans to do so for hundreds of years before Leo XIII said Anglican orders were invalid.

Yeah, but those were openly (and proud) schismatics.  They recognized the bishop of Rome was the pope but rejected his authority over them.  With the issue of NO holy orders, we're talking about Catholics who desire to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church, in communion with the man they're certain is the Holy Father.  I don't think these are the same situations.  As I've said before, are God's faithful treated no differently than pagans, heretics, and the wayward Jews?  That He would leave the vast majority without access to the sacraments AND the lack of knowledge they are in that situation?
(04-09-2021, 04:46 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:41 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:39 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
BINGO! The exact reason I refuse to doubt the validity of NO Orders. Would God allow us to worship bread?

I mean, He allowed Anglicans to do so for hundreds of years before Leo XIII said Anglican orders were invalid.

Yeah, but those were openly (and proud) schismatics.  They recognized the bishop of Rome was the pope but rejected his authority over them.  With the issue of NO holy orders, we're talking about Catholics who desire to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church, in communion with the man they're certain is the Holy Father.  I don't think these are the same situations.  As I've said before, are God's faithful treated no differently than pagans, heretics, and the wayward Jews?  That He would leave the vast majority without access to the sacraments AND the lack of knowledge they are in that situation?

I mention Anglicans specifically because those who deny NO holy orders draw their arguments from those proposed against Anglican orders in the 19th century. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe it, but we have to remember that God can and does allow many people to fall into error.
(04-09-2021, 04:41 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
I mean, He allowed Anglicans to do so for hundreds of years before Leo XIII said Anglican orders were invalid.

Until shortly before he declared Anglican orders invalid, no Anglican ever thought of worshipping the bread of their Communion service. In fact, it was the growth of the Anglo-Catholic movement that taught such 'Romish' doctrines that lead directly to the Bull Apostolicae curae.

From the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith of the Church of England (my emphasis):

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

    THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
    Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
    The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
    The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
(04-09-2021, 04:41 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:39 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
BINGO! The exact reason I refuse to doubt the validity of NO Orders. Would God allow us to worship bread?

I mean, He allowed Anglicans to do so for hundreds of years before Leo XIII said Anglican orders were invalid.
I would guess it was rather well known in England at the time that the Anglican bishops refused to submit to the Pope. Although they were perhaps unable to realise their clergy had invalid orders, at least they were (more or less) able to notice that their clergy had committed schism.
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:21 PM)Bataar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a borderline sedevacantist. I used to believe that the VII popes were not valid popes, but I stopped there. I'd still attend an FSSP Mass or any other TLM, but I have recently been exposed to the argument that NO bishops are not valid due to the new rite of consecration started by Paul VI. How can this be debunked? I've talked to other people about it including a director at the FSSP seminary who essentially told me that the sacramental form is irrelevant and the only thing that matters when consecrating a bishop is the laying on of hands.

If anyone can provide an argument against this, I'd appreciate it:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...ruBps1.pdf

While I am a sedeprivationist, I usually refer to myself as a "moderate one."  I do not reject the validity of NO holy orders.  While I cannot rebut the specific points in Fr. Cekada's argument, I offer three reasons for my acceptance:

1. There are very convincing Eucharistic miracles at several NO Masses.

2. NO priests are able to successfully perform the rite of exorcism.

3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
Number 3 is where I'm kind of at too. 1 and 2 could be determined to be the work of the devil trying to keep people in a false church. If only members of the Catholic church go to heaven and the Vatican II church is not the true church as some sedevacantists claim, it would make sense for the devil to do false signs and wonders to keep people there. Even the Bible says the Devil will do false signs and wonders to deceive even the elect.

But 3 is where I struggle too.
When I was sedevacantist, I talked to Gerry Matatics (a home aloner) on the phone for several hours.  One of his arguments was a comparison of the Novus Ordo church to the Anglican Church after the break with Rome.  He stressed the near unanimity of the bishops in their defection and compared sedevacantists to the recusants, tiny in number.

One of the things that helped bring me back was the book by Michael Davies, I Am with You Always: The Divine Constitution and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church.
(04-09-2021, 04:58 PM)Bataar Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:27 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 01:21 PM)Bataar Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a borderline sedevacantist. I used to believe that the VII popes were not valid popes, but I stopped there. I'd still attend an FSSP Mass or any other TLM, but I have recently been exposed to the argument that NO bishops are not valid due to the new rite of consecration started by Paul VI. How can this be debunked? I've talked to other people about it including a director at the FSSP seminary who essentially told me that the sacramental form is irrelevant and the only thing that matters when consecrating a bishop is the laying on of hands.

If anyone can provide an argument against this, I'd appreciate it:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...ruBps1.pdf

While I am a sedeprivationist, I usually refer to myself as a "moderate one."  I do not reject the validity of NO holy orders.  While I cannot rebut the specific points in Fr. Cekada's argument, I offer three reasons for my acceptance:

1. There are very convincing Eucharistic miracles at several NO Masses.

2. NO priests are able to successfully perform the rite of exorcism.

3. I do not believe God would be so unmerciful as to allow over one billion Catholics, many of them traditionalists, to receive fake sacraments from fake priests.
Number 3 is where I'm kind of at too. 1 and 2 could be determined to be the work of the devil trying to keep people in a false church. If only members of the Catholic church go to heaven and the Vatican II church is not the true church as some sedevacantists claim, it would make sense for the devil to do false signs and wonders to keep people there. Even the Bible says the Devil will do false signs and wonders to deceive even the elect.

But 3 is where I struggle too.

1. I'm skeptical that the Devil could imitate a Eucharistic miracle.  He can do false signs and wonders but this requires him to fake the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Does the Devil really have that kind of power?  To not only claim to be God but to appear as God on the altar?
 
2.  Well, the Jews accused Our Lord of using the Devil to cast out demons.  His response is worth considering here: "...Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand" (Matthew 12:25-26)?