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, 04:49 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't dispute that.  What I question is whether God's mercy would not extend to the preservation of holy orders, for the sake of his faithful.  He would have spared the wicked and evil city of Sodom if only a handful of righteous could be found in it.  He would have given continued physical life to the wicked men of that city so that His righteous few would continue to live, yet if Fr. Cekada and others are right, the faithful Catholics of the FSSP, at diocesan TLMs, etc., have lost the sacraments that extend to us the most potent graces for eternal life.
(04-09-2021, 05:10 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]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.

That doesn't really sound like anything that I accept to be true about this crisis.  I've read some of Fr. Cekada's critiques of the "home aloners."  Interesting bunch.

Quote: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.

I haven't read a lot of Michael Davies.  I have given some consideration to reading "True or False Pope" by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
(04-09-2021, 05:18 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:49 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't dispute that.  What I question is whether God's mercy would not extend to the preservation of holy orders, for the sake of his faithful.  He would have spared the wicked and evil city of Sodom if only a handful of righteous could be found in it.  He would have given continued physical life to the wicked men of that city so that His righteous few would continue to live, yet if Fr. Cekada and others are right, the faithful Catholics of the FSSP, at diocesan TLMs, etc., have lost the sacraments that extend to us the most potent graces for eternal life.

One way of looking at NO holy orders is the same as those of the Orthodox. While their orders and sacraments are valid, this doesn't mean they are the Catholic Church or possess the Catholic Faith. So, in this scenario, while those faithful Catholics receiving NO sacraments are receiving the necessary graces, it does not make the St. John Paul II Catholic Center down the street a part of the Catholic Church.
Slight deviation from the current thread, think Vox could make a separate category under 'church' for 'controversial'? This way can keep the sede talks contained, but also organized, able to have different threads then based on the topic (mostly looking at this one, already over 400 entries long). Can also be the location for cotraversial discussions of say progressive pushes, or stuff that is questionable (marrian apparitions or other apparitions that are in question).
(04-09-2021, 05:24 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:10 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]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.

That doesn't really sound like anything that I accept to be true about this crisis.  I've read some of Fr. Cekada's critiques of the "home aloners."  Interesting bunch.

Quote: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.

I haven't read a lot of Michael Davies.  I have given some consideration to reading "True or False Pope" by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
Heads up on "True or False Pope":

While they do address some real problems with sedevacantism that really weren't being addressed elsewhere, they do so in a very uncharitable way.  Some of the rhetoric is reminiscent of 19th century anti-Catholic, Anglican  polemic works.  Read it, some of what they have to say has substance, just ignore the additude.
(04-09-2021, 05:27 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:18 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:49 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't dispute that.  What I question is whether God's mercy would not extend to the preservation of holy orders, for the sake of his faithful.  He would have spared the wicked and evil city of Sodom if only a handful of righteous could be found in it.  He would have given continued physical life to the wicked men of that city so that His righteous few would continue to live, yet if Fr. Cekada and others are right, the faithful Catholics of the FSSP, at diocesan TLMs, etc., have lost the sacraments that extend to us the most potent graces for eternal life.

One way of looking at NO holy orders is the same as those of the Orthodox. While their orders and sacraments are valid, this doesn't mean they are the Catholic Church or possess the Catholic Faith. So, in this scenario, while those faithful Catholics receiving NO sacraments are receiving the necessary graces, it does not make the St. John Paul II Catholic Center down the street a part of the Catholic Church.

This is more or less how I view the issue at the moment, with some qualifications.  As Bishop Sanborn has pointed out, while we can tell the liberal Novus Ordo is a new religion and should avoid it, it has not been formally declared so.  The NO Catholics are still legally part of the Catholic Church and there are few sedevacantist clergy who require recent "converts" from the NO to make an abjuration of error and be received into the Catholic Church.  In fact, for the most part, there doesn't appear to be a conversion process for NO Catholics who become sedevacantists.  They accept sedevacantism as an explanation and seek out a chapel to attend.
(04-09-2021, 05:37 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:24 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:10 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]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.

That doesn't really sound like anything that I accept to be true about this crisis.  I've read some of Fr. Cekada's critiques of the "home aloners."  Interesting bunch.

Quote: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.

I haven't read a lot of Michael Davies.  I have given some consideration to reading "True or False Pope" by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
Heads up on "True or False Pope":

While they do address some real problems with sedevacantism that really weren't being addressed elsewhere, they do so in a very uncharitable way.  Some of the rhetoric is reminiscent of 19th century anti-Catholic, Anglican  polemic works.  Read it, some of what they have to say has substance, just ignore the additude.

Honestly, it doesn't sound promising.  I suppose they wrote it for those already convinced of their position.  Oh well.
(04-09-2021, 05:38 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:27 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:18 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:49 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't dispute that.  What I question is whether God's mercy would not extend to the preservation of holy orders, for the sake of his faithful.  He would have spared the wicked and evil city of Sodom if only a handful of righteous could be found in it.  He would have given continued physical life to the wicked men of that city so that His righteous few would continue to live, yet if Fr. Cekada and others are right, the faithful Catholics of the FSSP, at diocesan TLMs, etc., have lost the sacraments that extend to us the most potent graces for eternal life.

One way of looking at NO holy orders is the same as those of the Orthodox. While their orders and sacraments are valid, this doesn't mean they are the Catholic Church or possess the Catholic Faith. So, in this scenario, while those faithful Catholics receiving NO sacraments are receiving the necessary graces, it does not make the St. John Paul II Catholic Center down the street a part of the Catholic Church.

This is more or less how I view the issue at the moment, with some qualifications.  As Bishop Sanborn has pointed out, while we can tell the liberal Novus Ordo is a new religion and should avoid it, it has not been formally declared so.  The NO Catholics are still legally part of the Catholic Church and there are few sedevacantist clergy who require recent "converts" from the NO to make an abjuration of error and be received into the Catholic Church.  In fact, for the most part, there doesn't appear to be a conversion process for NO Catholics who become sedevacantists.  They accept sedevacantism as an explanation and seek out a chapel to attend.

That's true. The most I've heard of the matter is Fr. Jenkins mention the possibility of a conditional confirmation given that the NO sacrament is doubtful, but nothing really beyond that except confession.
(04-09-2021, 05:41 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:38 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:27 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 05:18 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2021, 04:49 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't dispute that.  What I question is whether God's mercy would not extend to the preservation of holy orders, for the sake of his faithful.  He would have spared the wicked and evil city of Sodom if only a handful of righteous could be found in it.  He would have given continued physical life to the wicked men of that city so that His righteous few would continue to live, yet if Fr. Cekada and others are right, the faithful Catholics of the FSSP, at diocesan TLMs, etc., have lost the sacraments that extend to us the most potent graces for eternal life.

One way of looking at NO holy orders is the same as those of the Orthodox. While their orders and sacraments are valid, this doesn't mean they are the Catholic Church or possess the Catholic Faith. So, in this scenario, while those faithful Catholics receiving NO sacraments are receiving the necessary graces, it does not make the St. John Paul II Catholic Center down the street a part of the Catholic Church.

This is more or less how I view the issue at the moment, with some qualifications.  As Bishop Sanborn has pointed out, while we can tell the liberal Novus Ordo is a new religion and should avoid it, it has not been formally declared so.  The NO Catholics are still legally part of the Catholic Church and there are few sedevacantist clergy who require recent "converts" from the NO to make an abjuration of error and be received into the Catholic Church.  In fact, for the most part, there doesn't appear to be a conversion process for NO Catholics who become sedevacantists.  They accept sedevacantism as an explanation and seek out a chapel to attend.

That's true. The most I've heard of the matter is Fr. Jenkins mention the possibility of a conditional confirmation given that the NO sacrament is doubtful, but nothing really beyond that except confession.

That's the only thing I am aware of: a general confession before receiving Holy Communion and, at some point, a conditional confirmation.
(04-09-2021, 04:58 PM)Bataar Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Yes, the devil would want to do that, but God doesn't let him do what he wants, especially in such matters. Note the rarity and silliness of such false signs.
(04-09-2021, 05:10 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]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.
I think that's a weak argument. How is it that the sedevacantists didn't show up (at least publicly) before several years after the "defection"? Compare this to the Catholic martyrs under Henry VIII (from https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05474a.htm):
Quote:Cardinal: John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 22 June, 1535.
Lord Chancellor: Sir Thomas More, 6 July, 1535.
Carthusians: John Houghton, Robert Lawrence, Augustine Webster, 4 May, 1535; Humphrey Middlemore, William Exmew, Sebastian Newdigate, 19 June, 1535; John Rochester, James Walworth, 11 May, 1537; Thomas Johnson, William Greenwood, John Davye, Robert Salt, Walter Pierson, Thomas Green, Thomas Scryven, Thomas Redyng, Richard Bere, June-September, 1537; Robert Horne, 4 August, 1540.
Benedictines: Richard Whiting, Hugh Farringdon, abbots, 15 November, 1539; Thomas Marshall (or John Beche), 1 December, 1539; John Thorne, Richard James, William Eynon, John Rugg, 15 Nov., 1539.
Doctors of Divinity: Thomas Abel, Edward Powell, Richard Fetherstone, 30 July, 1540.
Other secular priests: John Haile, 4 May 1535; John Larke, 7 March, 1544.
Other religious orders: Richard Reynold, Brigittine (4 May, 1535); John Stone, O.S.A., 12 May, 1538; John Forrest, O.S.F., 22 May, 1538.
Laymen and women: Adrian Fortescue, Knight of St. John, 9 July, 1539; Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, 28 May, 1541; German Gardiner, 7 March, 1544.
That's a fair amount of martyrs for a population of less than 4 million (compared to the entire Catholic Church in the 1950s, with more than 400 million members).