Sedes, are non-Sedes saved? (and vice versa)
#21
(11-19-2020, 08:21 PM)Some Guy Wrote: I think it's semi-reasonable that most people will not be held responsible for the confusion caused by the hierarchy as long as you are trying your darndest to be Catholic and virtuous and grow in the grace of God.

The difficulty is that it likely turns everyone into theologians. Theologians that make mistakes and miss nuances. At that point, obedience becomes similar to that found in protestantism, whereby, you submit to documents and call it the Church.
[-] The following 3 users Like Adventus's post:
  • antiquarian, Melkite, Some Guy
Reply
#22
(11-20-2020, 10:25 AM)Adventus Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 08:21 PM)Some Guy Wrote: I think it's semi-reasonable that most people will not be held responsible for the confusion caused by the hierarchy as long as you are trying your darndest to be Catholic and virtuous and grow in the grace of God.

The difficulty is that it likely turns everyone into theologians. Theologians that make mistakes and miss nuances. At that point, obedience becomes similar to that found in protestantism, whereby, you submit to documents and call it the Church.

BOOM
Reply
#23
(11-20-2020, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 09:50 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:47 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:32 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 03:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Come East!  These issues aren't really even on our radar.  Not because they're not important, but really, they're not THAT important.  Do the will of God, receive the sacraments, and be in communion with your bishop.  Leave the rest to the hierarchy.
You are referring to the Byzantine rite, correct?

Yes.
I see. I have considered it, to be honest, but in the end I believe that I want to be Latin. I do not want to serve or have served a Greek mass or a mass in any other language (not that there is anything wrong with that of course). I'd rather server or have served the Latin Mass, because of it's beauty, it's tradition and history, and it's glory. Your suggestion is still a possibility I will consider in the future, but in the case I am in now, I want to stay Latin. Thank you, however and nonetheless, for your help and suggestion. Deo Gratias, and God Bless you.

It's not good for most people to switch ritual churches.  I commend you for wanting to grow where you were planted.  However, the sedevacantist thesis is, ultimately, a schismatic one - materially, if not formally.  I would recommend you at least find somewhere in the Latin church where you are as free from exposure to it as we are in the East.
May I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that? 

If Sedevacantism is the truth, why would it be schismatic? Or, at least, if it is schismatic, why would that be a negative, as it seems like you may be implying (apologies if I am reading wrong). 

As well, what do you mean by "free from exposure"? Do you mean just find a Latin Church that is free from exposure of Popes like the SSPX? Or do you mean something else? Thank you for your help.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#24
(11-20-2020, 11:58 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 09:50 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:47 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:32 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 03:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Come East!  These issues aren't really even on our radar.  Not because they're not important, but really, they're not THAT important.  Do the will of God, receive the sacraments, and be in communion with your bishop.  Leave the rest to the hierarchy.
You are referring to the Byzantine rite, correct?

Yes.
I see. I have considered it, to be honest, but in the end I believe that I want to be Latin. I do not want to serve or have served a Greek mass or a mass in any other language (not that there is anything wrong with that of course). I'd rather server or have served the Latin Mass, because of it's beauty, it's tradition and history, and it's glory. Your suggestion is still a possibility I will consider in the future, but in the case I am in now, I want to stay Latin. Thank you, however and nonetheless, for your help and suggestion. Deo Gratias, and God Bless you.

It's not good for most people to switch ritual churches.  I commend you for wanting to grow where you were planted.  However, the sedevacantist thesis is, ultimately, a schismatic one - materially, if not formally.  I would recommend you at least find somewhere in the Latin church where you are as free from exposure to it as we are in the East.
May I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that? 

If Sedevacantism is the truth, why would it be schismatic? Or, at least, if it is schismatic, why would that be a negative, as it seems like you may be implying (apologies if I am reading wrong). 

As well, what do you mean by "free from exposure"? Do you mean just find a Latin Church that is free from exposure of Popes like the SSPX? Or do you mean something else? Thank you for your help.

As Adventus elaborated, it makes you into your own theologian.  One isn't able to trust the hierarchy, because they believe it, or at least its source, is invalid.  Thus, you become a de facto Protestant, where every man is his own pope.  It's schismatic because it proposes that the body that identifies itself, and is recognized around the world, as the Catholic Church is not in fact such, but some clandestine group is the true Church.  This is similar to the Mormon belief that a great apostasy happened, and the true Church was completely unrecognizable for 1800 years.  In order to adhere to sedevacantism, you have to separate yourself from the "official" Catholic Church, because you presumably belong to the "true" Catholic Church.  This is the reasoning of every schismatic group that has ever existed.  It is only in this sense that I mean it is a schismatic mentality.

By free from exposure, I simply mean not having to confront the issue on a regular basis.  If, for the sake of argument, it is true, it's a question to be answered by theologians and ruled on by the hierarchy, not by the laity.  Your job as a layperson is to work with your spiritual director to grow in holiness and to save your soul.  That should be your primary concern, and what you are confronted with in your parish life - that is, others doing the same.  If your parish does this well in its life, there's no reason the question of if the pope is really the pope should be in your mind, other than as an occasional awareness that there is an ongoing question about it.  It should not figure into how you are growing in holiness.  Your holiness is not determined by your knowledge of the validity of the current claimant's claim.
[-] The following 3 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Adventus, Memories_in_Rain, Some Guy
Reply
#25
@Melkite @Someguy

Even more to the point is there is no way to remedy the situation. You end up having Sedes separating from Sedes over words said in the liturgy or any number of things. There exists no real mechanism to fix it.

And it's not that the Church has only operated in a top-down arbitrary sort of way throughout history, whereby things didn't flow upward. Catholics have argued and objected to all sorts of things in history, but they always knew it required things to move their way upward in a more official manner (Council, Bull, etc.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Adventus's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
#26
(11-20-2020, 12:13 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 11:58 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 09:50 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:47 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:32 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 03:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Come East!  These issues aren't really even on our radar.  Not because they're not important, but really, they're not THAT important.  Do the will of God, receive the sacraments, and be in communion with your bishop.  Leave the rest to the hierarchy.
You are referring to the Byzantine rite, correct?

Yes.
I see. I have considered it, to be honest, but in the end I believe that I want to be Latin. I do not want to serve or have served a Greek mass or a mass in any other language (not that there is anything wrong with that of course). I'd rather server or have served the Latin Mass, because of it's beauty, it's tradition and history, and it's glory. Your suggestion is still a possibility I will consider in the future, but in the case I am in now, I want to stay Latin. Thank you, however and nonetheless, for your help and suggestion. Deo Gratias, and God Bless you.

It's not good for most people to switch ritual churches.  I commend you for wanting to grow where you were planted.  However, the sedevacantist thesis is, ultimately, a schismatic one - materially, if not formally.  I would recommend you at least find somewhere in the Latin church where you are as free from exposure to it as we are in the East.
May I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that? 

If Sedevacantism is the truth, why would it be schismatic? Or, at least, if it is schismatic, why would that be a negative, as it seems like you may be implying (apologies if I am reading wrong). 

As well, what do you mean by "free from exposure"? Do you mean just find a Latin Church that is free from exposure of Popes like the SSPX? Or do you mean something else? Thank you for your help.

As Adventus elaborated, it makes you into your own theologian.  One isn't able to trust the hierarchy, because they believe it, or at least its source, is invalid.  Thus, you become a de facto Protestant, where every man is his own pope.  It's schismatic because it proposes that the body that identifies itself, and is recognized around the world, as the Catholic Church is not in fact such, but some clandestine group is the true Church.  This is similar to the Mormon belief that a great apostasy happened, and the true Church was completely unrecognizable for 1800 years.  In order to adhere to sedevacantism, you have to separate yourself from the "official" Catholic Church, because you presumably belong to the "true" Catholic Church.  This is the reasoning of every schismatic group that has ever existed.  It is only in this sense that I mean it is a schismatic mentality.

By free from exposure, I simply mean not having to confront the issue on a regular basis.  If, for the sake of argument, it is true, it's a question to be answered by theologians and ruled on by the hierarchy, not by the laity.  Your job as a layperson is to work with your spiritual director to grow in holiness and to save your soul.  That should be your primary concern, and what you are confronted with in your parish life - that is, others doing the same.  If your parish does this well in its life, there's no reason the question of if the pope is really the pope should be in your mind, other than as an occasional awareness that there is an ongoing question about it.  It should not figure into how you are growing in holiness.  Your holiness is not determined by your knowledge of the validity of the current claimant's claim.
I thank you very much for your help. I am very grateful for your answers.
God Bless and Mary keep you.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
[-] The following 3 users Like Memories_in_Rain's post:
  • Adventus, Melkite, Some Guy
Reply
#27
(11-20-2020, 12:13 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 11:58 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 09:50 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:47 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 05:32 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(11-19-2020, 03:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Come East!  These issues aren't really even on our radar.  Not because they're not important, but really, they're not THAT important.  Do the will of God, receive the sacraments, and be in communion with your bishop.  Leave the rest to the hierarchy.
You are referring to the Byzantine rite, correct?

Yes.
I see. I have considered it, to be honest, but in the end I believe that I want to be Latin. I do not want to serve or have served a Greek mass or a mass in any other language (not that there is anything wrong with that of course). I'd rather server or have served the Latin Mass, because of it's beauty, it's tradition and history, and it's glory. Your suggestion is still a possibility I will consider in the future, but in the case I am in now, I want to stay Latin. Thank you, however and nonetheless, for your help and suggestion. Deo Gratias, and God Bless you.

It's not good for most people to switch ritual churches.  I commend you for wanting to grow where you were planted.  However, the sedevacantist thesis is, ultimately, a schismatic one - materially, if not formally.  I would recommend you at least find somewhere in the Latin church where you are as free from exposure to it as we are in the East.
May I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by that? 

If Sedevacantism is the truth, why would it be schismatic? Or, at least, if it is schismatic, why would that be a negative, as it seems like you may be implying (apologies if I am reading wrong). 

As well, what do you mean by "free from exposure"? Do you mean just find a Latin Church that is free from exposure of Popes like the SSPX? Or do you mean something else? Thank you for your help.

As Adventus elaborated, it makes you into your own theologian.  One isn't able to trust the hierarchy, because they believe it, or at least its source, is invalid.  Thus, you become a de facto Protestant, where every man is his own pope.  It's schismatic because it proposes that the body that identifies itself, and is recognized around the world, as the Catholic Church is not in fact such, but some clandestine group is the true Church.  This is similar to the Mormon belief that a great apostasy happened, and the true Church was completely unrecognizable for 1800 years.  In order to adhere to sedevacantism, you have to separate yourself from the "official" Catholic Church, because you presumably belong to the "true" Catholic Church.  This is the reasoning of every schismatic group that has ever existed.  It is only in this sense that I mean it is a schismatic mentality.

That is a misinterpretation and stereotype of the sedevacantist argument.

What you're describing is exactly what orders like the SSPX and those who adhere to the R&R mentality do, not sedevacantists. They sift through ecclesiastical documents, fact-checking the Pope at every turn, and have made themselves an auxiliary magisterium outside of the legitimate magisterium. When they determine that the Pope is wrong, then, well, they relieve themselves of obedience because they value their own interpretation of Catholic teaching above that of the legitimate pontiff. Don't like the new calendar? Well, follow the old one. Don't like the eucharistic fast? Now you only have to fast for 1 hour instead of 3 thanks to Paul VI. These groups are playing the Modernist game by creating themselves a place in the pantheon of ecumenical religions by adhering to the post-conciliar Church.

What you're describing kind of misses the mark when it comes to sedevacantism, as the reason why sedes are sedes is because they believe that the Roman Pontiff cannot promulgate error (not to say this means all of his teachings and words are infallible) and that the Church is indefectible. Accepting these pontiffs as legitimate says that the Church can teach error through her magisterium, which is impossible.

Sedevacantism does not pick and choose what documents they think are worthy of Catholic belief. They say that the current line of pontiffs since John XXIII are invalid because they were not Catholic to begin with due to public manifest heresy. And therefore adhere to all Catholic doctrines and dogmas promulgated prior to John XXIII, which is precisely what the R&R trads do, minus the act of trying to reconcile heretical teachings to tradition. It's not a position of Protestantism, it is a reaction to a heretical, apostate hierarchy. Cleaving yourself to them for the sake of the appearance of unity does nothing but undermine papal authority and aligns you with heretics and heretical teachings. And not only that, but it damages the traditional understanding of the papacy itself, which is precisely what these Modernist heretics want. I've seen this expressed elsewhere on this forum with the idea that somehow the understanding of the papacy changed in the mid-20th century. You're following false shepherds for the sake of a contrived unity rather than Catholic truth. This doesn't excuse the infighting or innovations of some sede sects, but it is the most Catholic option to reject all error and false leaders for the sake of preserving the faith.

When Nestorius preached that Mary was not the Theotokos, the congregation vocalized that he was a heretic and walked out; they didn't stick around just because he was "the bishop." Once someone becomes a public heretic, they are outside of the Church as soon the heretical act occurs. You do not have to wait around for a Council or official pronouncement to see that someone is a public heretic and not worthy of obedience. This is what all of you do when it comes to Francis and his predecessors, otherwise you should be at your local parishes accepting whatever innovations they implement.

The problem with sedevacantism as a position, is not the position itself, which is very clearly laid out. No, the problem are trads who misunderstand the basic tenets of the position and obfuscate it with whatever stereotypes and misunderstandings you hold.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 2 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • Bushum, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#28
(11-20-2020, 05:38 PM)Augustinian Wrote: That is a misinterpretation and stereotype of the sedevacantist argument.

What you're describing is exactly what orders like the SSPX and those who adhere to the R&R mentality do, not sedevacantists. They sift through ecclesiastical documents, fact-checking the Pope at every turn, and have made themselves an auxiliary magisterium outside of the legitimate magisterium. When they determine that the Pope is wrong, then, well, they relieve themselves of obedience because they value their own interpretation of Catholic teaching above that of the legitimate pontiff. Don't like the new calendar? Well, follow the old one. Don't like the eucharistic fast? Now you only have to fast for 1 hour instead of 3 thanks to Paul VI. These groups are playing the Modernist game by creating themselves a place in the pantheon of ecumenical religions by adhering to the post-conciliar Church.

What you're describing kind of misses the mark when it comes to sedevacantism, as the reason why sedes are sedes is because they believe that the Roman Pontiff cannot promulgate error (not to say this means all of his teachings and words are infallible) and that the Church is indefectible. Accepting these pontiffs as legitimate says that the Church can teach error through her magisterium, which is impossible.

Sedevacantism does not pick and choose what documents they think are worthy of Catholic belief. They say that the current line of pontiffs since John XXIII are invalid because they were not Catholic to begin with due to public manifest heresy.

So, who gives the Sedevacantist the authority to determine that the Pope is guilty of formal heresy and thus deprived of his office (a la St Robert Belarmine)?

Isn't that the same objection you're making about the "R&R crowd": Setting oneself up to judge what is erroneous and is not?

Seems like you've set up a distinction without a difference, except to the extent one goes in rejecting.

That said, I think you could be accused of what you Melkite of. I think you have also mischaracterized the "R&R" position in order that it seems the Sedevacantist one you wish to take is more reasonable and logical. You could be right, even if I do not think so, but the way of showing that is not to draw up a caricature of the "R&R" position as a straw man.

The "R&R" position is fundamentally based on the notion that it is impossible for the average person to judge the Pope or superiors guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of heresy (which would result in the loss of their office if they were guilty), and a second principle which is based on what to do in a situation of doubt when one must act, and so the so-called "reflex principles" applied to doctrine and moral actions.

It is rarely framed like that, but I think it makes the most logical sense rather than speaking of "state of emergency" or "state of necessity", etc.

It is not "sifting" to stay with the traditional doctrine when contradictory and seemingly erroneous statements are made, without judging the apparent Pope as lacking the office. If one has no standing to judge, if one accepts the Pope and is a faithful Catholic, he is put in a situation of doubt. In doubt, reflex principles say stick with the status quo and safer position until it can be sorted out. In the case of doctrine, that means hold the previous teaching until it becomes clear that the new should be rejected as truly erroneous, or accept it because it can be reconciled with the traditional one. Since the only one who can definitively teach is the Pope, and he's the problem (and isn't trying to show how to reconcile, or responding to dubia) that doubtful situation may last a very long time and over multiple apparent Popes.

In discipline, matters are easier. The legislator can change discipline with fairly wide berth. That does not means the effects are universally good, though, and perhaps keeping a harder discipline is more beneficial.

You mention discipline (1 hr versus 3 hrs fast), but seems to confuse it with doctrine. No "R&R" person I know says that 3 hrs obliges. The new law is not "resisted" even if it is, by its weakness, stupid and likely to prompt an irreligious spirit. It is a disciplinary law, and one must keep at least the present law to avoid the sin of disobedience and sacrilege. One ought to keep the former to avoid an irreligious spirit and as a good opportunity for penance.

I remember on this forum Fr Cekada railing on about how the SSPX bishops were not claiming jurisdiction, but were wearing garments (the mozetta) which claimed it, and in Rome! He had no reply when I pointed out to him that Paul VI changed the prelatial dress to remove the use of the mantelleta by bishops, and since the SSPX bishops thought Paul VI was pope and had the authority to do this, followed. That was not a matter of the Faith, and yet poor Father was looking for yet another way to rail against his old confreres for their hypocrisy or inconsistency or illogical position, much of which is manufactured.

I have no desire to make a huge anti-SV argument here, but I fear that the reason there is always a mess created is there is a habit in both camps to mischaracterize the other's positions in order to score points, and suggest that the solution is just so simple, when it is not simple at all, and that is exactly why people take multiple different positions to solve it.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus, jackson99, jovan66102, Some Guy
Reply
#29
(11-20-2020, 06:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I have no desire to make a huge anti-SV argument here, but I fear that the reason there is always a mess created is there is a habit in both camps to mischaracterize the other's positions in order to score points, and suggest that the solution is just so simple, when it is not simple at all, and that is exactly why people take multiple different positions to solve it.

I agree with that, and I don't particularly want to make a pro/anti-SV/SP debate either. It's tiring. I didn't mean to imply that the sede position was the de-facto, simple solution to the issue, as it cannot address just how the hierarchy is restored if all the bishops and cardinals are invalid. But I also cannot accept that we can simply dismiss who we proclaim is the legitimate Supreme Pontiff without causing violence to the understanding of the papacy itself.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#30
It'd be interesting if this is never actually resolved on paper, but is solved in practice when the 3 days of darkness ends and Peter and Paul appear to determine the new Pope, hence meeting the sede's expectations and simultaneously guiding everyone else who accepted the post-VII popes anyway to the same papal successor. And then we'd probs get the East back in full too. Ah those will be good times for our great grandchildren.
Ave Christus Rex!
[-] The following 2 users Like Some Guy's post:
  • Augustinian, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)