Sedes, are non-Sedes saved? (and vice versa)
#31
I don't think its possible to know. We can't really even be sure our own salvation until our lives are at an end. I think the main thing is for us to have a sincere intent to live, do and believe as Christ intends.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
[-] The following 3 users Like JacafamalaRedux's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, Melkite
Reply
#32
(11-20-2020, 06:42 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(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.

I'd also agree here. The "R&R" position does do violence to the understanding of the Papacy, but I would argue that is to the understanding of the Papacy as it came out of Vatican I followed by a series of good, orthodox, and generally saintly men as Popes. It was this understanding that the Modernists used to hijack it under John XXIII and Paul VI who effectively facilitated them, and thus it seemed to come from the Pope, and must be followed.

People learned to rely on the Pope as moral and doctrinal leader in all things, and saw him as more impeccable and infallible in matter than what Vatican I ever intended to suggest. From this even the theology textbooks tended to ascribe a degree of submission to everything the Pope did or said that is contrary to what has been the Catholic sense throughout history.

In the face of this, I would say that the SV hypothesis tends to want to preserve this in order to not "cause violence to [this] understanding of the papacy" just as much as the conservative Catholic position wants to do so. The SV hypothesis falls on the side of rejecting the Pope to prevent the changes and protect infallibility. The conservative Catholic position exposes infallibility to attack, to accept the changes as infallible and not reject the Pope.

The "R&R" position sees this understanding as problematic and tries to thread the middle position to accept the Pope, preserve infallibility in its principle by reducing its scope, and thus rejecting or at least calling into doubt the changes.

I appreciate that all three positions have their weaknesses, strengths and flaws. That we have to take any is the fault of the Crisis. We should, however, recognize the weaknesses and flaws of our own positions and the strength of the others, however. I'm glad you recognize that the hierarchy restoration is a bit of a flaw. I think a fatal one, but if it turns out there is some miraculous restoration, and I'm wrong, then I'm happy to admit it and stand corrected.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, Some Guy
Reply
#33
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. 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.

I just wrote this whole reply, then my computer timed out :(

In short, I don't see sedevacantists as having any magisterium to turn to to support their position. It's no different to base a position on the magisterium as it stood in 1958 than it is to base one on it from the 800s, as the Orthodox do. And because of this, I don't get why sedevacantists, who feel they have the authority to reject Catholicism after a certain point, don't keep going further into the past and just become Orthodox. Or Western Orthodox if they are particularly drawn to western liturgy and spirituality. The Orthodox make the same kind of arguments against the papacy as sedevacantists. Why stop there? If one has problems with the papacy, there are plenty of reasons one can come up with to question its validity going back much further than V2.

I don't know if the sedevacantist thesis is accurate or not. In some ways, I can see it as plausible. But I don't see how anyone within the SV groups have the authority to make that determination. I don't see how a faithful Catholic can have any other position than agnosticism on the question. Because it will require a conciliar decision to determine that the papacy had, in fact, been vacant since whichever year, and as the remaining bishops who were ordained prior to Vatican 2 die off, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that there will be a valid hierarchy to make such a determination, if in fact the SVs are right. If that were to happen, then it would mean the papacy itself could be completely lost, which, imo, does greater damage to the indefectibility of the Church than a heretical pope also being the valid pope. I could not intellectually become a SV without it logically necessitating going to Orthodoxy.
[-] The following 4 users Like Melkite's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, PilgrimMichelangelo, Some Guy
Reply
#34
(11-20-2020, 07:05 PM)Some Guy Wrote: 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.

I really hope this is the solution, despite the means of attaining it being very grave. Because trying to identify just where to stand on the Church right now is a living hell.
"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:
  • Melkite, Some Guy
Reply
#35
(11-20-2020, 07:57 PM)Melkite Wrote: I just wrote this whole reply, then my computer timed out :(

In short, I don't see sedevacantists as having any magisterium to turn to to support their position.  It's no different to base a position on the magisterium as it stood in 1958 than it is to base one on it from the 800s, as the Orthodox do.  And because of this, I don't get why sedevacantists, who feel they have the authority to reject Catholicism after a certain point, don't keep going further into the past and just become Orthodox.  Or Western Orthodox if they are particularly drawn to western liturgy and spirituality.  The Orthodox make the same kind of arguments against the papacy as sedevacantists.  Why stop there?  If one has problems with the papacy, there are plenty of reasons one can come up with to question its validity going back much further than V2.

I don't know if the sedevacantist thesis is accurate or not.  In some ways, I can see it as plausible.  But I don't see how anyone within the SV groups have the authority to make that determination.  I don't see how a faithful Catholic can have any other position than agnosticism on the question.  Because it will require a conciliar decision to determine that the papacy had, in fact, been vacant since whichever year, and as the remaining bishops who were ordained prior to Vatican 2 die off, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that there will be a valid hierarchy to make such a determination, if in fact the SVs are right.  If that were to happen, then it would mean the papacy itself could be completely lost, which, imo, does greater damage to the indefectibility of the Church than a heretical pope also being the valid pope.  I could not intellectually become a SV without it logically necessitating going to Orthodoxy.

I can't say I disagree with your logic here, as I have myself stated in the past that "traditional Catholicism," as it stands in the R&R and Sede positions, already is acting as a sort of "Western Orthodoxy", functionally. If you're a sede, then there's no personified unity in the Church hierarchy right now under a legitimate Pope; and if you're aligned with SSPX and other R&R, then there is a unity but only primacy can be given to the Pope because he is a heretic, or at minimum, in serious error, and cannot be given the full assent of faith.

Either way, one would seem to be conceding to the Orthodox stance on the papacy in order to deal with this situation.

[Image: K4owcTM.gif]
"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:
  • Melkite, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#36
Fr cekada rejected the 55 holy week reforms as dangerous to the faith. Sedes sift.
Reply
#37
(11-21-2020, 12:03 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote: Fr cekada rejected the 55 holy week reforms as dangerous to the faith. Sedes sift.

So then is safe to say that "Recognize & Resist" is really just a stepping stone to Sedevacantism?

Sedes sifting is no different than R&Rs sifting on Francis's teaching.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#38
I find it hard to believe God would damn a large number of pious Catholics for not comparing Vatican II with the Syllabus of Errors and familiarizing themselves with some obscure, usually decontextualized, and ostensibly heretical writings of several popes.

I feel bad for all the pious grandmothers who received invalid sacraments in the early 1980s because they didn't have the internet to learn about sedevacantism  and assumed the St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church down the street was actually Catholic.  Maybe if they were of good will God would have provided them with a link to MHFMs explanation of why the Pauline rites are invalid.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MacPasquale's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#39
(11-21-2020, 01:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(11-21-2020, 12:03 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote: Fr cekada rejected the 55 holy week reforms as dangerous to the faith. Sedes sift.

So then is safe to say that "Recognize & Resist" is really just a stepping stone to Sedevacantism?

Sedes sifting is no different than R&Rs sifting on Francis's teaching.
The difference is that Fr Cekada criticized resisting a pope even though he did it himself.
Reply
#40
Fun facts:

JXXIII rejected the 55 reforms and he celebrated Holy Week as it was before the Bugnini reforms.

Clearly BXVI rejected the Bugnini reforms as well. Going all the way back to 55. After freeing the proper form of the Roman Rite, when he was taking a Holy Week retreat with the FSSP, upon arrival he asked for the master of ceremonies. He asked him what Holy Week they’d be celebrating. The MC said “62 of course!” BXVI replied “Why?” Clearly the writer of the law intended to take Holy Week all the way back to before Bugnini starting messing with stuff. And now all Roman priests are allowed to celebrate the pre-55 Holy Week.
Ave Christus Rex!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Some Guy's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)