If not Sedevacantism, What?
#1
Hi again everyone. 

First I want to thank you all so much for all your objections to Sedevacantism. I am starting to enter exam season so I am busy with my studies, but I will be sure to read them all in depth when I have the free time, to list them all down, and to really ponder over them. I thank you all again.

This is a Traditional Catholic Forum, and based on the comments of many and the conversations I have had with many here, I feel like we all agree on some fundamental basics. I will list them down. If there are any of these basics that you don’t agree with, please tell me!

- Vatican II contains error, and should be abolished.
- The Novus Ordo Mass is a lesser form of worship compared to the Tridentine Mass, possibly non-Catholic in its intention and direction, and should be abolished.
- The post-conciliar Popes have committed many heresies and public acts which ridicule God (1986 Assisi events, Pachamama), and these Popes have neither publicly, nor privately as far as we know, repented of these actions and heresies. 
- The post-conciliar church does not have much, in its teaching and declarations, continuity with the pre-1958 Church. 

Now, if we agree on these six matters, especially the first two, then what is the right approach we should take to the crisis in the Church and why? 

There are really only three traditional approaches I can understand: 

Indult - Such as the FSSP and ICKSP
Lefebvrist - The SSPX and the RSSPX (?)
Sedevacantist - Such as the CMRI and the RCI (before anyone brings up the SSPV, I know they are wrong, I don’t support them)

Thanks again everyone for your help.

Sincerely,

Noah
“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
#2
The FSSP and the ICRSS are not "indult."  The indult was ended by Summorum Pontificum.

I used to attend an SSPX chapel, but now I favor the approach of FSSP and ICRSS  I think one should accept the Magisterium of the Church to the greatest extent possible, giving religious submission of intellect and will, and only refusing assent for the gravest possible reasons (e.g., footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia).
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
[-] The following 3 users Like Clare Brigid's post:
  • CaptCrunch73, ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, MacPasquale
Reply
#3
(05-07-2021, 04:30 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: - Vatican II contains error, and should be abolished.

If it's a "pastoral" (i.e. not dogmatic/doctrinal) council, then it can be reformed or abrogated.

Would you believe that the First Council of Nicaea (a legit ecumenical council) prohibited kneeling?

(05-07-2021, 04:30 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: - The Novus Ordo Mass is a lesser form of worship compared to the Tridentine Mass, possibly non-Catholic in its intention and direction, and should be abolished.

I was wondering the other day whether the audible vernacular is keeping apostate clergy in check.

If the Church truly is infiltrated all over by gays, communists, and freemasons, what would prevent them from abusing sotto voce and the ignorance of the congregants to stop saying valid TLMs (if those were still the norm)?
[-] The following 2 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • CaptCrunch73, Clare Brigid
Reply
#4
I disagree with "The post-conciliar Popes have committed many heresies". I wouldn't say that. I'd say theological errors.

I also partly disagree with "The post-conciliar church does not have much, in its teaching and declarations, continuity with the pre-1958 Church.". That may be true regarding things said by some Popes, but I'd rather say that many members of the hierarchy have failed to make use of their authority to build up the Church, and permitted grave disorders. As for the clergy I know personally who are considered "canonically regular", they actually do believe and teach the true Faith. For example, they continue to use pre-conciliar teaching material and don't question its content. Neither do they applaud whatever the Pope does. I know the crisis is not nearly as bad here as in many other parts of the world.

I think labeling ICRSS and FSSP "indult" doesn't really make sense since the indult was really for the time prior to the foundation of these societies. Personally I am attached to an ICRSS apostolate. The ICRSS is not altogether uniform and they have no "official" position on a lot of things. Doctrinally, my priest seems to agree with the priests in the SSPX I've met on basically everything, including the analysis of Vatican II and the new ceremonies. They follow the same method and books for catechism etc. Here people will often go either to the SSPX chapel or the ICRSS depending on what is convenient. It is not necessary for the laity to "take a position", since they are not fighting about anything to begin with. Neither does anybody have to belong to an "FSSP fan club" to go to the Masses said by FSSP priests. You go because you want the sacraments, not because you share all convictions of the celebrating priest.

Sometimes I go to the old Mass said by a diocesan parish priest, depending on where I happen to be. I also sometimes go to Mass in the new rite, but it's been a long time now. I don't refuse going to the new Mass as a matter of principle, but I do find it annoying.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • CaptCrunch73, MacPasquale
Reply
#5
(05-07-2021, 04:53 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: If the Church truly is infiltrated all over by gays, communists, and freemasons, what would prevent them from abusing sotto voce and the ignorance of the congregants to stop saying valid TLMs (if those were still the norm)?
They could, but they could just as easily say the words aloud in the new rite but withhold the requisite intention.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#6
I apologize for the labeling of the FSSP and ICKSP as “indult”. That was a mistake on my part, I always thought that was the usual label on them. If I could edit I’d remove it. Thank you so far for all your answers though!
“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
#7
Hmm well here is my own position:
- Vatican II was a pastoral council, except for things that it repeated from other councils. It was not always very precise on matters, perhaps, and was used by liberal people with an agenda later on.
- each Mass, in any form, has infinite intrinsic merit. However, the extrinsic merit could differ - that is the graces that we actually received. More reverent Masses have a greater extrinsic merit than other ones, so it could be said that TLM has more extrinsic merit.
- TLM also has certain things that are sadly lacking in Novus Ordo today, and some are "unofficial" - things that could be in the Novus Ordo but is not often done in practice - like ad orientem or Communion rails. Some things, such as details and prayers, the number of times the priest makes the sign of the Cross, - were removed from the Novus Ordo but are good things to have.
- Vatican II did not create a "new church", and the Church teachings did not change. However, certain things have been forgotten.
- As for actions and statements of Popes, since I don't know enough, I leave this to God.

I wonder what other trads here would think of this? If it clarifies anything, I belong to an FSSP parish.
[-] The following 2 users Like adoro.te.devote's post:
  • Clare Brigid, Marmot
Reply
#8
Vatican II will never be abolished, the way the Church is, just is.
[-] The following 3 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • CaptCrunch73, Clare Brigid, ServusDei
Reply
#9
(05-07-2021, 06:34 PM)adoro.te.devote Wrote: Hmm well here is my own position:
- Vatican II was a pastoral council, except for things that it repeated from other councils. It was not always very precise on matters, perhaps, and was used by liberal people with an agenda later on.
- each Mass, in any form, has infinite intrinsic merit. However, the extrinsic merit could differ - that is the graces that we actually received. More reverent Masses have a greater extrinsic merit than other ones, so it could be said that TLM has more extrinsic merit.
- TLM also has certain things that are sadly lacking in Novus Ordo today, and some are "unofficial" - things that could be in the Novus Ordo but is not often done in practice - like ad orientem or Communion rails. Some things, such as details and prayers, the number of times the priest makes the sign of the Cross, - were removed from the Novus Ordo but are good things to have.
- Vatican II did not create a "new church", and the Church teachings did not change. However, certain things have been forgotten.
- As for actions and statements of Popes, since I don't know enough, I leave this to God.

I wonder what other trads here would think of this? If it clarifies anything, I belong to an FSSP parish.
How can you say that Vatican II did not change church teaching?

Before Vatican II, the Church of Christ was the Catholic Church. Now the Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church.

Before Vatican II, the idea of religious liberty was condemned. Now it's taught it's a God given right of all men.

Before Vatican II, it was taught that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. It was even stated (by Pope Pius IX, I believe) to be a most well known doctrine. Now it's taught that all religious including pagan religions and even athieism can lead to salvation.

Before Vatican II, the Mass was known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Now it's a memorial of the Last Supper.

Those are pretty substantial changes.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bataar's post:
  • Bushum
Reply
#10
(05-07-2021, 04:30 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: If there are any of these basics that you don’t agree with, please tell me!

- Vatican II contains error, and should be abolished.
- The Novus Ordo Mass is a lesser form of worship compared to the Tridentine Mass, possibly non-Catholic in its intention and direction, and should be abolished.
- The post-conciliar Popes have committed many heresies and public acts which ridicule God (1986 Assisi events, Pachamama), and these Popes have neither publicly, nor privately as far as we know, repented of these actions and heresies. 
- The post-conciliar church does not have much, in its teaching and declarations, continuity with the pre-1958 Church. 

Vatican II contains ambiguities, but I do not think it has "errors". It only has errors to the extent that people use it to justify doing what they want to do.

I'm not sure if a council can be "abolished", but I think it can be clarified.

The Novus Ordo in itself is difficult to judge, because it has so many options and variations. The fact it allows this is a problem, but regardless of the non-Catholic direction that might have been in it, it is remarkable in that it is Catholic. I would agree that the Novus Ordo is prone to abuses and less than worshipful variations, but this is more about the people celebrating it, rather than the mass itself.

The Popes have been weak in expressing themselves, but I wouldn't say that they have "committed many heresies". They certainly do seem to be struggling in their role in the modern day, and the constant pulling from other sides and interpretations and lies from the media agencies reporting on it make any nuanced discussion very difficult even at the best of times.

The post-Vatican II Church has continuity. In terms of upheaval, that was social in origin.

I think a good understanding of history and reflection on the fact that we do not live in exceptional times might help avoid the errors that reject the church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Insanis's post:
  • ServusDei
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)