It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:12 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 The non-sedevacantist position? (Defending the SSPX) 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post The non-sedevacantist position? (Defending the SSPX)
RobertJS alleges viewtopic.php?p=14841#p14841 that non-sedevacantists have "a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls."

This thread is for him to prove this allegation that he makes against most of his fellow traditional Catholics. Obviously he will need to define the term "position" first.

Over to you, Robert. Please don't adopt any of the common caricatures of the non-sedevacantist position as employed in the war propaganda of disaffected ex-SSPX clerics. Instead, go off and find some representative statement of the views of those you consider to be such pathetic Catholics (addicted as they are to blasphemy and heresy, and uncaring as they are about harming souls), and in that way attempt to do justice to your targets. I recognise that doing justice to one's targeted opponents is not something that we sedevacantists generally take any pains over, but try it, you might find it refreshing and intellectually stimulating.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 15, 2013 10:29 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
RobertJS alleges http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 841#p14841 that non-sedevacantists have "a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls."

This thread is for him to prove this allegation that he makes against most of his fellow traditional Catholics. Obviously he will need to define the term "position" first.

Over to you, Robert. Please don't adopt any of the common caricatures of the non-sedevacantist position as employed in the war propaganda of disaffected ex-SSPX clerics. Instead, go off and find some representative statement of the views of those you consider to be such pathetic Catholics (addicted as they are to blasphemy and heresy, and uncaring as they are about harming souls), and in that way attempt to do justice to your targets. I recognise that doing justice to one's targeted opponents is not something that we sedevacantists generally take any pains over, but try it, you might find it refreshing and intellectually stimulating.

I will be happy to prove my allegation. I did not state it lightly.

Note that I did not say "non-sedevacantists". I was clearly referring to the SSPX clergy.

I am really surprised you want me to define the term "position" first. Personally, I think it is obvious everyone knows what is meant by that. In fact, on your own site here it used over 400 times, just google:

position site:sedevacantist.net

I may get to this within the next couple of days. I do plan to use the views of the SSPX, Church teaching and reason, and it will be true, just and charitable.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Fri May 17, 2013 2:01 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
I am really surprised you want me to define the term "position" first.


You have already begun to define which position you are describing as heretical etc. The position of the SSPX clergy. Good start.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 17, 2013 5:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
I can see my accusation may look like the kind you could at times expect from a young sedevacantist. One who is still not completely mature, but then having come to some self-awareness of his maturity he starts publicly practicing an imprudent zeal for the Faith, not really aware of what he lacks in virtue and knowledge.

I do have some length of years. I was brought up in the Novus Ordo and didn't know the so-called "traditional movement" even existed until I was about 18. Having learned the Faith in an excellent manner at home, I was fully ripe for the idea there was a false pope that it was almost a matter of saying, "Of course!". My education includes about 3 years of formation in a seminary (a good portion with the CMRI), and subsequent to that, I have, between 1996 and 2002, gone exclusively to a Mass offered by the SSPX, rather reluctantly and fully aware they are wrong in their "Recognize & Resist" position regarding Rome.

Now, to begin supporting my accusation (one which is not rare). When we look to reject a position, we attempt to find the fastest way to do so. This is by making use of the principle of contradiction (which brings to mind the argumentum ad absurdum, or reductio ad absurdum). As it says in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on PHILOSOPHY:

"the philosopher cannot contradict the certain data of theology, any more than he can contradict the certain conclusions of the individual sciences. To deny this would be to deny the conformity of truth with truth, to contest the principle of contradiction, to surrender to a relativism which is destructive of all certitude."

This entails that if there be anything inherent in a position (not merely incidental) that violates the principle of contradiction, the whole position is untenable and absurd. This is what secular authorities do when they have what looks like a strong theory that a particular man committed a crime, for instance, of fight and murder in a bar. They look for the alibi. If the murder was committed in New York, and the man had an alibi of being in England at the time, the theory that the man is the culprit is completely dropped. It doesn't matter at that point how excellent all the other evidence is in favor of accusing that man. The charge is dropped because of the absurdity.

Naturally, with religion, we look to see whether a position is absurd if it contains an inherent inconsistency, untruth or something against the Faith.

The Arians looked at St. Athanasius as being a heretic, and likewise St. Athanasius looked at the Arians as being heretics. The heretic is he who does not have the truth. Now we look at the SSPX. The SSPX.org website contains many articles against the sedevacantist position. It makes the claim that, "sedevacantism doesn't simply stand by itself, but has supporting ideals which oppose the Faith". They say it is against the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, that it is supported by the Gallican heresy, and is also schismatic. Based on their public accusations alone I would not blame any sedevacantist from merely countering those accusations to that the SSPX themselves hold a heretical and schismatic position.

One could dismantle their accusations to show how wrong they are, or simple show their position contains an inherent absurdity. This latter is the preferable course.

(To be continued in my next posting to the thread)

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Mon May 20, 2013 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Quote:
or simple show their position contains an inherent absurdity. This latter is the preferable course.


But you haven't yet shown this.

Will this be coming in a future posting?


Tue May 21, 2013 12:04 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
The SSPX.org website contains many articles against the sedevacantist position. It makes the claim that, "sedevacantism doesn't simply stand by itself, but has supporting ideals which oppose the Faith". They say it is against the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, that it is supported by the Gallican heresy, and is also schismatic.


See if you can discover what it is they mean by the term "sedevacantism", then ask yourself whether they are not actually correct when they assert that it is opposed to the faith, etc.

For example, I myself was shocked - http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... p=22023183 - to discover that Fr. Cekada's "sedevacantism" involves the explicit denial that the Apostles have any Successors at all today. This assertion is directly opposed to Tradition, as formulated at Vatican I:
Quote:
1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one.

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be teachers and shepherds ["doctores et pastores"] until the end of time.

(First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ)


In case you are inclined to see in that the conditional will of Christ, note that every element mentioned was willed unconditionally: 1. He built a Church, 2. In this Church all the faithful are, by definition, linked by the external bond of faith and charity, 3. He prayed for the unity of the Church so that this visible unity could never fail, as it never has and never will, 4. He sent His Apostles, giving them the very mission He had received of the Father, 5. He willed that there should be "doctores et pastores" (i.e. Successors of the Apostles) until the end of time.

The doctrine of the apostolic succession requires true "doctors and pastors" - which means residential bishops. Bishops that are official Teachers in the Church ("doctores"), and official Rulers in the Church ("pastores"). So it won't suffice to find "Successors of the Apostles" in just any sense, but strictly those who have the full ordinary powers of the Apostles.

Herrmann:
Quote:
The apostolic succession can be defined as: the public, legitimate, solemn and never interrupted elevation [suffectio] of persons in the place of the Apostles to govern and nourish the Church. (Cercia, I, p. 223)
Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.

(Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Institutiones, n. 282.)


As Wilhelm and Scannell say:
Quote:
The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him – it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony.


What is the Teaching Body? The bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction, under the Roman Pontiff.

Tanquerey:
Quote:
The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium.


Van Noort:
Quote:
Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. - The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. - What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. - This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked.


Now, I have spent more than fifteen years combatting what I thought was an entirely unjust allegation against "sedevacantism" - viz., that we hold that the hierarchy is extinct - only to discover that this is exactly what Fr. Cekada believes. Not only that, I found out also that he has held this view for many years. So the SSPX has not been unjustly defaming "sedevacantism" - they have been justly and accurately opposing an heretical theory held by the most prominent "sedevacantist" proponent in the English-speaking world.

RobertJS wrote:
Based on their public accusations alone I would not blame any sedevacantist from merely countering those accusations to that the SSPX themselves hold a heretical and schismatic position.

Here's a trad principle my mother often mentioned which you can add to your kit-bag, Robert: Two wrongs don't make a right.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 21, 2013 1:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
@James, you should read my entire posting, especially the last line. :)

@John, other than one comment about a kit-bag, you haven't rejoined anything pertaining to what I just wrote. Fr. Cekada is not an authority over me, so I won't comment on his words. The rest of your message jumped right in to defending the SSPX position without my completing what I have to say.

To the one thing you commented on....

If someone calls me a drunkard, and I say, "No, you are a drunkard!", then I have violated the axiom that, "two wrongs don't make a right", because, my not being so, does not logically result in - therefore the accuser is. There is nothing reciprocal there.

With religious truth/falsity there is a reciprocal relationship. Contrary to truth is falsity. To accuse another's religious belief of being contrary to the faith, when it is actually the truth, objectively makes the accuser's contrary belief the one that is contrary to the faith. This is why I mentioned about the Arians and St. Athanasius. A Catholic should have an instinct for that, if not explicitly thinking of it. It is certainly possible that someone could do it solely, or partly, to retaliate & insult, but since charity thinks the best, I said I cannot blame a sedevacantist from doing it. I wouldn't blame an SSPXer either, but it would not change who is objectively right or wrong.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Tue May 21, 2013 10:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, I have read the whole thing 3 or 4 times now. You've outlined the manner in which you intend to proceed. But as far as I can see you have not yet begun to demonstrate the absurdity, much less the heresy of the SSPX position, unless you are suggesting that merely being a sedeplenist makes one a heretic.

So, I'd just like to confirm that the absurdity of the SSPX position will be revealed in a future post? Or am I missing something?


Tue May 21, 2013 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Quote:
With religious truth/falsity there is a reciprocal relationship. Contrary to truth is falsity. To accuse another's religious belief of being contrary to the faith, when it is actually the truth, objectively makes the accuser's contrary belief the one that is contrary to the faith


Is the sedevacantist proposition of the faith?


Tue May 21, 2013 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
James, here I my ending words:

"This latter is the preferable course. (To be continued in my next posting to the thread)"

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Tue May 21, 2013 11:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
I can see my accusation may look like the kind you could at times expect from a young sedevacantist. One who is still not completely mature, but then having come to some self-awareness of his maturity he starts publicly practicing an imprudent zeal for the Faith, not really aware of what he lacks in virtue and knowledge.

I do have some length of years. I was brought up in the Novus Ordo and didn't know the so-called "traditional movement" even existed until I was about 18. Having learned the Faith in an excellent manner at home, I was fully ripe for the idea there was a false pope that it was almost a matter of saying, "Of course!". My education includes about 3 years of formation in a seminary (a good portion with the CMRI), and subsequent to that, I have, between 1996 and 2002, gone exclusively to a Mass offered by the SSPX, rather reluctantly and fully aware they are wrong in their "Recognize & Resist" position regarding Rome.

It does look like that, doesn't it? What exactly is it that distinguishes you from all the immature and imprudent sedevacantists?

Btw, I've never gone to Mass "rather reluctantly" ... what's that like?


Wed May 22, 2013 2:23 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
@John, other than one comment about a kit-bag, you haven't rejoined anything pertaining to what I just wrote. Fr. Cekada is not an authority over me, so I won't comment on his words. The rest of your message jumped right in to defending the SSPX position without my completing what I have to say.


You'll need to re-read what I wrote. You cited the SSPX saying that "sedevacantism" is against the faith etc. I challenged your identification of that word with what we call "sedevacantism" and then provided a stark illustration of why this is not merely a word game - that is, the chief proponent of "sedevacantism" in the English-speaking world promotes an heretical theory under that title.

But of course, if you agree with Fr. Cekada, or you don't recognise that his idea is unorthodox, then you won't grasp the force of the point.

Heresy has a definition. State it, then state the proposition that constitutes the supposed heresy of the SSPX clergy, then prove the identity of the two. Leave out the amateur epistemology, please.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 22, 2013 4:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Now to get specifically into the blasphemous and heretical position of the SSPX. For those who haven't read the thread from the beginning, it would be well to do so, firstly.

Let me quote from "Manual of Christian Doctrine" by a Seminary Professor, John Joseph McVey, 1910

"How may blasphemy be divided? 1. Into direct and indirect blasphemy; 2. Into heretical, execratory, and simply injurious blasphemy."

Examples of heretical blasphemy given from this source:
"It is a blasphemy to say: God has completely forgotten me, ­ God overwhelms me with tribulations without cause, ­ God does not concern Himself with what takes place on earth, ­ It is unjust for Him to suffer the wicked to prosper in this world."

Attributing something to "the Church" is to indirectly attribute it to God, because the Church is Holy and Divine.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica presents the following truth as part of his reply to prove something else, not as a matter of controversy, but as a matter of commonly recognized truth:

"it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain"

When the Angelic Doctor says, "in vain", he means uselessly. This truth entails, of course, that it would be a greater blasphemy to say that the Church does anything harmful.

As to being harmful, we can read a few quotes that also reflect this:

Council of Trent. Sess. 22, canon 7:
"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."

Auctorem Fidei, 1794. CONDEMNED:
''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful"

However, saying "uselessly" is more impressive than "harmful" because it better shows forth the Divinity, Holiness and Perfection of the Church. The Divinity of the Church shines further still! Just as Our Lord was Holy & Divine, and could never sin even venially by silence, so the Church also.

Quo Graviora, 1833:
"The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth­all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"

Omnem Sollicitudinem, 1874:
"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."

Apostolicae Curae, 1896:
"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."

Allatae Sunt, 1755:
"It has also been confirmed either expressly or tacitly by the Apostolic See."

This puts forth the truth that where the Apostolic See is aware of something in Her laws, teaching or liturgy, and does nothing, it is considered the Church's divine stamp of approval.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. "Where Peter is, there is the Church." That is the Apostolic See. To "recognize" the Apostolic See and "resist" it, is definitively - indirect, heretical blasphemy. The SSPX and benefactors live and breathe this in daily. They say the Church gave us harmful, invalid or poisonous Sacraments (completely going beyond accusations of the "useless", which are still blasphemy).

The SSPX says the Church gave us Vatican II, but that the teachings are ambiguous. Yet, the Church has always considered doctrinal teaching that is ambiguous worthy of censure, and has always censured such as had started to become prominent.

Mortalium Animos, 1929:
"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain for ever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

As the "alibi" that I previously mentioned, which fully demolishes the theory that a particular man committed a particular crime, so does the absurdity & impossibility of the intrinsic beliefs of the SSPX utterly make the "Recognize & Resist" position condemnable, and to be shunned like the plague. In fact, a moral obligation to avoid for the sake of our souls. There is nowhere to turn but to the so-called sedevacantist position, which completely avoids this doctrinal and logical absurdity.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Wed May 22, 2013 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
Attributing something to "the Church" is to indirectly attribute it to God, because the Church is Holy and Divine.


Agreed.

RobertJS wrote:
This puts forth the truth that where the Apostolic See is aware of something in Her laws, teaching or liturgy, and does nothing, it is considered the Church's divine stamp of approval.


Agreed. However the question asked by Archbishop Lefebvre was, what exactly is the Holy See aware of, responsible for, and intending?

Here is the Archbishop expressing in emphatic terms the Catholic doctrine on the point:

Quote:
One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined!

The Church is not responsible. It is not the Church but rather the priests who are responsible for the deterioration of Catholicism. Pope St. Pius X, your Holy Patriarch of Venice, in the first pages of his encyclical Pascendi, writes that already in his time there were errors and heresies not outside but inside the Church; within the Church and not only among the laity but, more to the point, amongst the priests. St. Pius X saw these enemies from the very beginning of this century. Today we can add that if St. Pius X were still alive, he would see them not only amongst the priests but amongst the bishops and cardinals as well.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... htm#venice


So, his idea on this score was orthodox, no question. In reply to the CDF, so therefore in a most considered and formal context, he answered this question:

Quote:
Q. Do you hold that a faithful Catholic can think and say that a sacramental rite, in particular that of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or "favoring heresy"?

A. That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.

What is astounding is that an Ordo Missae savoring of Protestantism and therefore “favoring heresy” should be spread abroad by the Roman Curia.


That's a Catholic, with an entirely Catholic mentality, reacting to a most mysterious situation, by questioning the factual data, not the faith. It would be good if you were to display an equally Catholic mentality.

RobertJS wrote:
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. "Where Peter is, there is the Church." That is the Apostolic See. To "recognize" the Apostolic See and "resist" it, is definitively - indirect, heretical blasphemy.


Now you're switching subjects. And your doctrine is wrong anyway. Do you accept the doctrine expressed in this text? http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... isobey.htm

RobertJS wrote:
The SSPX and benefactors live and breathe this in daily. They say the Church gave us harmful, invalid or poisonous Sacraments

Yet they don't say this. You are so sloppy it's terrifying. You've already avoided the first challenge I posed - discover what it is that SSPX writers condemn under the name "sedevacantism". Now you have a second challenge - prove that the SSPX teaches that the novelties of Vatican II and its aftermath came from the Church. No, don't read Fr. Cekada uncritically and assume that he has done the hard work for you. He hasn't.


RobertJS wrote:
The SSPX says the Church gave us Vatican II, but that the teachings are ambiguous.


Again, prove that the SSPX says the Church gave us Vatican II.


RobertJS wrote:
There is nowhere to turn but to the so-called sedevacantist position, which completely avoids this doctrinal and logical absurdity.


Agreed, if by the sedevacantist position you mean what I mean, and not, for example, what Guerard des Lauriers meant, or Fr. Cekada, or Bishop Sanborn, or the Dimond Brothers, or quite a few other even more weird sets of ideas out there which masquerade under that title, and so far you have studiously avoided defining how you yourself use that term. Why would that be, especially when your first line of argument explicitly relied upon the SSPX's condemnation of "sedevacantism"?

I think you're dodging, Robert.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 23, 2013 2:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
RobertJS alleges http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... 841#p14841 that non-sedevacantists have "a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls."

My personal take is that those who consider the New Mass and rite of orders to be valid take a position (whether blasphemous/heretical or not, it doesn't matter really) that is harmful to souls. After all, the last thing you want is your priest to be sacramentally impotent!

Those who insist the fellows in the Vatican are NOT heretics are, in my opinion, blinkered, but one would hope that this opinion will die out in time as things become more obvious, especially with Frankie. But even if they're blinkered, they're still Catholics unless they hold other heresies.


Thu May 23, 2013 2:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
Note that I did not say "non-sedevacantists". I was clearly referring to the SSPX clergy.


Now that I've seen your arguments, I'm curious how you distinguish an SSPX priest who thinks Bergoglio must be pope, from a Fraternity of St. Peter priest who thinks the same thing, or from any trad layman with the same idea.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 23, 2013 3:50 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Quasi-official SSPX comments on the authority and nature of Vatican II: http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q6_vatican_ii.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 23, 2013 3:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, while you're pondering how to convict the SSPX of believing that the Church can give evil doctrines and liturgical rites, you might take some time to consult with Fr. Cekada, since he too expends considerable effort criticising the SSPX (his central charge is "schism" rather than your "blasphemy and heresy"). The reason that I counsel you to do this is that he flatly contradicts you. Now, when one finds that one's enemies are attempting to convict one of opposed and mutually exclusive crimes, the thought that arises is that one is in a similar position to Our Lord.

Anyway, here's your view, followed by Fr. Cekada's. You will note that he feels so strongly about his view that he has written an entire article attempting to prove that the Church did indeed promulgate the New Mass (on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope).

RobertJS wrote:
They say the Church gave us harmful, invalid or poisonous Sacraments


Fr. Cekada wrote:
Father Laisney characterizes the New Mass as “evil in itself,” and a danger to the Catholic faith. He acknowledges in a general sense the principle upon which the first position is based — the Church cannot give a universal law that is evil or harmful to souls.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... &catname=8


"Father Laisney .. acknowledges — the Church cannot give a universal law that is evil or harmful to souls."

So, Robert, you and Fr. Laisney agree on this. Do you think that the rest of the SSPX disagrees with Fr. Laisney, perhaps? Or are you merely in the habit of accusing people of heresy and blasphemy without actually checking to see what it is they really believe? I think it's the latter. Here's a link to save you the work you obviously don't like doing: http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

While we're on the subject of Fr. Cekada's article, note the appalling lack of logic which characterises it. He argues as follows:

The Church cannot give evil, and the SSPX recognises this
The New Mass is evil, and the SSPX recognises this
But if Paul VI promulgated the New Mass, then the Church is responsible for the New Mass
So either Paul VI didn't promulgate the New Mass or he was not pope

So far, so good.

But then Fr. Cekada engages in pure sophistry. He states the SSPX view, then comments upon it as follows:

Fr. Cekada wrote:
2. Paul VI possessed papal authority, but did not promulgate the New Mass lawfully.

This position argues that Paul VI did not follow the correct legal forms when he promulgated the New Mass. The New Mass, then, is not really a universal law, so we are not obliged to obey the legislation which supposedly imposed it; thus, the infallibility of the Church is “saved.”

The theory has been extremely popular in the traditionalist movement since its beginnings in the 1960s.

This, it must be said, is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too argument. It allows you to “acknowledge” the pope, but ignore his laws, denounce his New Mass, and keep the old Mass.


The sophistry is in that last paragraph. << This, it must be said, is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too argument. It allows you to “acknowledge” the pope, but ignore his laws, denounce his New Mass, and keep the old Mass. >>

Father, it isn't a law. That's the entire debate. The reason that this "theory" as you describe it, "has been extremely popular in the traditionalist movement since its beginnings in the 1960s" (i.e. pretty much all of the people who saved the faith and the mass for you, Father, held this view) is because it's plainly factual, as anybody who examines the relevant texts can see. Paul VI didn't permit anybody to offer the New Mass, let alone impose it! But even if you honestly disagree with that view, you cannot accuse those who think it true of desiring to "ignore" genuine "laws". Their whole point is that there is no law.

This kind of sophism is logically identical to the block-headed accusation made by anti-sedevacantists that we are "schismatics" for "refusing subjection to the Roman Pontiff." Identical.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 25, 2013 6:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
Robert, while you're pondering how to convict the SSPX of believing that the Church can give evil doctrines and liturgical rites, you might take some time to consult with Fr. Cekada, since he too expends considerable effort criticising the SSPX (his central charge is "schism" rather than your "blasphemy and heresy"). The reason that I counsel you to do this is that he flatly contradicts you. Now, when one finds that one's enemies are attempting to convict one of opposed and mutually exclusive crimes, the thought that arises is that one is in a similar position to Our Lord.

Anyway, here's your view, followed by Fr. Cekada's.

This is where I stopped reading your previous addition, John. You will know why when you read further, which I mostly composed during the past week, when I had time.

As to your words to me, "while you're pondering how to convict", I had already said at the beginning that I did not make the accusation lightly, which means I have already finished pondering. As to "convict", this is not a matter of judging the guilt of people. The very idea of "indirect" heretical blasphemy already includes the idea that it is not intentional. Nevertheless, though a monkey with a loaded pistol may not have ill-will, he is dangerous. Though Luther could be judged of pertinacity, those born into Lutheranism are not, though the danger to Faith is still there and the damage is worked.

I was given this thread specifically to support my accusation against the SSPX's '"Recognize & Resist" position. I am supporting it using the authority of reason, enlightened by faith. I am not here to talk about what other sedevacantists have said; nobody represents sedevacantists as a whole, and nobody represents me. I have the right to decline any "challenges" concerning the statements and mind-frames of others of similar persuasion.

The SSPX is a close-knit organization, to the point where they make those feel that they are leaving the Church if they leave the Society....even though it is only a sodality, like the Children of Mary. What is on the sspx.org site is publicly representative of the SSPX beliefs.

It is quite clear what the sspx.org site is referring to as "sedevacantism". Ordinary reading comprehension discerns this. We should reject the unCatholic mentality that questions almost any word as if we can't comprehend anything sufficiently. That reminds me of the modernists who say that since our own senses are fallible, we cannot be sure of even understanding infallible teaching!

The essence of sedevacantism is - the conclusion there is presently no true pope despite their being a prominent claimant to the See of Peter. This is the way the SSPX treat sedevacantism in the article I have referred to, and anyone can understand that.

This idea about freely quoting Abp. Lefebvre is a mistaken notion. Various SSPXers use Lefebvre's name to garner and maintain solidarity. Despite claims of being in union with Lefebvre, the meaning of that is variable because Lefebvre's slant fluctuated throughout the years. I have seen prominent SSPXers quote Lefebvre from one year actually as an argument for what he said in a later year. It is a real mess. And those who are more prominent and educated simply put aside things Lefebvre had professed if it feels uncomfortable, all the while praising Lefebvre as a whole. Most particularly, Lefebvre professed publicly, and printed in the Angelus five years before his death, that he may soon believe JP2 was not a true pope. He said he was on his way to believing that. He never retracted it. Though he never applied it in his life (at least not publicly), it was nevertheless a profession that the principles behind sedevacantism were true and good. This SSPX website attacks what is behind sedevacantism as contrary to the Faith, schismatic and heretical. So, they effectively both attack and praise Lefebvre, and then, ironically, they complain about modernist thinking!

My point about "ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia" is right to the point (contrary to what you blurted), because the very object of what is "recognized and resisted" is an alleged true pope. This axiom ties all my quotes together to show the intrinsic impossibility, the absurdity and blasphemy of the SSPX position. You start out with the presumption Abp. Lefebvre is right and then try to present his quote as an authority. Quoting Abp. Lefebvre as an expert on doctrine to oppose my Church quotes is futile. He was wrong. Being partly right doesn't trump what is wrong.

The "Apostolic See", the "pope" and the "Church" are intrinsically connected. To say that these harmful rites are approved by the Apostolic See explicitly, or even tacitly, and then claim it is not "from the Church" is merely words (vain babbling) representing an impossibility....like the words, "I own a one-ended stick." If the pope is true, then the Apostolic See's approval, even merely tacit, means "the Church" did this...and then saying the rite is harmful is a blasphemy. You try to verbally extract what in reality is intrinsically connected. Like saying, "She is my mother, but I am not her son." It's absurd words devoid of reality like existentialism. Someone in denial who doesn't really want to face the implications of what they are saying, but is satisfied because it "feels" good and further satisfying because it makes other people in denial feel good.

I liken this mental process, or operation, to when normal Catholics have to deal with overhearing cuss words and dirty jokes in the world. We train ourselves to think no more of it, to stop short, and treat it as disgusting and not worthy of thought. It is widespread of the SSPX to deal with sedevacantism similarly when dealing with an actual person having a good grasp of that so-called ism. It has been widespread to see the SSPX laity treat it just like a cuss word. I won't go into examples here. Sedevacantists can simply face anyone who says the man is a true pope. Sedevacantists generally get kicked off SSPX forums, while SSPXers run from the Sedevacantist forums. It is all significant, statistically.

I find this mental process similar to what George Orwell wrote of:

George Orwell, excerpts from book entitled, 1984 wrote:
"The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them."

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."


I think George Orwell was actually describing, "the operation of error, to believe lying".

The quotes I gave speak for themselves, and quotes by Abp. Lefebvre cannot trump them. The R&R position is one big "faculty of stopping short". To describe what is logically further down the road where they don't want to mentally go, they call it "mystery". But in truth, when "the Church" actually "does" something is not a mystery. It is not something obscure. The quotes I gave are very clear. The Church teaches clearly. We all know what Pope Leo meant in Apostolicae Curae, 1896 when he said:

"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."

This isn't obscure to anyone except someone holding error who is in denial. The Apostolic See is the diocese of Rome, and the authority is their bishop. He is clearly saying that Universal Pastor cannot be aware of the existence of a harmful liturgical regular practice somewhere in the world and do nothing. Impossible. Therefore, if it occurs, the man is not truly a pope. There is no other way.

This idea is another crimestop - the idea that Rome doesn't know what is going on. How could a true pope explicitly permit a harmful rite, and not be aware the rite exists? Absurd. Based on the violation of the principle of contradiction, the SSPX position is wrong, and inherently, though indirectly, blasphemous and heretical.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Sat May 25, 2013 5:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, did you ever read this? viewtopic.php?p=13617#p13617

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 25, 2013 11:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
I was given this thread specifically to support my accusation against the SSPX's '"Recognize & Resist" position. I am supporting it using the authority of reason, enlightened by faith. I am not here to talk about what other sedevacantists have said; nobody represents sedevacantists as a whole, and nobody represents me. I have the right to decline any "challenges" concerning the statements and mind-frames of others of similar persuasion.


It's a pity you are unable to grasp the reason why other sedevacantists such as Fr. Cekada were mentioned. I'll explain it again a little later, just in case anybody else has the same challenges as you.

RobertJS wrote:
It is quite clear what the sspx.org site is referring to ...

This idea about freely quoting Abp. Lefebvre is a mistaken notion.


In this way you seek to discredit Archbishop Lefebvre as the best witness of the SSPX position, and instead raise up to solemn official status... wait for it... Richard Cure!!! So the layman Louis Tofari, who is Webmaster of sspx.org, publishes an article by another layman, Richard Cure (is that even a real person?), and these weighty authorities do not merely outweigh Archbishop Lefebvre in your mind, but completely eclipse him??? And this is your way of proving what "SSPX clergy" believe and preach?

Is this comedy, or tragedy?

RobertJS wrote:
My point about "ubi petrus, ibi ecclesia" is right to the point (contrary to what you blurted), because the very object of what is "recognized and resisted" is an alleged true pope. This axiom ties all my quotes together to show the intrinsic impossibility, the absurdity and blasphemy of the SSPX position. You start out with the presumption Abp. Lefebvre is right and then try to present his quote as an authority. Quoting Abp. Lefebvre as an expert on doctrine to oppose my Church quotes is futile. He was wrong. Being partly right doesn't trump what is wrong.


I quoted Archbishop Lefebvre, not as proof of what the Church teaches, but of what the thinking of the SSPX is. I also quoted Fr. Laisney. You carefully ignored that. I could multiply such quotes, but you'd carefully ignore the rest of them too. It's sufficiently obvious at this point that instead of examining what the SSPX actually thinks, and then forming a judgement upon that, you have lazily read people like Fr. Cekada and formed your judgements based upon inaccurate information. Instead of admitting that your original charge was rash, and withdrawing it, you chose inexplicably to pursue it. This was not, from what I can see, the act of a rational man.

You lost the argument, Robert.

RobertJS wrote:
The "Apostolic See", the "pope" and the "Church" are intrinsically connected. To say that these harmful rites are approved by the Apostolic See explicitly, or even tacitly, and then claim it is not "from the Church" is merely words (vain babbling) representing an impossibility....like the words, "I own a one-ended stick." If the pope is true, then the Apostolic See's approval, even merely tacit, means "the Church" did this...and then saying the rite is harmful is a blasphemy. You try to verbally extract what in reality is intrinsically connected. Like saying, "She is my mother, but I am not her son." It's absurd words devoid of reality like existentialism. Someone in denial who doesn't really want to face the implications of what they are saying, but is satisfied because it "feels" good and further satisfying because it makes other people in denial feel good.


When you lose an argument, admit it and move on.

1. The saw "Silence is consent" is not a dogma, but a truth of the natural law. Therefore denying it is neither blasphemous nor heretical.
2. The saw "Silence is consent" must be understood aright. Silence is a highly ambiguous factor, and may indicate many things. If in doubt about this (as you evidently are) have a look at Robert Bolt's masterful treatment of it in the movie "A Man for All Seasons" where he puts a little speech on the subject into the mouth of St. Thomas More.
3. The saw "Silence is consent" concerns how we are to form a judgement of human matters. Judgement is not something that you display any of, so don't imagine that you have the first idea what this means. The first point about it is that it concerns something which is not mathematical or abstract, but concrete. For example, the question whether Pope John XXII was a heretic (he wasn't) is a matter of judgement. His silence, for years, despite protestations by expert theologians that his doctrine on the immediate fate of souls was heretical, might have led some to form the judgement that he was in fact a heretic. The consensus of men of educated and sound judgement is that the some would be mistaken. You would have been on the wrong side of this, of course.

The Holy See cannot approve of error, impiety, evil: Theological truth. The point at which any given occasion constitutes approval by silence? A matter of judgement.

RobertJS wrote:
I liken this mental process, or operation, to when normal Catholics have to deal with overhearing cuss words and dirty jokes in the world. We train ourselves to think no more of it, to stop short, and treat it as disgusting and not worthy of thought. It is widespread of the SSPX to deal with sedevacantism similarly when dealing with an actual person having a good grasp of that so-called ism. It has been widespread to see the SSPX laity treat it just like a cuss word. I won't go into examples here.


Your dissertation on deliberate blindness is obviously autobiographical.

RobertJS wrote:
Sedevacantists can simply face anyone who says the man is a true pope.

You can't even quote an SSPX cleric or answer quotes from SSPX clerics when I post them, yet you want to talk about how direct and unafraid you are???


RobertJS wrote:
I find this mental process similar to what George Orwell wrote of:

George Orwell, excerpts from book entitled, 1984 wrote:
"The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them."

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."


What you are describing is the mentality of a not very bright layman who comes across the sede vacante idea and adopts it without a great deal of analysis (of which he would not be capable anyway). He mentions it to his priest, who points out that the layman is ignorant, not very bright, and has duties upon which he should focus, and that these matters are above him. The layman is upset by this news, all of which is accurate, and proceeds to search the Internet to discover the proof of sedevacantism. He can't find it. There's no book, there's precious little serious scholarly work, if any, to be found, and instead he comes across the clever populist screeds of Fr. Cekada, which he wolfs down uncritically. From these he learns that the SSPX holds various unorthodox opinions (no quotes are provided as proof) and this is the real reason that the SSPX priest does not realise what a genius and saint our lay-theologian really is.

Then he joins a forum.

RobertJS wrote:
The R&R position is one big "faculty of stopping short".

That's called humility.

RobertJS wrote:
To describe what is logically further down the road where they don't want to mentally go, they call it "mystery".

I don't understand the need to go to motives. They don't see with perfect clarity what has happened to the Church, and they honestly admit it. It's mysterious.

RobertJS wrote:
He is clearly saying that Universal Pastor cannot be aware of the existence of a harmful liturgical regular practice somewhere in the world and do nothing.


For how long? Five minutes? A week? A year? Oh, hang on, you can't say, because you can't quote an authority explaining it, because, actually, this is not a theological truth, it's a matter of natural law and it is a principle which informs a judgement. In this case, what you are confronted with is a group of priests, graduates in philosophy and theology (unlike you), whose judgement differs from yours. And on the basis that their judgement differs from yours, you decide that they are in bad faith, blinding themselves to the evidence.

RobertJS wrote:
As to "convict", this is not a matter of judging the guilt of people. The very idea of "indirect" heretical blasphemy already includes the idea that it is not intentional. Nevertheless, though a monkey with a loaded pistol may not have ill-will, he is dangerous. Though Luther could be judged of pertinacity, those born into Lutheranism are not, though the danger to Faith is still there and the damage is worked.


Anybody can see that you have no care for the reputation of those you have decided to slander mercilessly. You compare the vast majority of traditional Catholic clergy to Lutherans - in good faith you say, thereby displaying even greater ignorance, because that would be impossible - these men were raised and educated in the faith: if they hold heresies then they are guilty of them to some degree or other. And in any case, you expended considerable effort in quoting George Orwell and expounding on your personal theory of self-blinding in order to explain just how the SSPX are not in good faith at all, but rather in terribly bad faith.

Your behaviour here is unacceptable.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 26, 2013 12:59 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
A little review of what we've witnessed.

RobertJS alleges that non-sedevacantists have...
RobertJS wrote:
a blasphemous and heretical position that is harmful to souls.

Upon being challenged, he narrows it down to "SSPX clergy" - but as events would reveal, without the slightest logical reason.
RobertJS wrote:
Note that I did not say "non-sedevacantists". I was clearly referring to the SSPX clergy.

Unfortunately, however, Robert doesn’t quote any SSPX clergy, but instead he quotes a layman. And the quotes from the SSPX clergy which I present, he ignores or seeks to discredit.

OK, so let's see what the SSPX clergy have to say.
John Lane wrote:
Over to you, Robert. ...find some representative statement of the views of those you consider to be such pathetic Catholics (addicted as they are to blasphemy and heresy, and uncaring as they are about harming souls), and in that way attempt to do justice to your targets.

Robert declined to meet this demand. Instead, he provided one ambiguous phrase:
RobertJS wrote:
The SSPX.org website contains many articles against the sedevacantist position. It makes the claim that, "sedevacantism doesn't simply stand by itself, but has supporting ideals which oppose the Faith".

In response, he was asked to identify what it is that the SSPX writers mean when they use the term "sedevacantism." This is important, in fact absolutely crucial, in this context, because of the fact that Robert is arguing that if SSPX writers say that "sedevacantism" is opposed to the faith, then they must necessarily hold heterodox ideas.

Robert declined to enter into this question too, preferring instead to insist that "sedevacantism" is a univocal term. This is simply bizarre, given the radical differences between, say, Guerardian sedevacantism and classical sedevacantism. Guerard des Lauriers said that classical sedevacantism is gravely erroneous (even heretical?). The Guerardians in this point absolutely agree with SSPX writers. The basis for this opinion is that they perceive classical sedevacantism to be what Fr. Cekada asserts - that all of the Church's offices are vacant today.

Now, an honest Guerardian – realising that from his point of view his case against the SSPX on this score is hopeless, since he most firmly agrees with the SSPX on the central point – would find some other bone to pick with the SSPX, if picking a bone with the SSPX is really such a desirable activity. On the other hand, a Cekadian sedevacantist would assert that both the Guerardians and SSPXers are mistaken and that it isn’t contrary to the faith to say that all of the Church’s offices are presently vacant. Robert does neither. Instead, he asserts, ipse dixit, that the “sedevacantism” rejected by the SSPX as incompatible with the faith is the mere view that the See of Rome is presently vacant. Now, ignoring Robert’s slovenly methods, and the fact that he would not say to which theory he subscribes, we were still able to examine the question, for it is a matter of fact.

So, I pointed to a quote from Fr. Laisney to show that Robert is mistaken about what the SSPX believes:
Fr. Laisney wrote:
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.


Apparently this information, proving as it does that Robert is wrong, was unwelcome, so it was ignored.

The other point of contention is whether or not the SSPX holds that the Church is responsible for the evils of Vatican II. It’s a plain fact that the SSPX does not hold this view at all. To demonstrate this I quoted Archbishop Lefebvre himself, as well as Fr. Cekada giving Fr. Laisney’s view, and I also provided a link to an SSPX Web site touching specifically on this question.

John Lane wrote:
Here is the Archbishop expressing in emphatic terms the Catholic doctrine on the point:

Quote:
One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined!

The Church is not responsible. It is not the Church but rather the priests who are responsible for the deterioration of Catholicism. Pope St. Pius X, your Holy Patriarch of Venice, in the first pages of his encyclical Pascendi, writes that already in his time there were errors and heresies not outside but inside the Church; within the Church and not only among the laity but, more to the point, amongst the priests. St. Pius X saw these enemies from the very beginning of this century. Today we can add that if St. Pius X were still alive, he would see them not only amongst the priests but amongst the bishops and cardinals as well.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... htm#venice


So, his idea on this score was orthodox, no question. In reply to the CDF, so therefore in a most considered and formal context, he answered this question:

Quote:
Q. Do you hold that a faithful Catholic can think and say that a sacramental rite, in particular that of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or "favoring heresy"?

A. That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.

What is astounding is that an Ordo Missae savoring of Protestantism and therefore “favoring heresy” should be spread abroad by the Roman Curia.

And:
Fr. Cekada wrote:
"Father Laisney .. acknowledges — the Church cannot give a universal law that is evil or harmful to souls."

Also:
John Lane wrote:
Quasi-official SSPX comments on the authority and nature of Vatican II: http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q6_vatican_ii.htm


So, Robert's case is not made - indeed, it has been proven to be wrong - and he must withdraw his charge.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 26, 2013 1:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Apologies for the lengthy delay. A combination of work load and illness.

Most particularly to the point, I did characterize the SSPX "Recognize & Resist" position....

RobertJS wrote:
The R&R position is one big "faculty of stopping short".

John Lane replied:
"That's called humility."

I want to note, firstly, that this is an agreement with my characterization. The SSPX is praised (and perhaps excused) by claiming it is because of their virtue of "humility" that they refuse to get into the subject in-depth. At this point, allow me to define that virtue, according to St. Thomas:

"The virtue of humility consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior" - St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gent., bk. IV, ch. lv, tr. Rickaby)

What are you saying here, then? Are you saying it is "above" the SSPX and they humbly know it? Or, that they merely obey the top superior who himself doesn't want them to "go there", so they bail out of the discussion at a particular point?

If it is "above" them and they know it, why doesn't their humility likewise admit that, rather than bailing out without an explanation? This is not consistent with humility. If above them, why is there no explanation as to WHY it is above them, despite all their training? Are you now going to claim that their training is wanting which makes it above them, or, are you going to claim it is a "mystery" to all mankind and they know it?

Here we see it is not the SSPX who have ever explained themselves, but "John Lane", a sedevacantist, who is pointing to them, and characterizing what, he thinks, they are all about. Why doesn't any SSPX authority say plainly, "in humility", that it is "above" them because it is a "mystery to mankind"? I think the answer is obvious.

When I brought up, "ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" (where the pope is, there is the Church)....

John Lane replied:
"Now you're switching subjects."

On the contrary, it is the very crux of the matter. If you feel you are humble and want to "stop short", don't take it out on me and falsely say I am changing the subject. You just don't want to go there, either because it is above you, or in compliance with some superior.

So, instead of actually 'going there', you turn to look for another way to undermine my point - indirectly. You try to cloud the issue by casting uncertainty on the "source" and the "terminology" my argument is based upon - respectively, the authority of the "sspx.org" site, and what they mean by "sedevacantism".

As for sspx.org being authoritative for the SSPX? Many details could be touched upon, but the biggest is the fact that the domain was previous registered to Fr. Peter Scott, and now publicly updated as follows:

Name: Fr. Arnaud Rostand
Organization: The Society of Saint Pius X, South-West District, Inc.
Address 1: Regina Coeli House
Address 2: 11485 N. Farley Road
City: Platte City
State: MO
Zip: 64079
Country: US
Phone: +1.8167530073
Fax: +1.8167533560
Email: admin@sspx.org


It is obvious that what is repeatedly provided on sspx.org is what the SSPX wants its people, today, to learn from and repeat. To point to something Fr. Laisney wrote to Bp. Williamson last year, or something Abp. Lefebvre preached in Venice, Italy in 1980, does not trump what is put on their site (IF it happens to be opposed).

Abp. Lefebvre clearly said in 1986, and printed in the Angelus:

"Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true."

This cannot be found on the SSPX.org site, and we all know this is NOT what the SSPX wants its followers to think. In fact, quite inimical to it and Abp. Lefebvre's way of thinking on it. The "some priests" back in 1986 are now those who have given the clear and determined direction to the SSPX.

- - - -

Now, I have to address this false idea that somehow we cannot really know what the SSPX means when they use the term "sedevacantism"! The SSPX use it to mean - those who judge that the man in Rome is not a true pope despite his claim and world recognition. That is the essence of "sedevacantist". Let me follow through, in connection with this, by commenting on a quote by Fr. Laisney, which John Lane claimed I found unwelcome, though, contrarily, I find it a welcome addition to prove my points:

John Lane wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I pointed to a quote from Fr. Laisney to show that Robert is mistaken about what the SSPX believes:

Fr. Laisney wrote:
Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is very valuable. Firstly, it proves that Fr. Laisney can use the term "sedevacantist" and expect his readers to simply know what he means. Everyone does know what he means, including you, John. That is the way the sspx.org site uses it. My usage is perfectly fine.

Next, Fr. Laisney is saying that it is harmful to the Faith, with his words - "...because he was attached to this dogma...always rejected the sedevacantist position". That is what I referred to in Richard Cure's article on sspx.org, the very beginning of my argument, so this also supports me on what the sspx.org is saying.

Lastly, Laisney doesn't even have it correct about Abp. Lefebvre. He shows a failure to make the distinction between belief of a principle and its application. This is a basic. As I mentioned early on, the proof of lack of training is in the tasting of the pudding, and here is a taste. In my experience the SSPX just can't seem to grasp the distinction, which is a very simple one even for people without any seminary training.

John Lane wrote:
"The other point of contention is whether or not the SSPX holds that the Church is responsible for the evils of Vatican II. It's a plain fact that the SSPX does not hold this view at all."

You are merely proving that the SSPX does not DIRECTLY hold the Church responsible. You are proving something that is not the point, and something I never denied. I specifically said it is INDIRECT heretical blasphemy, and gave the definition, with examples. Again you diverge from the matter at hand in your strenuous efforts to defend the indefensible.

Again, I stand by what I wrote. The SSPX "Recognize & Resist" position is inherently indirect, heretical blasphemy:
viewtopic.php?p=14908#p14908

In correspondence with Fr. Scott and Fr. Laisney on this years ago, they both said judging the man to be not a true pope is part of the heresy of Gallicanism (Conciliarism). When presented with a quote by the Holy See (after 1870) giving approval to judging a man to not be a true pope who was otherwise still claiming to be so....these two clergy were put into a corner. They were faced with admitting one of two things:

1) The Holy See approved of the heresy of Gallicanism.

2) It is legitimate to judge a man to no longer be pope because of manifest heresy.

Both clergy just went quiet. They went quiet rather than even admit that what Abp. Lefebvre professed publicly in 1986 was true in principle: "it is possible we may be obliged to believe [John Paul II] is not pope."


The faithful who support and follow the SSPX treat this principle as if it is from the devil....as does Richard Cure's article which the SSPX provides as sustenance to their supporters.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert,

Humility

Why are you demanding an explanation of why the SSPX stops short of judging the pope question, when they have said why themselves many times? Are you really accusing men of heretical blasphemy without the slightest familiarity with their writings? (Yes, I think you are, just in case you are inclined to answer this rhetorical question.)

Read this: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... _Popes.pdf

In it you will find things like this:
Quote:
As has been previously stated, Archbishop Lefebvre felt great responsibility for the faithful, religious, and clergy who looked to him for guidance in the crisis. Equipped with a profound native prudence, he always aimed to keep clearly distinct two categories of facts: those which were essential or necessary for maintaining the faith, and those which were able to be left aside pending further consideration. This explains his insistence that the doctrine concerning true and false obedience was sufficient for that minimal set of actions which were absolutely necessary, such as refusing the errors of Vatican II and the reforms to which it gave birth, and continuing to provide the sacraments and ordain priests, and ultimately bishops, for the continuance of the Church. Both charity and prudence also informed his care to avoid commenting upon, or forming judgements about, persons whenever possible.

The Archbishop’s aim was to ensure that the faithful would have the mass, the sacraments and sound doctrine whilst avoiding unnecessary practical problems or difficulties of conscience for the clergy or for the faithful. The pope question he felt was deeply mysterious. Holy and learned men differed on the question, both sides presenting what seemed to be strong arguments, neither side securing a decisive victory. Further, the question was profoundly divisive. He recognised that the dispute was a legitimate one, that Christian doctrine did not demand that either view be outlawed. Yet he did not feel that the data was sufficiently solid to enable a secure judgement either way.


And:
Quote:
And this is precisely how Bishop Tissier de Mallerais summarised it after the Archbishop’s death. In 1998, as part of his reflections on the tenth anniversary of the episcopal consecrations, Bishop Tissier summarised the Archbishop’s thinking as follows:

"He said more than once about these popes – about Paul VI from 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 – that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been popes. But for himself, he preferred to consider them as popes."


The SSPX, founded as it was by a learned Archbishop, applied the principles expressed so admirably in this article (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/heresyhistory.html) long before any of us was a traditional Catholic. "Humility" is an excellent term for it.

The SSPX position

Unlike conventicles where there is one cleric, who has run off and gotten himself consecrated a bishop (because, you know, there are five or ten Confirmations every year!), and therefore nobody to disagree with the fellow in charge, the SSPX is an umbrella for a very broad assortment of priests. There are six hundred of them, Robert. Since in this discussion we cannot take anything for granted, this is a much larger number than one and even a much larger number than seven (but don't take my word for it, check with a math teacher). In the USA the Web site is run by a generous layman. His views are not necessarily those of many SSPX members, and they certainly are not the views of the SSPX as such. This is just a fact. Don't argue against facts, it just makes you look even more like a goose. The best way to discuss the SSPX position is to go to the source - Lefebvre. After all, that's what they themselves do.

Of course, if you had evidence other than a couple of short excerpts from a single article, you'd just post them and try in that way cut out the entire controversy...

Sedevacantism, sedevacantism, or sedevacantism?

On the question of what is meant by the term "sedevacantism" you are dodging so hard you nearly fell clean over, Robert.

There are two theories running about under the name "sedevacantism" which I myself reject as, respectively, folly and heresy. That is, the incomprehensible nonsense, the Cassiciacum Thesis, which is the most prominent "sedevacantism" in Europe, and there is the heresy that Fr. Cekada holds, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is extinct, and Fr. Cekada is far and away the most prominent sedevacantist in the English-speaking world. It is clear from your refusal to deal candidly with this point that you hold one of these yourself.

Further, both of those theories involve ripping the faithful away from the mass and the sacraments, which is precisely what Satan wanted when he launched his Vatican II revolt. So, from the point of view of a simple traditional priest, who knows that judging heretics is usually the job of authority, not that of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, "sedevacantism" looks like the other side of the Devil's chief coin.

For some strange reason you seem incapable of grasping this. It looks very simple to me. Or is it that you'd rather not admit that you yourself advise the faithful to stay home alone if their only option is an SSPX chapel?

You assert, "[t]here is nowhere to turn but to the so-called sedevacantist position," and yet you won't say what that is. :wink:

Your comments comparing your own superlative intellectual accomplishments (hang on, what were they again?) with those of the SSPX clergy, who cannot, in your view, apply the simplest distinctions, are noted. See above, under "humility", for some direction.

Actually, I am frequently impressed by the intellectual quality of young SSPX priests. Recently I was emailed the document attached to this post (see below, entitled "Dissent"). It displays a most penetrating intellect, well formed and clear. You won't understand it all, Robert, but you will no doubt recognise that this young man is your superior. It's obvious.

Switching subjects

Here's what I actually wrote,
John Lane wrote:
Now you're switching subjects. And your doctrine is wrong anyway. Do you accept the doctrine expressed in this text? http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... isobey.htm


Silence from you. Now I suspect that you don't accept the doctrine expressed in that article, so it is your own orthodoxy that is in question. Further, one wonders how you justify the instinctive and proper reaction of the first traditionalists to the revolution in Rome, if you don't accept this doctrine.

Answering questions, or not

You finish with a little vignette designed, in all charity, to present Frs. Scott and Laisney in a bad light. Why? Because they declined to answer a question. Look up "hypocrisy" Robert. You specialise in not answering questions.


Attachments:
Dissent.pdf [115.34 KiB]
Downloaded 1025 times

_________________
In Christ our King.
Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Fr. Laisney wrote:
It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.

John, what did Fr. Laisney intend by the term, "the sedevacantist" ?

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, what do you mean by the term? Do you agree with Fr. Cekada, that the Church has, in Fr. Laisney's words, "no more hierarchy"?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John, you are changing the subject. This thread is for me to defend my accusation. Part of your attack against my accusation was to question what the SSPX means by the word. I am directly asking you what Fr. Laisney meant by that word in the excerpt from him that you praised.

What makes it even worse is you ask me what I mean by the term, and I have already explicitly answered that. It is right here on this page (scroll back). Further, I had explained also in this thread why Fr. Cekada's (or anyone else's) thoughts beyond the essence of "sedevacantism" has nothing to do with me. I was very explicit with that also.

Now, what did Fr. Laisney mean by the term "the sedevacantist" in that quote you recommended?

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:09 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, instead of all the bluster, just point out where you explained what you mean by the term. I didn't see it and I am not going to trawl through all your words to find it.

Thank you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
Robert, instead of all the bluster, just point out where you explained what you mean by the term. I didn't see it and I am not going to trawl through all your words to find it.

Thank you.


I wrote:
"The essence of sedevacantism is - the conclusion there is presently no true pope despite [there] being a prominent claimant to the See of Peter. This is the way the SSPX treat sedevacantism in the article I have referred to, and anyone can understand that."

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, you haven't answered my question, yet again.

I remind you:
John Lane wrote:
Robert, what do you mean by the term? Do you agree with Fr. Cekada, that the Church has, in Fr. Laisney's words, "no more hierarchy"?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
I decline to "trawl" through some other web site and verify what some other sedevacantist believes or thinks on a side issue, besides the fact it has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread. I am not going to fall for derailing this thread.

What is directly pertinent to this thread is what the SSPX means by its usage of the term.

You praised that quote by Fr. Laisney, which you presented to give testimony to SSPX position. Therein he mentions, simply, "the sedevacantist". If you don't know what he meant, why would you recommend that excerpt here?

What Fr. Laisney intended by that term is immediately germane to this thread that you created for me.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:12 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
I decline to "trawl" through some other web site and verify what some other sedevacantist believes or thinks on a side issue, besides the fact it has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread.


Robert, you don't need to trawl anywhere in order to say what you mean by the term. You are coming across as rather desperate.

RobertJS wrote:
I am not going to fall for derailing this thread. What is directly pertinent to this thread is what the SSPX means by its usage of the term.


What is pertinent, since you the accuser are basing your accusation on the use of a single term, is what you mean by it and what your intended victims mean by it. If that usage is similar, then your accusation gets off first base and might be able to be proved. If not, it falls over immediately.

Now, I've already shown what the SSPX means by it, and it differs from how you define it here, so your argument is already lost, actually.

The SSPX, following Archbishop Lefebvre, is not opposed to people holding the view that Bergoglio is not pope. Lefebvre speculated that he might adopt that view himself. The last time I checked, The Angelus Web site still carried the article from 1986 in which the Archbishop expressed that view. What the SSPX rejects, as did Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, and indeed all informed and sober Catholics, is any theory which says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has ceased to exist.

We've covered this before. What is curious is that you will not simply say whether you agree with Lefebvre and Guerard, or whether you hold the grave error of Fr. Cekada that both of those senior traditionalist figures rejected as incompatible with the faith.

RobertJS wrote:
You praised that quote by Fr. Laisney, which you presented to give testimony to SSPX position. Therein he mentions, simply, "the sedevacantist". If you don't know what he meant, why would you recommend that excerpt here?


Robert, re-read that section. You are totally misrepresenting it. I hope that's inadvertent. Do you agree with Fr. Cekada, that the Church has, in Fr. Laisney's words, "no more hierarchy"?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
I have given the essence (definition) of what I believe sedevacantism is.

I believe the Fr. Laisney meant the same in the quote that you excerpted.

Do you understand the same meaning when you read his quote?

If not, say how it differs in your mind. Let's see if we are all on the same page.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:15 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert,

Enough obfuscation.

John Lane wrote:
In response, he was asked to identify what it is that the SSPX writers mean when they use the term "sedevacantism." This is important, in fact absolutely crucial, in this context, because of the fact that Robert is arguing that if SSPX writers say that "sedevacantism" is opposed to the faith, then they must necessarily hold heterodox ideas.


That's your essential argument, Robert, and that's what you have tried to prove, above: viewtopic.php?p=14908#p14908

Your argument is, formally:

It is blasphemous heresy to assert that the Church gives evil,
But the SSPX says that the Church gave us harmful, invalid or poisonous Sacraments,
Therefore the SSPX holds a blasphemous heresy.

Here it is, in your own words:

Quote:
To "recognize" the Apostolic See and "resist" it, is definitively - indirect, heretical blasphemy. The SSPX and benefactors live and breathe this in daily. They say the Church gave us harmful, invalid or poisonous Sacraments ...


I refuted this, by quoting Lefebvre and Laisney, who both explicitly rejected the notion that these evils came from the Church. You carefully ignored this evidence, and instead you continue to try and convict those men of holding the opposite of what they said, based upon their use of a single term "sedevacantism" which you yourself refuse to define except in so vague a manner that it will cover anything from outright heresy to an orthodox and mild opinion held by many SSPX priests themselves.

You have failed to make your case and you must retract and apologise.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert,

You say "silence is consent". You have been challenged to reject the heresy of Fr. Cekada, that all of the Church's offices are presently vacant. That is, there is no more hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Your reply: Silence.

On your own principle, you would appear to be maintaining a heresy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:04 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
I have given the essence (definition) of what I believe sedevacantism is.

I believe the Fr. Laisney meant the same in the quote that you excerpted.


How could you think he meant that, unless of course you yourself hold Fr. Cekada's heretical view?

Fr. Laisney wrote:
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.


RobertJS wrote:
Do you understand the same meaning when you read his quote?


I believe that I understand exactly what he means. He rejects heresy. So do I. I'm on record rejecting and criticising Fr. Cekada's theory. You, very significantly, refuse to reject it. Why would that be?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John replied:
"I believe that I understand exactly what he means. He rejects heresy. So do I."

That's not an answer to the question of what Fr. Laisney meant by the term "sedevacantist", when he casually used it in that quote you presented.

I gave the essence/definition of what I think "sedevacantist" means. I believe that Fr. Laisney used the term with the same meaning as I gave. You have refused multiple times to say what you think Fr. Laisney meant by the term. You give me this thread to prove my accusation, but as I am in the process, you become a deliberate obstacle. Make up your mind.

I have said multiple times that what any other sedevacantist believes has nothing to do with me, or the purpose of this thread, yet you ignore that and keep trying to ram that down my throat. Silence means consent when one has an obligation to speak up. I have no obligation to address anything you say here that is not pertinent to the thread, nor any obligation to go and verify whether some accusation is true or not about some other sedevacantist.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
John replied:
"I believe that I understand exactly what he means. He rejects heresy. So do I."

That's not an answer to the question of what Fr. Laisney meant by the term "sedevacantist", when he casually used it in that quote you presented.


Robert,

The man didn't use it "casually," he used it quite formally, qualifying it so as to make its meaning utterly, unmistakably, clear. Let's read it yet again:
Fr. Laisney wrote:
Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.


RobertJS wrote:
I gave the essence/definition of what I think "sedevacantist" means.

This is so puerile I am finding it hard to credit that an adult can have written it honestly.

Take any lawful controversy between Catholic thinkers, and you will see the same issue at work as we see in this one. The controversies on grace will do. On the one side you had men whose main point was to defend God's omnipotence; on the other, men who thought that what was under threat was the dogma of man's free will. At the very heart of the controversy itself - that is, not necessarily the truth or falsehood, objectively considered, of any position taken by a Catholic in those controversies, but the controversy itself - was the definition of terms. One side meant one thing by a term, and the other had its own, subtly different, definition. It is quite possible to imagine that in any given pair of positions, once the terms used were understood fully as they were meant by the respective sides, that the two apparently opposed positions were not actually different in substance. When this becomes apparent, we say that the controversy was "largely verbal" or words to that effect. It's common in theology.

In the present case we are all within the same context - the greatest crisis that the Church has ever suffered - and we are trying to understand what has happened, and stay within the bounds of Christian doctrine in doing so. You say, completely without seriousness, that you grant the good will of your victims in this controversy. No you don't. If you did, you'd see that they don't accept that there is any "sedevacantism" that does not involve the assertion that the entire hierarchy has defected; and that assertion is not orthodox, so they reject it.

Not only is that the view of the SSPX, as I have proved already, but it was the view of the most prominent early sedevacantist, Guerard des Lauriers, and the very reason he developed his own theory of "sedevacantism." I bring this out, not to ram anything down your throat, as you elegantly put it, but to illustrate that the SSPX view is eminently credible and needs to be addressed. If you really granted their good will, you'd engage on this point. Instead, you dodge and weave and carry on like a cornered kitten.

The debate over what has happened to the Catholic Church is not merely verbal, it's real. But aspects of it certainly involve disputes which are, at bottom, disputes over terms. This is one of them. You would not know about this, since you don't care about facts, but Bishop de Castro Mayer did not think that JP2 was pope, and used to make it clear that despite holding this view, he detested sedevacantism. (I know exactly how he felt.) To you, this attitude of de Castro Mayer would appear to be the purest self-contradiction. But that only shows that you haven't the slightest idea what you are writing about.

RobertJS wrote:
I believe that Fr. Laisney used the term with the same meaning as I gave. You have refused multiple times to say what you think Fr. Laisney meant by the term.

No, I haven't, I have repeatedly brought into relief what he meant. He meant, I say yet again, that "sedevacantism" is a theory that involves the Church having no hierarchy. He rejects that.

RobertJS wrote:
You give me this thread to prove my accusation, but as I am in the process, you become a deliberate obstacle. Make up your mind.

You appear to think that we are operating in a moral and intellectual vacuum. We are not. This thread, like any other, will have moral and intellectual integrity, even if it has to be imposed by the moderators.

RobertJS wrote:
Silence means consent when one has an obligation to speak up. I have no obligation to address anything you say here that is not pertinent to the thread, nor any obligation to go and verify whether some accusation is true or not about some other sedevacantist.

No obligation in general, I agree. An obligation in the context where the heart of the issue is the definition of the term "sedevacantism"? I disagree. And I think not one reader in a hundred would be on your side on that, even if they themselves think that the SSPX is a horrible bunch of pseudo-Catholics who don't know as much Christian doctrine as themselves.

The truth is that if we had a complete theory of the crisis that solved the main issues and was provable, we'd have published a book explaining and proving it. There have been a couple of attempts along those lines, but nothing that any of us thinks was successful. And that is the real reason that traditional Catholics, on the whole, reject "sedevacantism." That is, "sedevacantism" as a complete theory to explain the crisis, doesn't actually exist. Even the largest organisations known to reject the claims of the V2 popes, the SSPV and the CMRI, don't have any such theory. Indeed, the SSPV hardly ever mentions the pope question.

It's nuts to accuse anybody of lacking a Catholic view merely because they reject something which as a matter of fact, doesn't even exist.

On the other side they have an equally difficult problem - their own theory of the crisis doesn't work, and they are presently hotly debating it. See Frs. Laisney and Gleize versus Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal, et al. This is good. It's a pity our side can't debate the subject, but Fr. Cekada doesn't answer questions or objections, so we can't get a debate started.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
By the way, I refuted the Richard Cure article that is your sole evidence for your allegation some 12 years ago. I point this out in order to highlight the first paragraph of my refutation, which began by emphasising that Richard Cure's views are not those of the SSPX itself, something which was obvious back then, when I had no relationships with SSPX priests, and has only become even more apparent with time. Your own ignorance of the views of the SSPX is correspondingly clear.
John Lane wrote:
To the great discredit of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Webmaster of its American site, “sspx.org,” has published an article which can only be described as complete rubbish. And this, not just because the present writer disagrees with the conclusions of the article, but rather because of the disgraceful nature of the work. It is disgraceful, employing that term in its precise meaning, because it drips with malice and because it is utterly lacking in even the rudiments of scholarship. Thus it does violence to both truth and charity, and its presence on an SSPX Web site can only discredit that organisation in the eyes of reasonable and charitable men.

Mr. Richard Cure has decided that “sedevacantism” is actually the heresy of Gallicanism. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't attempt to prove this grave charge, but merely assumes its truth and then employs it as a hammer with which to beat mercilessly those of us who reject the claims of Karol Wojtyla.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/intelligible.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 76
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Here's how I see it.

The term "sedevacantist" is commonly -- and not entirely accurately -- used to describe anyone who holds the view that the overt heads of the Catholic Church from Roncalli on are not Popes. I don't like that the term has come to mean that, but it appears that way because if we hold that the Vatican capos since 1958 are antipopes, then it would necessarily seem to mean therefore to the uninitiated that there is no Pope.

That's not the case. For instance, there's the Siri thesis, although a valid Pope would not necessarily have to be Siri, and he died in 1989 anyway. But it does open the doors to the suggestion that there is an alternate Papal line and possible Roman clergy existing somewhere today, underground -- the Church in the catacombs, as prophecied -- afraid to stick their necks out for fear of being cut off.

But then there are those, "sedevacantists" properly so-called, who say that there has been no valid Pope since 1958, and that the Roman clergy has all fallen into heresy and mutilation of their holy orders, and is therefore extinct. The various kooky "conclavist" groups would be a subset of these sedevacantists.

So, among the subset of all Catholics who do not accept the Conciliar popes as valid, for which no adequate term currently exists, there are:
1) those who do think a valid Roman Pope and clergy still exists underground, and
2) those who don't.

The problem is, "sedevacantist" is commonly used, even within the SSPX, to refer to both groups 1 and 2, that is, to all Catholics who consider the Conciliar popes invalid, when it should properly only refer to group 2, that is those Catholics who further consider the Roman clergy and papal succession vacant, i.e., extinct. And, there seems to unfortunately be a common attitude among SSPX priests to treat those in group 1 as if they're in group 2.


Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
I personally asked Fr. Laisney for the definition of sedevacantist (even specifically as he used it in that quote) and he said:

"For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant. This can be the "definition" of the sedevacantist position."

Now, John, you quoted Fr. Laisney to say he was representing SSPX thought. Do you now retract that since he has given the definition?

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Just point him to this thread, then let us know what he says, Robert.

Thanks.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
Just point him to this thread, then let us know what he says, Robert.

Thanks.


Fr. Laisney knew what he himself meant when he wrote that before this thread existed. He gave that meaning.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved."

I'm going to contact Fr. Laisney, point him to this thread, and see what he has to say.

Your allegation is that he holds the erroneous opinion that the Church gave us the evils of Vatican II. I know for a fact, and have proved it here using his own words, that he explicitly rejects that error.

Why would you not be glad to discover that the evil you believed is not true?

Why would you love the false idea that your fellow Catholics are addicted to blasphemy and heresy?

Why would you not strive to think well of your fellow Catholics?

What kind of Catholic are you, Robert?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the
light, that his works may not be reproved."

I'm going to contact Fr. Laisney, point him to this thread, and see
what he has to say.

I am here speaking in the light, the public forum. It would be a blessed relief to argue with Fr. Laisney here in the light instead of with you. I think he would have the integrity to not change the subject and twist my words.

Fr. Laisney is not going to change his definition, John. It wasn't a mere coinicidence that I understood the definition as did Fr. Laisney. Nor was it a mere coincidence that you didn't.

John Lane wrote:
Your allegation is that he holds the erroneous opinion that the
Church gave us the evils of Vatican II. I know for a fact, and have
proved it here using his own words, that he explicitly rejects that error.

And, I have agreed that it was explicitly rejected. Did you see that, John? What kind of memory or comprehension do you have? Go back and look what I said surrounding that point. Did you even read it the first time?

John Lane wrote:
Why would you not be glad to discover that the evil you believed is not true?

Yes, I would be glad.

John Lane wrote:
Why would you love the false idea that your fellow Catholics are
addicted to blasphemy and heresy?

Those are your sick, invented words, John. I clearly never said any such thing.

John Lane wrote:
Why would you not strive to think well of your fellow Catholics?

I do. But when I observe what is not well, I don't create a personal fantasy world for myself against my senses, reason, chronology & the facts, as you do, John.

John Lane wrote:
What kind of Catholic are you, Robert?

One who loves the truth and tries to stick with the thread of the discussion.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
-----Original Message-----
From: Fr Laisney
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June, 2013 8:45 AM
To: 'RobertJPS'
Subject: RE: Eleison Comments

Dear Mr S,

Given that sedevacantists do not agree among themselves about the start of the vacancy (some say 1965, others 1962, 1959, and even others earlier!), one can generally say that sedevacantists agree with this basic tenet:

For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant.

This can be the "definition" of the sedevacantist position.

Their motive for reaching this "conclusion" varies among them, and has varied in time too - and it is irrelevant to the falsity of their position.

In good logic, if a postulate leads to conclusions evidently false, that postulate itself is false (this is the very basic of reasoning by "reduction ad absurdum"). Now, given the fact that there has been no effort on the part of the Church (even if - dato non concesso - one reduces the Church to the sedevacantists themselves) to provide a legitimate Pope, (normally, as soon as one Pope dies, the process of the election of the successors starts without delay - or even if exceptionally, due to persecution, there may be a delay in the actual election, at least the process is there and one can say that the Church is "working towards" having the next Pope - but such is not the case now), so given that fact, the sedevacantist position thus leads to a notion of the Church without Pope, without legitimate cardinals and bishops (since those nominated by a false Pope could not be legitimate), thus without a hierarchy, and without normal means to restore one: such Church is certainly NOT the Church as our Lord Jesus Christ has established it! Therefore...

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Father François Laisney



-----Original Message-----
From: RobertJPS
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June, 2013 5:54 AM
To: Fr Laisney
Subject: Re: Eleison Comments

Dear Fr. Laisney:

I am having a discussion with a unique sedevacantist, and a portion of your December 2012 rebuttal to Bp. Williamson's Eleison Comments came up in the conversation. I will only quote a sentence that I wish to enquire about something within:

"It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy."

I only ask, at your earliest convenience, if you would define "the sedevacantist" for me as you intended your reader to think of when you wrote this. I know definitions are basically the "essence" of a thing, and I would much appreciate your brief time on this.

Thank you,
Robert S

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
OK, now we have light. :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Your allegation is that he holds the erroneous opinion that the
Church gave us the evils of Vatican II. I know for a fact, and have
proved it here using his own words, that he explicitly rejects that error.

And, I have agreed that it was explicitly rejected. Did you see that, John? What kind of memory or comprehension do you have? Go back and look what I said surrounding that point. Did you even read it the first time?


Robert J.S.,

I have been following this discussion, albeit I admit with some difficulty. I have missed where you agreed it was explicitly rejected. Could you please point out where you said this, as I cannot go back through all those words to find it? Also, whilst I am here, any chance you could please sum up succinctly and with a bit of brevity your proof of your accusation, without all the extras, because too many words serve only to blur the case rather than clarify. Your line of thinking has not been at all clear to me and I am not convinced you have made your case.

Katie

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Ok, so Fr. Laisney believes that sedevacantism leads necessarily towards a defection of the Church in her hierarchy.

I think there are two things we have to distinguish here. One is a quaestio iuris and other a quaestio facti. The former is whether the Catholic Church can exist or not without residential Bishops. Some sedes such as Bp Sanborn and Fr. Cekada hold that view. Nevertheless I believe it is totally wrong and against the common teaching of theologians (to say the least). So in this sense Fr. Laisney is right.
The question here we have to discuss is if in fact sedevacantism leads to that conclusion necessarily. If Fr. Laisney believes so, then I think he is wrong.

Or to say all this in another way. The reasoning of Fr Laisney is the following:

Major: The Church cannot exist without residential Bishops.

Minor: Sedevacantism leads to a Church without residential Bishops.

Ergo. It is false.

Major it is true. Minor has to be proved. Yet Fr. has been logic in his reasoning.

Am I missing something?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
The only light that we have now is that we see you, John, have not distinguished between a "definition" and a judged "conclusion" involving that definition. Do you understand that distinction?

The SSPX "conclusions" are already public, so you have given nothing new.

The definition of sedevacantist remains the same as I (and Fr. Laisney) have given it. Do you accept or reject the definition?

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Nice summary of the logical arguments, thanks Cristian.

Katie, me too. I have no idea where he conceded what he claims here.

Robert,

Obviously the bare word "sedevacantism" means that the See is Vacant. That's not what we're discussing. What we are discussing was expressed multiple times and you don't appear to have noticed it. Here are two examples - one from the beginning of the thread, and one from much later:
John Lane wrote:
See if you can discover what it is they mean by the term "sedevacantism", then ask yourself whether they are not actually correct when they assert that it is opposed to the faith, etc.


John Lane wrote:
You say, completely without seriousness, that you grant the good will of your victims in this controversy. No you don't. If you did, you'd see that they don't accept that there is any "sedevacantism" that does not involve the assertion that the entire hierarchy has defected; and that assertion is not orthodox, so they reject it.


Now we have Fr. Laisney confirming this in an email to you, from which you very carefully selected a single sentence for publication here. You also wrote an email to him which any objective reader would take as implying that you are on his side against those "sedevacantists". I'm not commenting on your approach in that except in one narrow point - I see how you operate, Robert. That was clever. It was especially important, given the way you crafted your approach to him, that you did not point him to this thread. Despite your approach, he confirmed what I have said that he believes.

You lost this argument many days ago. You really need to learn to admit defeat.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John, you are suggesting that different approaches to Fr. Laisney would have produced different definitions for the term! That is suggesting a lack of honesty and simplicity in Fr. Laisney. I was careful not to give him any leading questions but merely to ask what his definition was (and everyone can see that), and he gave it right from his brain....honestly. That is the way it is, and you need to face it. That is what he thinks now, and also when he wrote it six months ago. He gave the definition, the other information he offered unsolicited was his conclusions based on other extraneous religious matter. If you still cannot grasp the distinction between a definition and a conclusion, you are not competent to discuss this.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
John, you are suggesting that different approaches to Fr. Laisney would have produced different definitions for the term!

No, don't be horrible.

RobertJS wrote:
If you still cannot grasp the distinction between a definition and a conclusion, you are not competent to discuss this.


Do you honestly believe that this is an answer to my argument?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John, you are purposely being uncooperative in a most simple matter. Fr. Laisney explicitly gave his definition of the sedevacantist position as:

"For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant."

If you think this is faulty, let us know why.

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:10 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
Robert, your cheek exceeds all bounds.

Obviously the bare word "sedevacantism" means that the See is Vacant. That's not what we're discussing. Read Cristian's summary if in doubt.

One more reply like that last one and you're finished here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
John, you are purposely being uncooperative in a most simple matter. Fr. Laisney explicitly gave his definition of the sedevacantist position as:

"For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant."


CRIMESTOP!

Quote:
If you think this is faulty, let us know why.


Because Fr Laisney tells us what he believes in his very next paragraph

Quote:
so given that fact, the sedevacantist position thus leads to a notion of the Church without Pope, without legitimate cardinals and bishops (since those nominated by a false Pope could not be legitimate), thus without a hierarchy, and without normal means to restore one: such Church is certainly NOT the Church as our Lord Jesus Christ has established it! Therefore...


Simple. C’mon Robert, give it up. You lost. I am starting to feel really embarrassed for you


Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:40 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 73
Location: New England
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
Robert, your cheek exceeds all bounds.

Obviously the bare word "sedevacantism" means that the See is Vacant. That's not what we're discussing. Read Cristian's summary if in doubt.

One more reply like that last one and you're finished here.

Is that a threat to ban me from the forums, or merely to lock this thread?

_________________
It prays to poofread!


Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:33 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
John Lane wrote:
For example, I myself was shocked - link to Ignis Ardens - to discover that Fr. Cekada's "sedevacantism" involves the explicit denial that the Apostles have any Successors at all today.


John Lane wrote:
Now, I have spent more than fifteen years combatting what I thought was an entirely unjust allegation against "sedevacantism" - viz., that we hold that the hierarchy is extinct - only to discover that this is exactly what Fr. Cekada believes. Not only that, I found out also that he has held this view for many years. So the SSPX has not been unjustly defaming "sedevacantism" - they have been justly and accurately opposing an heretical theory held by the most prominent "sedevacantist" proponent in the English-speaking world.


John Lane wrote:
You cited the SSPX saying that "sedevacantism" is against the faith etc. I challenged your identification of that word with what we call "sedevacantism" and then provided a stark illustration of why this is not merely a word game - that is, the chief proponent of "sedevacantism" in the English-speaking world promotes an heretical theory under that title.

But of course, if you agree with Fr. Cekada, or you don't recognise that his idea is unorthodox, then you won't grasp the force of the point.


John Lane wrote:
You've already avoided the first challenge I posed - discover what it is that SSPX writers condemn under the name "sedevacantism". Now you have a second challenge - prove that the SSPX teaches that the novelties of Vatican II and its aftermath came from the Church.


John Lane wrote:
Agreed, if by the sedevacantist position you mean what I mean, and not, for example, what Guerard des Lauriers meant, or Fr. Cekada, or Bishop Sanborn, or the Dimond Brothers, or quite a few other even more weird sets of ideas out there which masquerade under that title, and so far you have studiously avoided defining how you yourself use that term. Why would that be, especially when your first line of argument explicitly relied upon the SSPX's condemnation of "sedevacantism"?


John Lane wrote:
In response, he was asked to identify what it is that the SSPX writers mean when they use the term "sedevacantism." This is important, in fact absolutely crucial, in this context, because of the fact that Robert is arguing that if SSPX writers say that "sedevacantism" is opposed to the faith, then they must necessarily hold heterodox ideas.

Robert declined to enter into this question too, preferring instead to insist that "sedevacantism" is a univocal term. This is simply bizarre, given the radical differences between, say, Guerardian sedevacantism and classical sedevacantism. Guerard des Lauriers said that classical sedevacantism is gravely erroneous (even heretical?). The Guerardians in this point absolutely agree with SSPX writers. The basis for this opinion is that they perceive classical sedevacantism to be what Fr. Cekada asserts - that all of the Church's offices are vacant today.

Now, an honest Guerardian – realising that from his point of view his case against the SSPX on this score is hopeless, since he most firmly agrees with the SSPX on the central point – would find some other bone to pick with the SSPX, if picking a bone with the SSPX is really such a desirable activity. On the other hand, a Cekadian sedevacantist would assert that both the Guerardians and SSPXers are mistaken and that it isn’t contrary to the faith to say that all of the Church’s offices are presently vacant. Robert does neither. Instead, he asserts, ipse dixit, that the “sedevacantism” rejected by the SSPX as incompatible with the faith is the mere view that the See of Rome is presently vacant.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
AMWills wrote:
Because Fr Laisney tells us what he believes in his very next paragraph


Which is why that paragraph was carefully omitted from the quote Robert provided.

What's interesting about Fr. Laisney's email is that he does not say that the bare notion of "sede vacante" is unorthodox. What he says is that the idea that the See has been vacant for forty years, and thereore the visible Church has come to an end, is unorthodox.

If only we had a complete theory, presented seriously in book form!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 20
New post Re: The non-sedevacantist position?
RobertJS wrote:
It would be a blessed relief to argue with Fr. Laisney here in the light instead of with you. I think he would have the integrity to not change the subject and twist my words.


Why did you delete the rest of Fr. Laisney's email? If it was not relevant, you had nothing to lose by presenting it complete.


Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.