Why can't trads get along?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

This is typically done by dragging a said issue into the religious field and then "refuting" it there, based on one's own interpretation of religious teaching.

E.g. "refuting" heliocentrism with Bible passages and incorrect judgements by inquisitors, when the question is not a religious but an empirical and theoretical one. Other examples abound.

Arguments necessarily ensure when "evidence" is treated as subjective, uninformed opinion

No I think we dont get along with folks who have an agenda or something on their chest and then derail a thread so they can bring up something from another thread were they got trounced...but I could be wrong.

[Mono no aware]

This is typically done by dragging a said issue into the religious field and then "refuting" it there, based on one's own interpretation of religious teaching.

E.g. "refuting" heliocentrism with Bible passages and incorrect judgements by inquisitors, when the question is not a religious but an empirical and theoretical one. Other examples abound.

Arguments necessarily ensure when "evidence" is treated as subjective, uninformed opinion

No I think we dont get along with folks who have an agenda or something on their chest and then derail a thread so they can bring up something from another thread were they got trounced...but I could be wrong.

Exactly.  It's interesting that it seems to be the heliocentrists who can't resist making snarky remarks on various threads completely unrelated to the issue.  "This forum isn't ready to discuss science," and so forth.  I guess that's the way of the sore loser.

[charlesh]

Besides the "Catholic-And" effect, I think trads don't get along because of the priests they follow. We all agree in creed, cult, and code, so why don't we get along? The sede priests trump up the "una cum" argument and get us to parrot it. The indult priests get us to repeat the "sedes-are-protties" line. The SSPX get us to believe the "extra-fsspx-nulla-salus" line. Maybe it comes down to something as simple as this: each group wants to fill its own pews, build its own little empire, and run the competition out. All the sheep for me, as it were. We are the only show in town.

I, for one, am skeptical. I'll go to Mass at the diocese, the sedevacantists, the sedeplenists, and the independents. I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments. The point to be made is this: Let the priests squabble over sheep. We're all in the desert and need water.

[JuniorCouncilor]

I'll even go to the SSPX and suffer through a 45 minute sermon if it means sacraments.

For the record, 45 min is an exaggeration.

(Usually.  I do know of one possible exception.)

With respect to the OP, I really think it comes down to principles on the one hand, and lack of authority on the other.  We all have problems/issues that need to be decided, but there's no one we can trust who has the authority to decide them, or who will use the authority to decide.  And thus, we either live and let live, or live and do our best to convert the adversary.

Honestly, the latter is better, but the former is generally a heck of a lot easier.  We should probably try harder to avoid it.  Which, in turn, means that we actually aren't arguing enough.

(The real issue, as it seems to me, is that we aren't arguing charitably enough, on the one hand; and that we aren't willing to face the discomfort of having our own views challenged, on the other.  But then again, I might just be crazy.)

[Jayne]

With respect to the OP, I really think it comes down to principles on the one hand, and lack of authority on the other.  We all have problems/issues that need to be decided, but there's no one we can trust who has the authority to decide them, or who will use the authority to decide.  And thus, we either live and let live, or live and do our best to convert the adversary.

Honestly, the latter is better, but the former is generally a heck of a lot easier.  We should probably try harder to avoid it.  Which, in turn, means that we actually aren't arguing enough.

(The real issue, as it seems to me, is that we aren't arguing charitably enough, on the one hand; and that we aren't willing to face the discomfort of having our own views challenged, on the other.  But then again, I might just be crazy.)

It seems to me that we only have an obligation to argue for positions that we are sure are right.  I am at a point of feeling confused and troubled by what is going on it the Church.  About all I am sure about   is my need for prayer, Sacraments and doing the duties of my state of life.  I can understand why some people are reaching different conclusions from my own on various issues. 

[JuniorCouncilor]

Jayne,

I kind of agree, and kind of don't.  The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation.  I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics.  Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them.  That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist. 

Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either.  I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist.  That can't continue.  If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly.  I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.

Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant.  We should share them whenever it will be helpful.  Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it.  I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.

Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better.  That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing.  For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.

One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.

That, at least, is the best I can make of it.

[Jayne]

Jayne,

I kind of agree, and kind of don't.  The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation.  I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics.  Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them.  That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist. 

Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either.  I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist.  That can't continue.  If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly.  I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.

Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant.  We should share them whenever it will be helpful.  Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it.  I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.

Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better.  That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing.  For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.

One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.

That, at least, is the best I can make of it.

I'm moving in the opposite direction.  I've worn myself out with arguing about these things and I don't see that it has done any good to anyone. 

I can understand why you want to argue, but it does not work for me anymore.

[Older Salt]

My wife and I get along with all the Trads we know and meet [over 100 and growing] except the several sedevacantists we have met, who, to put it mildly, seem very anti-social.

[tradical]

Jayne,

I kind of agree, and kind of don't.  The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation.  I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics.  Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them.  That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist. 

Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either.  I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist.  That can't continue.  If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly.  I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.

Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant.  We should share them whenever it will be helpful.  Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it.  I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.

Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better.  That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing.  For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.

One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.

That, at least, is the best I can make of it.

Hi Junior Councilor,

I'll jump in here and apologize if I missed part of the issue since I haven't read the whole thread (time won't allow).

The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope.  Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts. 

Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds.  Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church.  Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.

The third point is that as a traditionalist you will hold, in greater or lesser degrees, a fundamentally different perspective that the other students.  This will cause conflict, no way around it. Whether you seek isolation or they isolate you is a key point. If you seek isolation, then you'll be in trouble fairly quickly.  If they shun you - that is another matter.  In either case, when challenged you will need to explain your perspective by expounding on the teaching of the Church - not your own interpretation. In this manner it becomes the truth, not 'your' truth.

God Bless!
Tradical

[Older Salt]

Jayne,

I kind of agree, and kind of don't.  The reasons are as follows: firstly, I find myself leading a double life, or at least a life of isolation.  I attend the Catholic University of America, and all of my housemates are Catholics.  Yet, I seldom if ever feel that I am a Catholic among Catholics, because I've always been more traditional than any of them.  That position has become even more extreme since I became a sedevacantist. 

Although I tell myself that it's not a secret, the fact that I am a sedevacantist is not something I advertise, either.  I have the feeling that for most Catholics, it would be better for me to be an Evangelical (especially if "most Catholics" includes Bergoglio), a Pentecostal, a snake-handler, a pro-abort atheist-- anything but a sedevacantist.  That can't continue.  If people are going to reject me, it has to be done openly.  I don't mean to assume that it will happen any more.

Secondly, we all have an obligation to the truths that we have learned, even-- perhaps especially-- those that are unpleasant.  We should share them whenever it will be helpful.  Now, in the long run, the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic-- and I'm just about as convinced as I can imagine being of that fact-- is a disaster, but probably even more disastrous if it continues to be the case that almost no one realizes it.  I hope and pray that I would be willing to die to make clear the fact that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, or is at least acting in a way that is unacceptable for a Catholic, let alone a hierarch, and above all for a pope.

Thirdly, if somehow I do turn out to be wrong, the sooner that gets corrected, the better.  That means reading, sure, but it also means arguing.  For this reason, I am willing to advise arguing even for something one doesn't believe, provided one is not going to cause scandal.

One has to face up to the truth, live up to the truth, and not be ashamed of the truth.

That, at least, is the best I can make of it.

Hi Junior Councilor,

I'll jump in here and apologize if I missed part of the issue since I haven't read the whole thread (time won't allow).

The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope.  Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts. 

Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds.  Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church.  Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.

The third point is that as a traditionalist you will hold, in greater or lesser degrees, a fundamentally different perspective that the other students.  This will cause conflict, no way around it. Whether you seek isolation or they isolate you is a key point. If you seek isolation, then you'll be in trouble fairly quickly.  If they shun you - that is another matter.  In either case, when challenged you will need to explain your perspective by expounding on the teaching of the Church - not your own interpretation. In this manner it becomes the truth, not 'your' truth.

God Bless!
Tradical

Excellent points, sir.

[JuniorCouncilor]

The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope.  Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts. 

Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds.  Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church.  Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.

Well, I said I wanted argument... (although online was not really what I had in mind).

Tradical, the root of my problem is that Bergoglio is acting considerably less Catholic than I am.  I've studied the dogmatic fact thing, and as far as I can tell, it addresses the election procedures, but not the question of whether the man elected pope is a public heretic.  What I know for sure is that often dogmatic facts are useless when they would be most helpful.  E.g.:  it would have been really helpful to know that it was a dogmatic fact that X was pope during the Great Western Schism, as in fact it was.  However, that dogmatic fact turned out to be quasi-impossible, at least for some people, to know.

In fact, it was a 'dogmatic fact' that made me a sedevacantist.  The traditional teaching, as I understand it, is that a canonization is a 'dogmatic fact' and infallible.  However, I regard the canonization of Karol Wojtyla as being impossible.  Not so much because he couldn't be in heaven-- anything is possible, however unlikely, so far as that goes-- but because by such a canonization, the Church is clearly putting its seal of approval upon his public ministry as a whole, which, extremely conspicuously, includes the Assisi prayer meetings with all their attendant scandal in matters concerning the First Commandment.  Now, if we were in a time period where such a canonization were not likely, indeed CERTAIN, to be understood as approving the Assisi prayer meetings (which Wojtyla regarded as nothing less than an incarnation of the teaching of Vatican II), then I would be able to accept his canonization.  However, we emphatically do not live in such a time period.  Given that, I can't see how this canonization can avoid being a harmful universal disciplinary law, which the Church, according to traditional teaching, can never give us.  And therefore, the man who carried it out must not have had the authority to do so.

So there's my real 'dogmatic fact' problem, if you want to tackle it.  Good luck.

As for the weeds, you are mistaken in thinking that any judgment whatsoever does not require an application of the intellect.  Even if Bergoglio were to affirm a heresy right in front of you, you would still make the judgment, "Yes, that came from his lips," etc.  But even then, it would be exceedingly foolish to assume that a man who had otherwise shown himself to be orthodox was in fact a heretic, on the first showing.  No, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned.  But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.

I will simply tell you this.  I would have considered Bergoglio a heretic before he was pope, and I still consider him one now.  I have not changed.  I know lots of people who would argue that Cardinal Martini, whom Bergoglio greatly admires, is a heretic.  Same for Kasper.  But if either of them were elected pope, those same people would fall silent.  I cannot and will not think or act that way.

Bergoglio is not a pope, he's a joke, and a bad one.  May God have mercy on Him, and end his pretension-- for his own sake-- as soon as may be.

[tradical]

The root of your problem is that you are denying a dogmatic fact that Pope Francis is Pope.  Here's a posting that covers part of the topic: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/05/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html, scroll down to the section on dogmatic facts. 

Concerning Pope Francis not being Catholic is another area where you're in the weeds.  Has Pope Francis explicitly denied a de fide teaching of the Church.  Explicitly means that no judgement on your part is required.

Well, I said I wanted argument... (although online was not really what I had in mind).

Tradical, the root of my problem is that Bergoglio is acting considerably less Catholic than I am.  I've studied the dogmatic fact thing, and as far as I can tell, it addresses the election procedures, but not the question of whether the man elected pope is a public heretic.  What I know for sure is that often dogmatic facts are useless when they would be most helpful.  E.g.:  it would have been really helpful to know that it was a dogmatic fact that X was pope during the Great Western Schism, as in fact it was.  However, that dogmatic fact turned out to be quasi-impossible, at least for some people, to know.

In fact, it was a 'dogmatic fact' that made me a sedevacantist.  The traditional teaching, as I understand it, is that a canonization is a 'dogmatic fact' and infallible.  However, I regard the canonization of Karol Wojtyla as being impossible.  Not so much because he couldn't be in heaven-- anything is possible, however unlikely, so far as that goes-- but because by such a canonization, the Church is clearly putting its seal of approval upon his public ministry as a whole, which, extremely conspicuously, includes the Assisi prayer meetings with all their attendant scandal in matters concerning the First Commandment.  Now, if we were in a time period where such a canonization were not likely, indeed CERTAIN, to be understood as approving the Assisi prayer meetings (which Wojtyla regarded as nothing less than an incarnation of the teaching of Vatican II), then I would be able to accept his canonization.  However, we emphatically do not live in such a time period.  Given that, I can't see how this canonization can avoid being a harmful universal disciplinary law, which the Church, according to traditional teaching, can never give us.  And therefore, the man who carried it out must not have had the authority to do so.

So there's my real 'dogmatic fact' problem, if you want to tackle it.  Good luck.

As for the weeds, you are mistaken in thinking that any judgment whatsoever does not require an application of the intellect.  Even if Bergoglio were to affirm a heresy right in front of you, you would still make the judgment, "Yes, that came from his lips," etc.  But even then, it would be exceedingly foolish to assume that a man who had otherwise shown himself to be orthodox was in fact a heretic, on the first showing.  No, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned.  But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.

I will simply tell you this.  I would have considered Bergoglio a heretic before he was pope, and I still consider him one now.  I have not changed.  I know lots of people who would argue that Cardinal Martini, whom Bergoglio greatly admires, is a heretic.  Same for Kasper.  But if either of them were elected pope, those same people would fall silent.  I cannot and will not think or act that way.

Bergoglio is not a pope, he's a joke, and a bad one.  May God have mercy on Him, and end his pretension-- for his own sake-- as soon as may be.

Hmmm,

I didn't mean to start an argument - just the way I come across online I guess.

Let's take apart the first point.  If prior to the election a person was suspected of heresy etc, is elected Pope, and the Bishops of the Church with moral unanimously acknowledge him as Pope, then the 'suspicion of heresy' etc was false.  That really is how simple it is ... whether the Pope falls into formal heresy afterwards is another issue.  If I remember correctly Hunter has some good references on this exact topic.

... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html

This seems pretty clear to me.

Accepting the dogmatic fact (it would not be logical to reject one and accept another) - Pope Francis is Pope. It doesn't mean he's a good one.

Following through, accepting that the canonization by the reigning pontiff (Pope Francis) establishes a dogmatic fact.  What is protected by the infallibility?  That the person canonized by the Pope is in fact enjoying the beatific vision.  That's it in a nutshell. What they do with it afterwards is not covered. 

Now the canonization and 'universal disciplinary law' are two different areas - mixing them is non sequitor. Disciplinary laws are legislated, not imagined, so these are two different elements.  If you were to demonstrate that this canonization resulted in the promulgation of a universal disciplinary law that was not just ambiguous (like the NOM) but explicitly went against the faith - then you'll run into the indefectibilty of the Church.

Now, both the dogmatic facts are undefined and just common opinion at this time.  As a layman, I will abide by each of them - but I will not expand their actions beyond what is the common theological opinion.

Lastly, the sin of another does not justify a sin on our part.

P^3

PS.

No, you would continue to watch, or even make inquiries to confirm what you had learned.  But after a while, you would establish a pattern-- the man is, or is not, a heretic.

If the Pope says: I deny the Dogma of the Assumption.

That's pretty clear ... no need to wait as the denial of one de fide teaching is all that is required. 

However, even in that case, until the Church makes the final declaration, he is still to be regarded as Pope.

[RobertJS]

My wife and I get along with all the Trads we know and meet [over 100 and growing] except the several sedevacantists we have met, who, to put it mildly, seem very anti-social.

Probably seemed anti-social because they sized you up.

[Older Salt]

My wife and I get along with all the Trads we know and meet [over 100 and growing] except the several sedevacantists we have met, who, to put it mildly, seem very anti-social.

Probably seemed anti-social because they sized you up.

No,
They were not anti-social to me but extremely disruptive during Mass.

[RobertJS]

My wife and I get along with all the Trads we know and meet [over 100 and growing] except the several sedevacantists we have met, who, to put it mildly, seem very anti-social.

Probably seemed anti-social because they sized you up.

No,
They were not anti-social to me but extremely disruptive during Mass.

Several people OR several separate instances (how many?) ?

In what way were they disruptive, and if different instances, explain.