Sedevacantists and Akita

[awkward customer]

The only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.

Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.

On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)

The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.

Bishop Williamson is

On St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading  men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.

Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."

In which case...why be Catholic?

Ah, but it's the 'New Catholicism' which embraces the liberty of the spirit, rejects the tyrannical father and does its best to ignore the self-sacrificing son. 

[Bonaventure]

The only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.

Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.

On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)

The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.

Bishop Williamson is

?

On St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading  men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.

Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."

In which case...why be Catholic?

I'd would rather have him remain Catholic in spite of this erroneous viewpoint, than formally to embrace heresy, schism, or apostasy.

Whilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church

Sedevacantism is so small and begrudgingly accepted precisely because of the difficulties it entails.

Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.

Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself. 

Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."

That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.

[Baylee]

The only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.

Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.

On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)

The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.

Bishop Williamson is

?

On St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading  men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.

Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."

In which case...why be Catholic?

I'd would rather have him remain Catholic in spite of this erroneous viewpoint, than formally to embrace heresy, schism, or apostasy.

Whilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church

Sedevacantism is so small and begrudgingly accepted precisely because of the difficulties it entails.

Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.

Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself. 

Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."

That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.

I decided against the BW reference, so please ignore.  I really hate the edit function when it keeps things you thought you got rid of. 

I think you misunderstood the point of my other comment (I should have been clearer).  It was a general response to:  if popes can teach error, then why be Catholic? What's the point? In other words, if popes can teach error, how do we know that they haven't been in error for centuries?  Maybe the Protestants were right.  Why not be Protestant? 

[Bonaventure]

I agree but the information I posted would their answer, amongst others, I presume.

[Michael Wilson]

Bonanventure:

Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.

Cajetan, Suarez, Bellarmine etc. etc. Were dealing with the question of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person, not as Pope. Da Silveria affirmed this several times. With the Vatican II "Popes" we have entered into the Realm of the impossible i.e. A Pope teaching serious errors, heresies, and enacting discipline which leads to the loss of faith and damnation of the faithful.
As all the doctors of the Church affirm, this would entail the defection of the Church.

Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.

Yes, in the case of a pope falling into heresy as a private person. This isn't the case with the Conciliar Popes. 

Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."

"Formal visibility" is defined by the profession of the Catholic faith.
It isn't the sedes that have a problem with formal visibility, it is those who hold that the Catholic Church is composed of members that publicly profess different doctrines. This is the very contention of Vatican II.

That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.

The alternative is that the Conciliar Popes are true Popes and that they and the bishops in union with them can lead the faithful into perdition; in which case the Catholic Church is not the means of salvation instituted by Our Lord for the salvation of mankind.

[Michael Wilson]

Whilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church

The public profession of a false doctrine entails the automatic loss of membership in the Church.
But, there has been no official declaration of this public fact, so that those who still claim to be Catholics and yet accept Francis as Pope, at least verbally, are still Catholic.

[Bonaventure]

Bonanventure:

Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.

Cajetan, Suarez, Bellarmine etc. etc. Were dealing with the question of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person, not as Pope. Da Silveria affirmed this several times. With the Vatican II "Popes" we have entered into the Realm of the impossible i.e. A Pope teaching serious errors, heresies, and enacting discipline which leads to the loss of faith and damnation of the faithful.
As all the doctors of the Church affirm, this would entail the defection of the Church.

Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.

Yes, in the case of a pope falling into heresy as a private person. This isn't the case with the Conciliar Popes. 

Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."

"Formal visibility" is defined by the profession of the Catholic faith.
It isn't the sedes that have a problem with formal visibility, it is those who hold that the Catholic Church is composed of members that publicly profess different doctrines. This is the very contention of Vatican II.

That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.

The alternative is that the Conciliar Popes are true Popes and that they and the bishops in union with them can lead the faithful into perdition; in which case the Catholic Church is not the means of salvation instituted by Our Lord for the salvation of mankind.

Never said I agreed with any of those positions, just that, those names and reasons are used contra SVism!

 

[Baylee]

I agree but the information I posted would their answer, amongst others, I presume.

I'm sure they would be, but apparently not having all of the answers (mystery) is worse than claiming that true popes can teach errors to the Universal Church (an anti-Catholic statement).  

[awkward customer]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

[Michael Wilson]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.

[awkward customer]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.

But it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.

Trads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy.  A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.

It's been 60 years.  That's more than enough time to get it right.

[Baylee]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.

As time goes on, it seems that less and less of them even care about doctrine.  As Bergoglio and his successors suppress the TLM in the conciliar structure/what purports to be the Catholic Church, most of these trads see/will see the SSPX as merely the most convenient place to go to attend the Latin Mass.  They certainly won't go to a sede chapel or even a Resistance chapel. 

[Bonaventure]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.

This is a great explanation. I 100% agree.

Also what many seem to forget, is that nobody, including Lefebvre himself, expected this situation to last as long as it had.

The Archbishop famously told the press after the consecrations of June 30, 1988, that all will be well and fixed "within 5 years."

I've met priests of the "Nine" who told me, when they left the SSPX in 1982, they thought this would be over with by the 1990s, certainly before the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and no way after the year 2000. I personally had contact and knew 4 of the 9.

During the early days, there were many ordinaries and Cardinals, such as Siri, who many thought could be elected and would restore order.

[Bonaventure]

R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.

How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?

Something's gone wrong.

All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.

But it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.

Trads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy.  A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.

It's been 60 years.  That's more than enough time to get it right.

Scandalous behavior by sedevacantists have also left a sour taste in the mouths of many, especially long time SSPXers. At least in the United States.

Lawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.

The CMRI had a very rough early history. Some, such as the SSPV, still treat them as having "cooties" til this very day. 

I've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.

Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.

Just take a look at the Una Cum issue, and how they state that Catholics attending an una cum Mass commit "mortal sin."

Look at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?

The best hope would be for the current non sedes to en masse embrace the conclusion. Perhaps they will.

I cannot fault R&R Catholics for not wanting to get involved or aligned with the bulk of sede clergy and groups.

No Saint or doctor or father or theologian ever envisioned 5 or 6 consecutive purported popes, for a period of 60-70 years, doing what we have seen. It is therefore not a surprise that an entire school of thought dedicated to resisting these conciliar popes has emerged, rather than the Catholic world saying that a man that wears white, conducts religious services in St. Peter's, and lives at the Vatican, is somehow not the pope.

The only quasi-analogous historical precedent is the Great Western Schism, which was different in many ways. Antipope Benedict XIII, looked, dressed, acted, and taught as a pope did.

[Michael Wilson]

But it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.

Wether the Vatican II "Popes" were "formal" or "material" heretics, was one of the main objections that the R&Rs raised against S.V.ism. They said: "If a Catholic is merely a "material" heretic i.e. A heretic in good faith, then he is still a Catholic; it would take an official warning to the Pope, from the bishops or Cardinals, in order to arrive at the conclusion that these men are indeed "pertinatious" and are therefore "formal" heretics and non-Popes.
This objection worked for a while, because sedes were not able to arrive at a satisfactory theologically correct response.
The correct response is that bishops and even more, Popes are the masters and teachers of the Church, they are presumed by their studies and position in the Church to know the doctrine of the faith, and therefore if one of them were to publicly hold a heresy, they are presumed by the very law of the Church, to be guilty of being pertinatious and therefore have fallen from office automatically, without any need of a prior warning or admonition; for example can.188 #4, 1917 code. 

Trads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy.  A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
It's been 60 years.  That's more than enough time to get it right.

I think that the weight of the prestige and authority of the SSPX weighs heavily on the majority of the trad clergy and faithful; and those who disagree with them on a theological issue (or any other issue for that matter), are considered by that very fact to be "beyond the pale" in tradland.