Sedevacantists and Akita

[Bonaventure]

Whatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.

That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.

Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.

If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?

Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.

Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.

That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc  it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.

I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.

The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.

As to your bolded.  If you think my point that those who think a Catholic pope can teach heresy and error to the universal church think similarly to those who have been against the papacy and the Catholic Church is the same as dogmatic sedevacantism, then ban me. I don't think it's the same thing, but I'm not going to pussy foot around here.  I'm guessing there are a few posters who will be very happy with that.

The policy of the forum has been posted and stickied since 2014, 7 years before you even registered here.

Dogmatic sedevacantism may be said to be a general attitude toward the current crisis in the Church which regards the state of the Seat of Peter to be practically de fide.  This means that one who believes that the Seat is currently occupied has lost their Catholicity (or, at the very least, experiences a dramatically reduced Catholicity) due to grave error which is likely at least materially heretical.

Dogmatic sedevacantism is forbidden on this forum and is subject to moderation.  While Suscipe Domine is a sedeplenist forum, sedevacantists are welcome to post here in all sub-fora.  However, it is also the stance of the forum that the question of the loss of a valid papacy in the occasion of heresy is an open one among Catholics with no binding, universal Magisterial teaching on the subject.  Therefore, Catholics are free to hold varying opinions on the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar papacies.  Any posts which claim or even imply a superiority in the faithfulness or orthodoxy of Catholics who hold a varying opinion on the state of the papacy will be subject to discipline.

See: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8151.0

[awkward customer]

Here's what I said in Post 25 -

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.

In other words, if a Catholics insist that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can impose errors on the Faithful then they will be inadvertently making the enemies of the Church who reject the Papacy very happy indeed.

Tell me what is factually wrong about the above statements. 

[awkward customer]

How's this for an anecdote? 

R&R Trads have told me, more than once, that a Pope can be a heretic.

I'm wondering what anyone new to the Faith would think of that.

[Baylee]

So...youre saying that according to the rules it is not allowed to say that Enemies of the Church and anti Catholics have said some of the same things as R&R folks have.  If it's true, why is it not allowed? Why shouldn't R&R folks have to explain why that's a false statement?

Like I said, I see nothing wrong with my statements. Let the R&R argue against them or ban me.  I will not pussyfoot around here nor cater to the R&R majority.

[Baylee]

Here's what I said in Post 25 -

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.

In other words, if a Catholics insist that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can impose errors on the Faithful then they will be inadvertently making the enemies of the Church who reject the Papacy very happy indeed.

Tell me what is factually wrong about the above statements. 

Exactly. I'm sure that these people don't wish to say things like the enemies of the church, but they are, in fact, saying things like the enemies of the church. 

[Kephapaulos]

Whatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.

That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.

Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.

If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?

Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.

Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.

That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc  it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.

I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.

The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.

There would not be a solution to the problem perse if certain things you described above happened, but it would help a lot.

As per what Miriam pointed out, if the expression of anger were diminished in many sedevacantists, more traditinalists would be attracted to their position. Perhaps to get a more hopeful expression from them can be found in the Catholic Family Podcast Youtube channel. Kevin Davis is great, and the channel provides excellent Catholic content. I like the Monday Mornings with Matt and Kevin show.

You're right that many sedevacantists were at one time recognize and resisters. That is understandable especially if they were at one time unsure of what to make of situation of the crisis in the Church.

[Bataar]

Whatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.

That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.

Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.

If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?

Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.

Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
 

And not only will such a scenario not (by itself) solve the crisis in Rome, it will have no effect on our personal salvations. A few of us have said the latter repeatedly.  It will do no good at my Personal Judgment to claim that any sins of mine are excused by a rotting papacy ("because" I had no decent Pope to follow, and supposedly I was deserving of a better one). I have the exact same moral culpability  that I would have if Pope St. Pius X or some other reliable pope were in office during my lifetime.

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly. Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument. Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid. Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

[Miriam_M]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

[awkward customer]

There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced......


..... Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Miriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing? 

Because the problem with your endless assertion of this point is that Sedes have never claimed to make dogmatic pronouncements about anything.

You keep making this point, over and over again.  In fact you've been saying this forever, that Sedes have no right or authority to do something - that they are not doing.

And as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars. 

Honestly ....

[Baylee]

There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced......


..... Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Miriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing? 

Because the problem with your endless assertion of this point is that Sedes have never claimed to make dogmatic pronouncements about anything.

You keep making this point, over and over again.  In fact you've been saying this forever, that Sedes have no right or authority to do something - that they are not doing.

And as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars. 

Honestly ....

I noticed you have repeatedly asked this same question but never get an answer. It's probably like when I kept asking why Miriam repeatedly called sedevacantism a sect months ago.  She never answered and she never recanted her comments. I think if one keeps this in mind, one can better understand where she is coming from in her posts.

I'd also add that it's not just the sedevacantists who question the validity of the New Rites.  The SSPX used to question them and I'm pretty sure The Resistance still does.  Also, these questions did not start with the laity.

[awkward customer]

You're right, Baylee.  I've asked Miriam to justify her assertion several times and she never does.  Instead she just repeats the same assertion over and over again, claiming that Sedes have no authority to do what they're not doing, if you see what I mean.  I don't understand it.

[Bataar]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

[Bonaventure]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

[Miriam_M]

Miriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing?

By "dogmatic" assertion I mean making a statement that is never challenged and is merely assumed to be a fixed premise, such as one or all of the post-V2 sacramental rites are invalid.  As Bonaventure just restated as well, it is merely opinion by a certain faction of laity and clergy that the new rites lack validity.  When a premise is treated as if it is not to be questioned, then the speaker/writer has every freedom to build an argument from a false premise and continue to demand that debaters address the "logic" of their argument.

An unquestioned premise is the equivalent -- to a Catholic --of dogma.

And as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars.

He wasn't referring to what the demons say; he was referring to their obvious and spontaneous recognition during exorcism sessions, shown by immediate fear and submission, etc. He has reported often about how their behavior is limited by Our Lord, and how swiftly they are subdued in His presence or Our Mother's.

[Baylee]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it.  And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".

Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0

I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.

As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available.