Sedevacantists and Akita

[awkward customer]

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.

Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour?  This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations. Meanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old and I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.

But whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't.  The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?

If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean.  Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.

[Baylee]

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.

Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour?  This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations. Meanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old and I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.

But whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't.  The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?

If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean.  Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.

Exactly. You can use poor behavior as an excuse to turn your back on either side.  And it's pathetic really, so I do fault those who use these sorts of issues as an excuse.

The only thing that matters is the truth. Either a pope can teach error to the Universal Church or he can not.  Anti Catholics and Enemies of the Church have always said he can.   

[Bonaventure]

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.

Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour?  This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations.

Yes this is all firsthand experience.

Meanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old

Actually 42 years.

and I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.

https://inveritateblog.com/2023/09/01/can-novus-ordo-baptisms-be-trusted-as-valid/



This even prompted an SGG aligned cleric to attack this position:

https://www.fatherlehtoranta.com/post/the-correct-use-of-conditional-baptism

But whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't.  The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?

If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean.  Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.

As I've said repeatedly, I am not saying that I disagree. I'm just stating the reality "on the ground."

[Miriam_M]

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.

I'm assuming that the second sentence explains the first.  If not, please elaborate or in a PM is also fine.

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

Just point of information: One of the 9 did not padlock his church during Covid, if that's the time frame you're referring to. The church was locked from the inside 10 minutes after the start of Mass, when public services were banned by civil authorities.  Perhaps I misunderstand you and you are referring to a different context or situation.

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?

I will answer that question with a No. However, what I've heard from SV clergy (one of them) is not conditional baptism but "questionably consecrated hosts." In fact, I was angrily confronted by one of them with that phrase.

To me, that kind of behavior is the bottom line -- not because the nature of it was rude, to put it mildly, but because the entire thrust of it was to have a priest of the Roman Catholic Church interrogate and confront a layperson, without provocation, and try to force that layperson into inappropriately making a dogmatic statement about ecclesiastical matters. Talk about irony. 

Supposed "knowledge" about what the pope is and isn't, including knowledge about what the Church has taught about heresy, the papacy, etc. is on a completely different plane from having the authority to make a dogmatic statement about a current pope.  Academic knowledge is not authority. At her most traditional and orthodox, the Church has never taught that academic knowledge confers authority to lay people or even certitude about ecclesiastical situations. That would be a very modernist position because it would be rejecting the hierarchical structure of the church and its traditional position of strict distinctions between roles of clergy and roles of laity.

Bonaventure referred to "most Catholics."  In my experience with both well-informed and minimally informed Catholics -- about doctrine, and about differences between traditionalism and modernism -- they do not feel comfortable at all subverting church structure, no matter how disappointing, how seemingly ambiguous, how alarmingly unorthodox.

If most Catholics believed that the entire mainstream church structure was not to be trusted (in its evaluation of Francis, and/or its evaluation of doctrine) -- that it was so unreliable that avoiding everything related to contemporary Rome was necessary to be a true Catholic, they would also believe that the Church has defected and that therefore Jesus Christ is a liar, which is blasphemy. (And why bother to profess Catholicism?) 

Most Catholics have neither time nor interest in playing canon lawyer -- online or IRL. And they think -- logically -- that when a priest confronts them, demanding an unprovoked "answer" to a question they never asked -- that priest has reversed the authority structure and is asking the layman to take on the Church hierarchy, which is not the Catholicism that the layperson learned, no matter when he/she was born.

[awkward customer]

Supposed "knowledge" about what the pope is and isn't, including knowledge about what the Church has taught about heresy, the papacy, etc. is on a completely different plane from having the authority to make a dogmatic statement about a current pope.  Academic knowledge is not authority. At her most traditional and orthodox, the Church has never taught that academic knowledge confers authority to lay people or even certitude about ecclesiastical situations. That would be a very modernist position because it would be rejecting the hierarchical structure of the church and its traditional position of strict distinctions between roles of clergy and roles of laity.

Can you explain which authority prevents laypeople, priests and bishops expressing the opinion that the Conciliar 'popes' are not Catholic and therefore not Popes?  What is this authority that prevents me stating my opinion on this matter? 

Maybe you're confusing an opinion about a current pope with a "dogmatic statement about a current pope"?  Nobody to my knowledge has made any dogmatic statements which, obviously, they can't.

I've come to the conclusion that Sedism scares people.  They are too frightened to consider it because of what it might mean.  And so they hide behind the SSPX and other R&R Trad groups, imagining that this is a safe position because of - authority.  But does any Trad group, R&R or Sede, have authority?

It's understandable that the Sede position is just too terrifying for some people.  If that's the case, then admit it.    And in the meantime, please stop attacking a position which you can't adopt, not because it's wrong, but because it frightens you.   

[Baylee]

I will answer that question with a No. However, what I've heard from SV clergy (one of them) is not conditional baptism but "questionably consecrated hosts." In fact, I was angrily confronted by one of them with that phrase.

To me, that kind of behavior is the bottom line -- not because the nature of it was rude, to put it mildly, but because the entire thrust of it was to have a priest of the Roman Catholic Church interrogate and confront a layperson, without provocation, and try to force that layperson into inappropriately making a dogmatic statement about ecclesiastical matters. Talk about irony. 

Were there any previous interactions between you and this priest? If so, what were they like?  It does appear that this priest was rude which was wrong and unbecoming of a priest, but I have to wonder whether it was completely out of the blue.

[awkward customer]

Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"?  Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.

If the Novus Ordo isn't valid - why would it be - then all those Catholics who are too busy or lazy to question the Conciliar 'popes' are only getting a wafer.

Surely, in charity, they should be informed of this possibility.

[Baylee]

Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"?  Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.

If the Novus Ordo isn't valid - why would it be - then all those Catholics who are too busy or lazy to question the Conciliar 'popes' are only getting a wafer.

Surely, in charity, they should be informed of this possibility.

I'm guessing it was the way that the priest spoke. 

However, "questionably consecrated hosts" isn't even just a concern for the Novus Ordo priests.  As time marches on, this is also a possibility in the FSSP, ICKSP and SSPX since not all of their priests were ordained in the Old Rite or ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Old Rite.   If I ever had to go to any of these groups, I would have to first research the priest's ordination and the bishop who ordained him.

[Miriam_M]

Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"?  Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.

I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.

I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting.  Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.

Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive.  It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.

[awkward customer]

Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"?  Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.

I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.

I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting.  Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.

Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive.  It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.

We all have anecdotes, Miriam.  I have a few myself.  It's hardly surprising, really, given the kind of situation we are faced with today.  In fact, it's something of a miracle that Trads manage to keep going at all.

But aside from the manner of the priest in your anecdote, whether or not he was rude and abrasive - what if he's right.  What if Novus Ordo hosts are indeed "questionable consecrated?  Shouldn't Catholics be aware of this possibility?  And what if Novus Ordo Bishops aren't really Bishops because the new Rite of Consecration isn't valid as the late Fr Anthony Cekada maintained?

I would tend to be more angry with the fakers who currently occupy the Vatican than with a Sede priest who pointed out this fact, no matter how angry he was, assuming he was right, of course, which he is.

[Baylee]

Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"?  Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.

I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.

I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting.  Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.

Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive.  It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.

We all have anecdotes, Miriam.  I have a few myself.  It's hardly surprising, really, given the kind of situation we are faced with today.  In fact, it's something of a miracle that Trads manage to keep going at all.

But aside from the manner of the priest in your anecdote, whether or not he was rude and abrasive - what if he's right.  What if Novus Ordo hosts are indeed "questionable consecrated?  Shouldn't Catholics be aware of this possibility?  And what if Novus Ordo Bishops aren't really Bishops because the new Rite of Consecration isn't valid as the late Fr Anthony Cekada maintained?

I would tend to be more angry with the fakers who currently occupy the Vatican than with a Sede priest who pointed out this fact, no matter how angry he was, assuming he was right, of course, which he is.

And there a number of Novus Ordo priests who are coming to the same conclusion even if it might have offended them at first.  They are more concerned with learning the truth about their ordination than worrying about their feelings. Sorry for the awful formatting, but here's a recent example (Father De Saye):

Letter of Former Novus Ordo Priest
Michael DeSaye to His Friends on the Reasons
for His Departure from the Novus Ordo
Dear Friends,
A short while ago, I requested that Bishop
O'Connell accept my resignation from the Diocese of
Trenton and the removal of my priestly faculties. Upon
informing the Bishop that I was in agreement with the
position of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida, a
position called sedevacantism, and that I intended to
pursue studies there, I also received notice of excommunication for the crime of schism.
I assure you that this decision was not made lightly, nor was it a reaction to any stimulus of emotion,
anger, stress, or frustration. My motivation was not
tactical or political, nor was I desirous for a career
change. The decision was the result of prayer and contemplation, and from an independent study of the
teachings of the popes and doctors of the Church. It
was a decision that became necessary for me to make
because of a conclusion derived from applying traditional principles of Catholic theology. Permit me to
offer a brief explanation of how I reached this decision,
along with a list of references that support it.
In my research, I came to understand that the
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches error
against Catholic faith and morals, and is irreconcilable
with the previous magisterium of the Catholic Church.
It is a Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ
cannot err when it teaches universally concerning matters of faith and morals. The reason for this inerrancy
is that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, whom
Our Lord sent to teach us "into all truth" (John 16:13).
In theology, the common term for this inerrancy is
indefectibility. For two thousand years, from the time
of the Apostles to the present day, the Catholic
Church has consistently taught the true faith and
morals of Jesus Christ and his Church to the Catholic
faithful. She has done so without the slightest deviation, i.e. without the slightest defect. This indefectibility is not an accident of history, but an essential property of the Church.
The Second Vatican Council is commonly held to
be a general or ecumenical council of the entire
Catholic Church, duly promulgated, and upheld by
successive popes until the present day. It is commonly
held to teach universally, with the authority of Christ,
concerning matters of faith and morals.
In reality, this council clearly and absolutely contradicts the previous magisterium of the Catholic
3
Church on those same matters of faith and morals.
These contradictions present an enormous problem for
Catholics. For contradictions in matters of faith and
morals cannot exist at the universal level in the
Catholic Church, since she is protected from error in
these matters by the Holy Spirit. If Catholics were to
accept the council as having been promulgated with the
authority of Christ, then Christ would be leading the
whole Catholic Church away from Himself. Catholics
would be obliged to confess that the gates of hell have
prevailed against the Church, contrary to the prophecy
of Our Lord. She would have defected from her divine
bridegroom by the universal promulgation of a false
faith. But this is impossible according to the perennial
Catholic doctrine which has been taught repeatedly by
the Church's magisterium from the apostles until the
present day. It is impossible to apply the counterargument that these teachings were only applicable to modern times rather than all times, for such an argument is
rooted in modernism, and would end by reducing the
entire magisterium to contingencies. It also does not
help us to apply the hermeneutic of continuity, for
hermeneutics can only help to show continuity if continuity already exists.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the universal teaching
authority of the Catholic Church. The popes who
promulgated Vatican II did not possess the authority
over the Church to teach universally in the name of
Christ. They were legally delegated to receive the papacy, but did not actually receive the spiritual authority from God to rule, sanctify, and teach the Catholic
Church. Their authority was only an apparent authority. They were not true popes.
This position has a rather unattractive-sounding
name: sedevacantism. It is the position of those Catholics who, by applying the logic of indefectibility,
conclude to a present vacancy of the See of Peter, due
to the universal promulgation of error. Sedevacantism
is the only theologically correct observation concerning
the present crisis in the Church because it is the only
position based on traditional Catholic principles. It is
not a schismatic sect based on personal feelings.
This conclusion is profoundly difficult to process
emotionally. Catholic instinct shuns the idea of a false
pope who is only an apparent authority, rather than a
real authority. Many practical questions immediately
spring to mind: how could a pope be legally elected and
not have the papacy? Are Catholics allowed to make a
judgement of this sort? How could thousands of bishops be wrong? If this thesis is true, then where is the
Catholic Church? How do apostolic succession and
jurisdiction function in this context? How would the
present crisis be resolved?
These are good questions that deserve to be answered, but it would require too much space for this
brief letter. The point that I wish to articulate here is
that, as difficult as it might be, Catholics are bound to
reject falsehoods taught against the faith, even when
they come from apparent authorities. If we who live in
these times wish to preserve our Catholic faith, which
is necessary for our salvation, then it is essential that
we acknowledge Vatican II as invalid, along with the
papacies of those who promulgated it and continue to
promulgate it.
Our Lord said that pseudo-prophets and pseudoChrists would rise up and deceive, if possible, even the
elect. St. Paul taught that even if he or an angel from
heaven should teach a gospel against what he has
taught, let him be cursed. In the Apocalypse, St. John
predicted a worldwide religious deception. Thus we
have direct warnings from Sacred Scripture that a fate
such as what is described here would someday befall
mankind. It is not for us to choose the times in which
we live. It is for us to witness to the truth, even at
great personal cost.
Fr. Michael DeSaye
List of References
1. The principal error of Vatican II (the heresy of 'partial
communion') condemned by the Catholic Church:https://
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/
Triple-Column-Ecclesiology.pdf
2. A common conservative or 'trad' objection is that we
should acknowledge Vatican II andFrancis as something like
wayward authorities. Even though they impose universal
errors upon us, we should ignore them until a future traditional pope arrives to fix the situation.This position has also
been condemned by the Catholic Church:
Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter 3, No. 2
Pope Leo XIII: Epistola Tua (1885)
Pope Leo XIII: Est Sane Molestum (1888)
Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis (1943), No. 41
3. Answers to common questions arising as a result of
sedevacantism:
Traditionalmass.org
Romancatholicinstitute.org
Novusordowatch.org
4. I was personally astonished to discover how many
times, and with such great force, the popes and saints condemned the errors of Vatican II (please email me for a detailed list of these teachings). In reflecting on the reason why
I did not learn these teachings in seminary, it became evident
that the academic program for priests has taken great care to
remove certain aspects of the previous magisterium, saints,
and doctors of the Church because they are not in conformity with Vatican II. This is the principal reason why I
am currently seeking additional formation at Most Holy Trinity Seminary.

[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.

[Baylee]

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.

[LausTibiChriste]

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.

Fantastic post, mate.

[Miriam_M]

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.