Excellent article, thank you. Your statement that "the SSPX should ask themselves whether they wish to be in communion with the false Communist bishops of China or any of the other abominations currently taking place in Rome." is precisely the point, but it is too kind. In fact, one could argue that as long as Rome continues to defend and even promote sins like heresy, apostasy, ecumenism, and homosexuality, NO ONE should tolerate anything coming from that den of Satan, for its "managers" can no longer claim to be Catholic in any way other than in name only. May the heretics in the ape of the church repent of their sins and renounce the countless evils of V-II so they can return to their primary obligation of salus animarum, suprema lex.
I hope people holding positions such as this will repent of their grievous sins. Holy Mother Church cannot fall. She may be weak, she may be infiltrated, but she cannot perish. She will be around until the end of time.
I believe I understand your argument, but what would the consequences be if the SSPX had taken your position? More sedevacantists out in the open? And what good would that do? Would we wind up with as many quasi-denominations as Protestants have? Isn’t it better to remain as close as possible to the structure our Lord established, while resisting the infiltrators? There are still so many groups in the Church trying to be good Catholics. What happens to them if everyone abandons ship and heads to the life rafts? And no, I don’t think the ship has sunk.
The core problem with the situation here is the SSPX places itself in a heterodox position. It correctly identifies many problems with Vatican II (though I would argue that the principle problem is the fact the Holy Spirit has left) but then wants to have its cake and eat it.
It does so because it fundamentally thinks that is a 'thing' that you can have shades of grey. When I sin, there is a part of me that goes, like a whiny child 'Oh but God, Im only human and this and that' but that isn't the me God wants. It is the old me. It is my old nature which St Paul talked about battling with the new. This is what the SSPX are doing with Vatican II - they can't except that half a lie is a full lie always. It is never half a truth.
I read Archbishop Lefbvre's They Have Uncrowned Him and it was brilliant, incisive, prophetic even right until the end when he tried to square this circle with a fairly tame critique of Sedevanctism. Now, as readers of my blog will know, I do have criticisms of Sedevanctism as a theory but in its desire to completely reject Vatican II it is entirely correct.
The reality of the leadership in the Catholic Church being NOT catholic is a much better thing to note. This is a very dangerous element now and if you are going to retain your faith it must be acknowledge.
Your analysis is correct; the SSPX attempts to straddle the fence between condemning the real heresies of Vatican II and the Papal claimants that propagate and enact its errors and at the same time holding that these claimants remain Catholic and exercise legitimate authority (or at least possess it). This contradictory position has led the SSPX into debilitating doctrinal discussions and attempts at seeking to arrive at canonical accords which imperil its mission which is to preserve and defend the Catholic faith and valid Catholic sacraments, and threaten to submerge it into the Conciliar sect. Hopefully our Blessed Mother will not allow this to happen.
It's not the structure that's abnormal. The abnormality exists in the people who currently control the structure or hierarchy. It's no different in principle than the current state of America: we have a sound government structure occupied by megalomanics, mattoids and degenerates. I am confidant that what you interpret as "seek[ing] recognition from those who define themselves by [Vatican II]" is merely a nod to the recognition of the hierarchy rather than "seeking communion with the false Communist bishops of China or any of the other abominations currently taking place in Rome." I am also confident that the consecrations will be performed regardless of the Vatican's response. Mr. Van Zyl, please put yourself in Fr. Pagliarani's place and answer your own question. Tell us, what would YOU do? Would you proclaim that the FSSPX is now the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Would you start another church as did Martin Luther? Tell us, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Excellent article!! This is the big problem. True catholics ,like the SSPX, cant bring themselves to acknowledge that the human institution involving the papacy,the episcopacy, and priest, religious ,and lay people have jettisoned the true catholic faith and now present a false hybrid religion and callout it catholicism. Rome and the episcopacy has been infiltrated with apostates that cant function as catholic. Its a horrible situation but God has allowed because the world is so EVIL.
The Church has turned into the evil, peanut- flicking Superman of Superman III, except we call it Vatican II. We ABSOLUTELY need a schism, a separation of the good and bad parts, so that battle royale can commence, and the good Church can ,er, mega-punch, kapow and eventually throttle the bad one into, er, invisibility, non-existence, whatever. Anyway, you get the picture. Goodnight.
This articulates well my own perplexed reaction to the internal contradictions of the interview. Subsequently, however, I wonder: is Pagliarani simply playing the Vatican at its own ambiguity-ridden game…?
You nailed it when you wrote, "Either the crisis justifies the consecrations or it does not. To suggest that the consecrations will hopefully be legitimized by the illegitimate authorities who caused the crisis makes no sense."
Ultimately, Catholics must come to the horrible conclusion that the Vatican and most of the hierarchy are no longer Catholic even though they wear the outfits and perform masses. The majority work for a global organization that takes money from the likes of Soros, Epstein and even communist China for a global AGENDA! It is no longer about saving souls but about money, power and using people. To think how they dealt with the open border situation with no concern for children, of which 300,000 were missing, shows again they do not care about Christ or His Church! We have company men and few actual spiritual fathers.
The reality is the SSPX is not the Church. It remains in communion with the Church and the successor peter regardless of his own personal views. This is and has always been the Catholic position on the matter.
I repeat some of my comments that I offered to your recent Substack post: THE FSSPX IS NOT SEEKING “RECOGNITION, LEGITIMACY, ACCEPTANCE, TOLERANCE, or JUSTIFICATION from the Holy See. The FSSPX IS SEEKING THE MANDATE! Please get the message! The FSSPX is following ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’s EXAMPLE. He understood, what you do not seem to get through your head, that until the Pope (who is in MATERIAL HERESY) DECLARES HIMSELF to be a FORMAL HERETIC he is still ADMINISTRATIVELY, and LEGALLY THE POPE! So, YES HE DOES STILL GOVERN THE CHURCH! Like it or not! Archbishop Lefebvre understood this, and was at the Vatican every other week making his case for his doctrinal stance and for the consecrations, without compromise! The FSSPX is following his example in order to give a Pope who still GOVERNS THE CHURCH the OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING! JeLe asks the question very well, “What would you have the FSSPX DO?!” The FSSPX is NOT going to take your POSITION OF SCHISM AND/OR SEDEVACANTISM! But the FSSPX WILL CONSECRATE BISHOPS WITH OR WITHOUT THE MANDATE! Please get the message! If you do not I will have to accuse you of mixed motives. The impurity in the mix would be sensationalism so as to garner followers to your blog post.
Acknowledging that Rome and church leadership is not catholic is a fact! It's not schism or sedevacantism. Its a mystery but one that can be understood as to avoid Romes'contamination of the faith.
Ah, another member of the R&R crowd weighs in. "He's still the Pope and we must obey him!" Oh, sorry: "He's STILL the POPE and we MUST OBEY HIM!" "You are SCHISMATICS, no better than PROTESTANTS!" I assume we're all GOING TO HELL, too. (Sigh...)
Howzabout you get this through YOUR head, Bobby: any Pope, prelate, or priest who defects from the faith in a visible, consistent and public manner has, IPSO FACTO, separated himself from the Mystical Body of Christ and LOSES HIS OFFICE!!! (Not sure how many exclamation points to add here.)
And for the hard of thinking among your misguided cohort of R&R-ers, NO FORMAL DECLARATION OF HERESY IS REQUIRED! NONE! BY ANYONE! In law, one would say, "res ipsa loquitur": the matter speaks for itself. The Pope does NOT have to be a FORMAL HERETIC. He does not have to OFFICIALLY DECLARE a heretical proposition as dogma in an EX CATHEDRA manner to be guilty of heresy. The entire corpus of his PUBLIC, consistent, ordinary Magisterium, if manifestly heretical and injurious to the faithful, is sufficient to DEPRIVE HIM OF OFFICE.
Anyone familiar with pre-V2 Catholicism can have MORAL CERTAINTY that a claimant to the Papal office has separated himself from the Mystical Body and thereby LOST HIS OFFICE by comparing his consistent PUBLIC STATEMENTS, his ministerial appointments, the PATTERN OF HIS GOVERNANCE of the Church, and other PUBLICLY VERIFIABLE ACTIONS, with pre-V2 (i.e., REAL Catholic) teachings to conclude that this man CANNOT BE the Pope, nor can any who support him and his actions have LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to govern the Church. The public statements and actions of all the Conciliar claimants to the papacy convict them of heresy, and thereby loss of office, not to mention defect of intention in assuming the papacy in the first place.
In short, if the SSPX is in schism from anything, it is in schism from an HERETICAL CHURCH, a Church that is NO LONGER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Conciliar church (small c) is no longer ONE, it is no longer HOLY, it is no long CATHOLIC, and it is no longer APOSTOLIC. The visible, true Catholic Church now resides in small pockets of orthodoxy and faithfulness to authentic Catholic teaching and practice, e.g., the CMRI and some others.
Oh, and as for the accusation of "sensationalism so as to garner followers to your blog post", YGTBSM. Sedevacantism is NOT a popular position. What IS popular is the pusillanimous Michael Matt / Peter Kwasniewski et al. "ZIP IT" policy that lulls Catholics into spiritual effeminacy under the guise of "PRUDENCE" and "FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE". Faithful to what? An apostate church? Gimme a break.
Snarky? You bet I am. So was St. Jerome. Get over it. Uncharitable? No. It is never uncharitable to hold to and proclaim what is true, charitably, if possible, But when R&R-ers try to beat sedevacantists over the head with facile accusations of schism and disobedience to legitimate authority, it gets my Beth Dutton up. (IYKYK.) I don't know about other commenters here, but I'm sick unto spiritual death of pussyfooting around with people who try to assuage their cognitive dissonance by embracing its inherent contradictions as a virtue.
Many thanks, Dianne. I will be obedient to Prevost and the current hierarchy when they are obedient to Christ, not before. Given the current state of what calls itself the Catholic Church (sic), that might be a long time coming.
Let me repeat that we are all of one mind here, but we must stay in the conversation, be careful of language, and gather more information when we must. Misquotes and logical fallacies are not helpful. I stand with my statement that a Pope is the Pope until he declares himself to be a FORMAL HERETIC by teaching what HE recognizes as heresy. We must leave room for ignorance. There is a real chance that is involved with Pope Leo XIV.
I said nothing about having to teach error “Ex Cathedra.” That is one logical fallacy.
Lay people are not usually in a position to have to “obey” the Pope, plus I said nothing about obedience. I sad that unless a Pope is a Formal Heretic then administratively and legally he is still Pope. Those of us in the clergy are in a different category than the Lay. Also, if the Pope keeps the Cardinal Fernandez as the head of the DDS, he has the authority to do so.
Material or Formal Hertic, HE MUST BE RESISTED..to his face.
I called no one “Schismatics no better than Protest-ants.” And “I assume we are all…” You assume too much all along. The only one who can declare that the Pope has left his office is the Pope…no one else. Certainly not you. It will be interesting to see what Pope Leo XIV does with his “Catechesis on Vatican II.” This will either be his Formal undoing or his education in Church Dogma. We will watch together very closely.
Questions: You obviously have made the decision to relegate to yourself the authority to state that the Pope now has “ceased to be the Pope.” Have you written to any Cardinals to encourage them to elect a new Pope? Have you written to the Pope and demand that he abdicate the throne of the Vicar of Christ? Have you protested in St Peter’s Square that the Pope must be replaced? You have plenty of energy stored in your impatience with God’s Providential will to act.
If the Pope blows it during his “Catechesis” I will join you in St Peter’s Square.
Yes, yes. The usual accusations of prideful disobedience, arrogance, being out of my depth, not my place to do such and such, the usual bromides. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Look, Bob, I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but I think we can both agree that when you start a dialogue in which each party has antipodal premises, you should not be surprised when you end up with antipodal conclusions. You and I have diametrically opposed premises.
You hold that the current claimant to the See of Peter is legitimate, that his authority to govern the Church must therefore be respected, and that he must, out of charity and respect, be given a chance to "do the right thing" with respect to the SSPX's request for a mandate to consecrate new bishops.
I hold that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1963 with the accession of Paul VI Montini to the throne, that no subsequent claimant to the papacy has had legitimate authority to govern the Church, that I have both the right and the capacity to make those judgements on the basis of readily available evidence, and that the SSPX asking permission of an illegitimate authority to consecrate new bishops is tantamount to a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Now we can argue all day about whose premises are correct, who has the right to assume this or judge that, who's being obedient or disobedient to the Church, who's being a good Catholic and who's not, and whether or not we have each reasoned correctly from our premises to our conclusions; but the fact is we have diametrically opposed conceptions of the validity of the post-Vatican II Church in toto. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that we have come to intellectual blows over our respective conclusions with regard to the SSPX seeking a mandate to consecrate bishops.
As I commented to another person on another of RF's posts, the best we can do is agree to disagree and move on. I can manage that.
…”that no subsequent claimant to the papacy has had legitimate authority to govern the Church, that I have both the right and the capacity to make those judgements on the basis of readily available evidence”,….
This is an objective point that sedavacants… miss. As painful as it is for both of us to realize, these Popes being obviously MATERIAL HERETICS, they nevertheless never stepped over the line of making themselves FORMAL HERETICS. Therefore, I must allow them the respect of still retaining the role of governance and supreme legislator in the Church. Of course, we RESIST their false teaching and immoral example, to their face. Those Saints exposed to such a state of tension responded in filial loyalty to the degree they could. The FSSPX is doing the same, while standing firm toward their obvious material heresy. In fact, those who occupy the See of Peter finally gave up trying to convince the FSSPX that Vatican II is in continuity with Tradition. Also, there is even a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre admitting that Vatican II represents a RUPTURE with classical Tradition. (It has not been translated into English, but I have read an article by a Cardinal on this specific letter.) The FSSPX is following Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic virtue in our approach.
The disturbing thing to me is that Sedevacantists take to themselves the authority to pronounce the chair of Peter vacant. You do not have that authority. This is not a democracy, like it or not, the Church is a monarchy. The Jewish prophetic protocol is that the Vicar of the Davidic King had the right of succession in his family as did the King in his family. The governance of the Church is that of a subordinate monarchy, and different rules than those in a democracy apply.
In the final analysis, we will soon be standing side by side calling for the removal of the Pope. As I read the signs of the times, I see the Clown heretics are getting more desperate. As this continues they will redouble their efforts to make Modernism the rule of the Church and they will make mistakes. Some time soon a Pope will say the quiet part out loud and this will be the undoing of their carefully constructed house of cards. I’ll meet you on St Peter’s Square.
Excellent article, thank you. Your statement that "the SSPX should ask themselves whether they wish to be in communion with the false Communist bishops of China or any of the other abominations currently taking place in Rome." is precisely the point, but it is too kind. In fact, one could argue that as long as Rome continues to defend and even promote sins like heresy, apostasy, ecumenism, and homosexuality, NO ONE should tolerate anything coming from that den of Satan, for its "managers" can no longer claim to be Catholic in any way other than in name only. May the heretics in the ape of the church repent of their sins and renounce the countless evils of V-II so they can return to their primary obligation of salus animarum, suprema lex.
Bishops of the red chinese ccp: bingo
I hope people holding positions such as this will repent of their grievous sins. Holy Mother Church cannot fall. She may be weak, she may be infiltrated, but she cannot perish. She will be around until the end of time.
Check out liturgicalpensees.substack.com , my blog
Excellent!!
Thank you, Dianne!
Fantastic article! I couldn't have put it better. What's going on in the Vatican is not Catholic.
I believe I understand your argument, but what would the consequences be if the SSPX had taken your position? More sedevacantists out in the open? And what good would that do? Would we wind up with as many quasi-denominations as Protestants have? Isn’t it better to remain as close as possible to the structure our Lord established, while resisting the infiltrators? There are still so many groups in the Church trying to be good Catholics. What happens to them if everyone abandons ship and heads to the life rafts? And no, I don’t think the ship has sunk.
ITS facing reality of Rome becoming apostate and protecting yourself with good catechesis and the sacrements1 Thats not being a sedevatcantis.
Yes! Thank you!
Let's just start by accepting the TRUTH.
The core problem with the situation here is the SSPX places itself in a heterodox position. It correctly identifies many problems with Vatican II (though I would argue that the principle problem is the fact the Holy Spirit has left) but then wants to have its cake and eat it.
It does so because it fundamentally thinks that is a 'thing' that you can have shades of grey. When I sin, there is a part of me that goes, like a whiny child 'Oh but God, Im only human and this and that' but that isn't the me God wants. It is the old me. It is my old nature which St Paul talked about battling with the new. This is what the SSPX are doing with Vatican II - they can't except that half a lie is a full lie always. It is never half a truth.
I read Archbishop Lefbvre's They Have Uncrowned Him and it was brilliant, incisive, prophetic even right until the end when he tried to square this circle with a fairly tame critique of Sedevanctism. Now, as readers of my blog will know, I do have criticisms of Sedevanctism as a theory but in its desire to completely reject Vatican II it is entirely correct.
The reality of the leadership in the Catholic Church being NOT catholic is a much better thing to note. This is a very dangerous element now and if you are going to retain your faith it must be acknowledge.
Your analysis is correct; the SSPX attempts to straddle the fence between condemning the real heresies of Vatican II and the Papal claimants that propagate and enact its errors and at the same time holding that these claimants remain Catholic and exercise legitimate authority (or at least possess it). This contradictory position has led the SSPX into debilitating doctrinal discussions and attempts at seeking to arrive at canonical accords which imperil its mission which is to preserve and defend the Catholic faith and valid Catholic sacraments, and threaten to submerge it into the Conciliar sect. Hopefully our Blessed Mother will not allow this to happen.
Lord, have mercy....
It's not the structure that's abnormal. The abnormality exists in the people who currently control the structure or hierarchy. It's no different in principle than the current state of America: we have a sound government structure occupied by megalomanics, mattoids and degenerates. I am confidant that what you interpret as "seek[ing] recognition from those who define themselves by [Vatican II]" is merely a nod to the recognition of the hierarchy rather than "seeking communion with the false Communist bishops of China or any of the other abominations currently taking place in Rome." I am also confident that the consecrations will be performed regardless of the Vatican's response. Mr. Van Zyl, please put yourself in Fr. Pagliarani's place and answer your own question. Tell us, what would YOU do? Would you proclaim that the FSSPX is now the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Would you start another church as did Martin Luther? Tell us, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Well said
Excellent article!! This is the big problem. True catholics ,like the SSPX, cant bring themselves to acknowledge that the human institution involving the papacy,the episcopacy, and priest, religious ,and lay people have jettisoned the true catholic faith and now present a false hybrid religion and callout it catholicism. Rome and the episcopacy has been infiltrated with apostates that cant function as catholic. Its a horrible situation but God has allowed because the world is so EVIL.
The Church has turned into the evil, peanut- flicking Superman of Superman III, except we call it Vatican II. We ABSOLUTELY need a schism, a separation of the good and bad parts, so that battle royale can commence, and the good Church can ,er, mega-punch, kapow and eventually throttle the bad one into, er, invisibility, non-existence, whatever. Anyway, you get the picture. Goodnight.
Je suis tout a fait d’accord avec ce que vous dites ici. Merci beaucoup.
⏰ ⚖️⏳✍🏼⛪ Grace and peace to you,
🏺📚🪔 Saint Photios the Great, pray for us…..
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/a30c0431-d509-44e6-953d-e85249fb1a62
Thank you for all the things you do!
Your friend, Cyprian 🌍🕊️❤️🩹🕯️📿🔔
Superb!
This articulates well my own perplexed reaction to the internal contradictions of the interview. Subsequently, however, I wonder: is Pagliarani simply playing the Vatican at its own ambiguity-ridden game…?
You nailed it when you wrote, "Either the crisis justifies the consecrations or it does not. To suggest that the consecrations will hopefully be legitimized by the illegitimate authorities who caused the crisis makes no sense."
Ultimately, Catholics must come to the horrible conclusion that the Vatican and most of the hierarchy are no longer Catholic even though they wear the outfits and perform masses. The majority work for a global organization that takes money from the likes of Soros, Epstein and even communist China for a global AGENDA! It is no longer about saving souls but about money, power and using people. To think how they dealt with the open border situation with no concern for children, of which 300,000 were missing, shows again they do not care about Christ or His Church! We have company men and few actual spiritual fathers.
The reality is the SSPX is not the Church. It remains in communion with the Church and the successor peter regardless of his own personal views. This is and has always been the Catholic position on the matter.
I repeat some of my comments that I offered to your recent Substack post: THE FSSPX IS NOT SEEKING “RECOGNITION, LEGITIMACY, ACCEPTANCE, TOLERANCE, or JUSTIFICATION from the Holy See. The FSSPX IS SEEKING THE MANDATE! Please get the message! The FSSPX is following ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’s EXAMPLE. He understood, what you do not seem to get through your head, that until the Pope (who is in MATERIAL HERESY) DECLARES HIMSELF to be a FORMAL HERETIC he is still ADMINISTRATIVELY, and LEGALLY THE POPE! So, YES HE DOES STILL GOVERN THE CHURCH! Like it or not! Archbishop Lefebvre understood this, and was at the Vatican every other week making his case for his doctrinal stance and for the consecrations, without compromise! The FSSPX is following his example in order to give a Pope who still GOVERNS THE CHURCH the OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING! JeLe asks the question very well, “What would you have the FSSPX DO?!” The FSSPX is NOT going to take your POSITION OF SCHISM AND/OR SEDEVACANTISM! But the FSSPX WILL CONSECRATE BISHOPS WITH OR WITHOUT THE MANDATE! Please get the message! If you do not I will have to accuse you of mixed motives. The impurity in the mix would be sensationalism so as to garner followers to your blog post.
Acknowledging that Rome and church leadership is not catholic is a fact! It's not schism or sedevacantism. Its a mystery but one that can be understood as to avoid Romes'contamination of the faith.
Ah, another member of the R&R crowd weighs in. "He's still the Pope and we must obey him!" Oh, sorry: "He's STILL the POPE and we MUST OBEY HIM!" "You are SCHISMATICS, no better than PROTESTANTS!" I assume we're all GOING TO HELL, too. (Sigh...)
Howzabout you get this through YOUR head, Bobby: any Pope, prelate, or priest who defects from the faith in a visible, consistent and public manner has, IPSO FACTO, separated himself from the Mystical Body of Christ and LOSES HIS OFFICE!!! (Not sure how many exclamation points to add here.)
And for the hard of thinking among your misguided cohort of R&R-ers, NO FORMAL DECLARATION OF HERESY IS REQUIRED! NONE! BY ANYONE! In law, one would say, "res ipsa loquitur": the matter speaks for itself. The Pope does NOT have to be a FORMAL HERETIC. He does not have to OFFICIALLY DECLARE a heretical proposition as dogma in an EX CATHEDRA manner to be guilty of heresy. The entire corpus of his PUBLIC, consistent, ordinary Magisterium, if manifestly heretical and injurious to the faithful, is sufficient to DEPRIVE HIM OF OFFICE.
Anyone familiar with pre-V2 Catholicism can have MORAL CERTAINTY that a claimant to the Papal office has separated himself from the Mystical Body and thereby LOST HIS OFFICE by comparing his consistent PUBLIC STATEMENTS, his ministerial appointments, the PATTERN OF HIS GOVERNANCE of the Church, and other PUBLICLY VERIFIABLE ACTIONS, with pre-V2 (i.e., REAL Catholic) teachings to conclude that this man CANNOT BE the Pope, nor can any who support him and his actions have LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to govern the Church. The public statements and actions of all the Conciliar claimants to the papacy convict them of heresy, and thereby loss of office, not to mention defect of intention in assuming the papacy in the first place.
In short, if the SSPX is in schism from anything, it is in schism from an HERETICAL CHURCH, a Church that is NO LONGER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Conciliar church (small c) is no longer ONE, it is no longer HOLY, it is no long CATHOLIC, and it is no longer APOSTOLIC. The visible, true Catholic Church now resides in small pockets of orthodoxy and faithfulness to authentic Catholic teaching and practice, e.g., the CMRI and some others.
Oh, and as for the accusation of "sensationalism so as to garner followers to your blog post", YGTBSM. Sedevacantism is NOT a popular position. What IS popular is the pusillanimous Michael Matt / Peter Kwasniewski et al. "ZIP IT" policy that lulls Catholics into spiritual effeminacy under the guise of "PRUDENCE" and "FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE". Faithful to what? An apostate church? Gimme a break.
Snarky? You bet I am. So was St. Jerome. Get over it. Uncharitable? No. It is never uncharitable to hold to and proclaim what is true, charitably, if possible, But when R&R-ers try to beat sedevacantists over the head with facile accusations of schism and disobedience to legitimate authority, it gets my Beth Dutton up. (IYKYK.) I don't know about other commenters here, but I'm sick unto spiritual death of pussyfooting around with people who try to assuage their cognitive dissonance by embracing its inherent contradictions as a virtue.
Ball's in your court, Bobby. Have at it.
What a GREAT POST!! I am in your court!!
Many thanks, Dianne. I will be obedient to Prevost and the current hierarchy when they are obedient to Christ, not before. Given the current state of what calls itself the Catholic Church (sic), that might be a long time coming.
Even if Prevost and the current hierarchy convert & become obedient to Christ, doesn't there still remain the huge problem of invalid Holy Orders?
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
Let me repeat that we are all of one mind here, but we must stay in the conversation, be careful of language, and gather more information when we must. Misquotes and logical fallacies are not helpful. I stand with my statement that a Pope is the Pope until he declares himself to be a FORMAL HERETIC by teaching what HE recognizes as heresy. We must leave room for ignorance. There is a real chance that is involved with Pope Leo XIV.
I said nothing about having to teach error “Ex Cathedra.” That is one logical fallacy.
Lay people are not usually in a position to have to “obey” the Pope, plus I said nothing about obedience. I sad that unless a Pope is a Formal Heretic then administratively and legally he is still Pope. Those of us in the clergy are in a different category than the Lay. Also, if the Pope keeps the Cardinal Fernandez as the head of the DDS, he has the authority to do so.
Material or Formal Hertic, HE MUST BE RESISTED..to his face.
I called no one “Schismatics no better than Protest-ants.” And “I assume we are all…” You assume too much all along. The only one who can declare that the Pope has left his office is the Pope…no one else. Certainly not you. It will be interesting to see what Pope Leo XIV does with his “Catechesis on Vatican II.” This will either be his Formal undoing or his education in Church Dogma. We will watch together very closely.
Questions: You obviously have made the decision to relegate to yourself the authority to state that the Pope now has “ceased to be the Pope.” Have you written to any Cardinals to encourage them to elect a new Pope? Have you written to the Pope and demand that he abdicate the throne of the Vicar of Christ? Have you protested in St Peter’s Square that the Pope must be replaced? You have plenty of energy stored in your impatience with God’s Providential will to act.
If the Pope blows it during his “Catechesis” I will join you in St Peter’s Square.
Yes, yes. The usual accusations of prideful disobedience, arrogance, being out of my depth, not my place to do such and such, the usual bromides. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Look, Bob, I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but I think we can both agree that when you start a dialogue in which each party has antipodal premises, you should not be surprised when you end up with antipodal conclusions. You and I have diametrically opposed premises.
You hold that the current claimant to the See of Peter is legitimate, that his authority to govern the Church must therefore be respected, and that he must, out of charity and respect, be given a chance to "do the right thing" with respect to the SSPX's request for a mandate to consecrate new bishops.
I hold that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1963 with the accession of Paul VI Montini to the throne, that no subsequent claimant to the papacy has had legitimate authority to govern the Church, that I have both the right and the capacity to make those judgements on the basis of readily available evidence, and that the SSPX asking permission of an illegitimate authority to consecrate new bishops is tantamount to a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Now we can argue all day about whose premises are correct, who has the right to assume this or judge that, who's being obedient or disobedient to the Church, who's being a good Catholic and who's not, and whether or not we have each reasoned correctly from our premises to our conclusions; but the fact is we have diametrically opposed conceptions of the validity of the post-Vatican II Church in toto. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that we have come to intellectual blows over our respective conclusions with regard to the SSPX seeking a mandate to consecrate bishops.
As I commented to another person on another of RF's posts, the best we can do is agree to disagree and move on. I can manage that.
Last word is yours...
Well said, Sir!
…”that no subsequent claimant to the papacy has had legitimate authority to govern the Church, that I have both the right and the capacity to make those judgements on the basis of readily available evidence”,….
This is an objective point that sedavacants… miss. As painful as it is for both of us to realize, these Popes being obviously MATERIAL HERETICS, they nevertheless never stepped over the line of making themselves FORMAL HERETICS. Therefore, I must allow them the respect of still retaining the role of governance and supreme legislator in the Church. Of course, we RESIST their false teaching and immoral example, to their face. Those Saints exposed to such a state of tension responded in filial loyalty to the degree they could. The FSSPX is doing the same, while standing firm toward their obvious material heresy. In fact, those who occupy the See of Peter finally gave up trying to convince the FSSPX that Vatican II is in continuity with Tradition. Also, there is even a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre admitting that Vatican II represents a RUPTURE with classical Tradition. (It has not been translated into English, but I have read an article by a Cardinal on this specific letter.) The FSSPX is following Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic virtue in our approach.
The disturbing thing to me is that Sedevacantists take to themselves the authority to pronounce the chair of Peter vacant. You do not have that authority. This is not a democracy, like it or not, the Church is a monarchy. The Jewish prophetic protocol is that the Vicar of the Davidic King had the right of succession in his family as did the King in his family. The governance of the Church is that of a subordinate monarchy, and different rules than those in a democracy apply.
In the final analysis, we will soon be standing side by side calling for the removal of the Pope. As I read the signs of the times, I see the Clown heretics are getting more desperate. As this continues they will redouble their efforts to make Modernism the rule of the Church and they will make mistakes. Some time soon a Pope will say the quiet part out loud and this will be the undoing of their carefully constructed house of cards. I’ll meet you on St Peter’s Square.