Rad Trad Vocation?

[porziuncola]

As I understand it, there have been issues with people leaving sedevacantism while in the community. They lost a few nuns to that awhile back.

The CMRI sisters had a big departure (forming at least three new religious communities) over the sisters having non-sede views. This included some of the sisters who were in important positions.

I realize that... I've met some of them actually, lovely women. But my understanding was that most of them had a change of views on the subject after they had been in the community for some time. The signing an agreement not to discuss non-sede views seemed to imply that some had non-sede views upon entrance, which seemed odd to me, that someone would join a sede community when they weren't sedevacantist personally. But I guess it wasn't implying that necessarily. Still kind of interesting that they almost anticipate some people's views on the subject will change.

Actually of the ones that I'd met that had formed a new community, I was surprised when they explained that actually as a community, the sede views were kind of a back thought. Everyone was sedevacantist, supposedly, but practically speaking it didn't have a very prominent role in day to day life. It was a bit hard for me to picture that being so minor in a community unique for that very reason. Edited August 12, 2014 by porziuncola

[Nihil Obstat]

I have spoken to a few sedevacantists who are of the opinion that for a Catholic living in these times, to them with no valid pope and no pastoral direction, the most prudent response is to carry on as best they can as if nothing was wrong.

I disagree with the sedevacant premise, but it must be admitted at the very least that it is a mature response.

[porziuncola]

Actually, come to think of it, one of the sisters I met that had left when one of the new communities started HAD entered when she wasn't exactly sede herself, or at least not firmly so. She felt called to religious life, but her family was adamant that she should only join a sede community, so even though she wasn't sure if she really believed in sedevacantism, she kept that to herself, and it was enough of a non-issue in the day to day life of the community she wasn't particularly bothered by it during her novitiate.

[dUSt]

If you are actively choosing to be out of communion with the Church, why do you feel the need to be in communion with any organization? Why not just start your own? Why move up through the ranks when you can just declare yourself your own pope. Honestly don't understand.

[Nihil Obstat]

If you are actively choosing to be out of communion with the Church, why do you feel the need to be in communion with any organization? Why not just start your own? Why move up through the ranks when you can just declare yourself your own pope. Honestly don't understand.

According to sedes, they do not reject communion with the Church, but rather what they consider to be a false pope who, were he truly a false pope, would himself not be in communion with the Church.

[Lefebvre]

If you are actively choosing to be out of communion with the Church, why do you feel the need to be in communion with any organization? Why not just start your own? Why move up through the ranks when you can just declare yourself your own pope. Honestly don't understand.

 

Well, just because the Church has been hijacked by Modernists and everyone from Francis on down is an illegitimate heretic doesn't magically give me, or any other sede, the authority to make themselves Pope or such nonsense. The organisations which do exist such as the CMRI or SSPV don't think of themselves as alternate Church authorities, but are organised primarily for the purpose of most any other priestly fraternity: to dispense the sacraments and act according to their mission. For the CMRI, that means that in addition to dispensing sacraments to the faithful (an act which, from a sede viewpoint, is even more critical than usual due to the dearth of legitimate priests) they also promote the message of Our Lady of Fatima and the practice of Total Consecration to Mary. A key understanding to how sedevacantist groups and clergy and so forth derive their mandate to operate is the principle that, in such a time of crisis for the faith, it is legal to do however much is necessary (there is a name for this principle, but I can't remember it ;_;) to ensure that the sacraments keep getting dispensed and the faithful are shepherded and so forth and so on, but no more than what is necessary. To establish a parallel hierarchy would be unnecessary because the Church is there, it's just hijacked. This is not entirely accurate of all sedes (some think that the Church structure is not merely hijacked, but the big honking organisation which claims to be the RCC is an entirely separate "Counciliar" church dressed in Catholic clothing, if you will), but I think it is fair to establish in general principle.

 

And I also want to make clear that I don't like being outside communion with the Church, even if that Church is in my opinion... well, not really the Church. In every single way I would prefer to acclaim Francis as the Holy Father and just discern for the SSPX or even the ICKSP. But I genuinely do not believe I can do that, because I am convinced that Vatican II was at best a bad council which provoked a crisis in the Church on the scale of which we have never seen, and at worst a heretical council promulgated by an Antipope. Sedevacantism is not a position most people adopt because they're bitter old contrarians, but because they see Vatican II as a very bad thing indeed and are trying to make sense of it; and the sede school of thought explains it nicely. But it remains almost always, and certainly in my case, a position of necessity rather than a choice which I made because I think Francis acts silly and I like the smells and bells.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Lefebvre

[Cherie]

How do sedevacantists reconcile their beliefs with Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church? Because it sounds an awful lot like what the Mormons believe happened to the Church.

[Ice_nine]

I am convinced that Vatican II was at best a bad council which provoked a crisis in the Church on the scale of which we have never seen.

 

Pretty much everyone ever thought the crisis of their time is "the worst ever." I don't know if that's human nature or ego or what but it's a good thing to keep in mind.

[Lefebvre]

How do sedevacantists reconcile their beliefs with Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church? Because it sounds an awful lot like what the Mormons believe happened to the Church.

 

Well... because they haven't. Sedevacantists have clergy and chapels and churches and seminaries and bishops and all that jazz. The Church is still here, it is just greatly reduced in numbers. I once read a sede text which compared the current state of the Church as sedevacantists imagine it to be to the Passion of Our Lord. If his temporal body suffered, is it so unreasonable to imagine -- so the sedes say -- that his mystical body should undergo the same? We do not know why the Lord has deigned to suffer such things onto his Church, but that does not mean that hell has prevailed. It hasn'y. We firmly believe in Christ's promise and it is what gives us hope that one day this state of affairs will draw to a close.

[Nihil Obstat]

How do sedevacantists reconcile their beliefs with Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church? Because it sounds an awful lot like what the Mormons believe happened to the Church.

Mormons are not even properly Christian. I do not think that comparison is of any use at all.

Look at it this way. We are promised the Church will endure. We are not promised it will be easy.
There have been times in our past where the identity of the true pope was not certain. Antipope John xxiii is a good example. In our opinion that is not the case currently, but it is clearly not inherently impossible for the status of the papacy to cause great difficulty.
We believe the See is occupied. Lefebvre here is not sure. But there have been times in history where the valid pope's legitimacy was unclear.
All the importance of proper procedure during the sedevacant period following a pope's death does certainly imply that there exist dangers to guard against. Look at the Siri thesis. Imagine if Cardinal Siri himself had claimed those same things. It would have been confusing.

I think sedes are wrong, ultimately. But I do not think they are idiots. In a different time and place, in my opinion there even could be an invalid pope. Not here, not now. Not on the horizon. But could it happen? I do not see why it should be impossible.

[Credo in Deum]

Well, just because the Church has been hijacked by Modernists and everyone from Francis on down is an illegitimate heretic doesn't magically give me, or any other sede, the authority to make themselves Pope or such nonsense.

Tell that to the conclavists. If you follow the sedes and choose to leave, then I personally do not see what other options you have but to go further down the rabbit hole of descent and be a conclavist, since you will never accept a postconciliar Pope as being valid.

[linnie]

 the Church has been hijacked by Modernists and everyone from Francis on down is an illegitimate heretic 

 

really?  this is insulting and inappropriate.  I thought this phorum was for those interested vocations within the Catholic Church.  Not for promoting an alternative church

[Lefebvre]

Tell that to the conclavists. If you follow the sedes and choose to leave, then I personally do not see what other options you have but to go further down the rabbit hole of descent and be a conclavist, since you will never accept a postconciliar Pope as being valid.

(A. I'm not a Conclavist. The Conclavist position is impossible for numerous reasons. (B. If a postcounciliar Pope were to reject VII, then I daresay most sedes would be screaming Habemus Papem from the top of their lungs,

 

really?  this is insulting and inappropriate.  I thought this phorum was for those interested vocations within the Catholic Church.  Not for promoting an alternative church

What? That is the sede viewpoint, which I've spent the last few posts discussing. I never said y'all had to believe it, or even necessarily that I believe it. But it's impossible to discuss why sedes believe what they do, or why they do not believe themselves to be outside communion in any meaningful sense, without making clear that the current hierarchy is, from a sedevacantist position, illegitimate and heretical. It is the raison d'etre of the entire phenomenon. And I am interested in vocations in the Catholic Church, and I am not by any stretch of the imagination "promoting an alternative church." I stated my position in the OP and asked a simple, vocations-related question which was in no way meant to be inflammatory. The thread has, er, drifted somewhat, but don't bash me for something I didn't do, if you would be so kind.

[Nihil Obstat]

Lefebvre, what would it take to convince you of the plenist position?

[Credo in Deum]

If you are actively choosing to be out of communion with the Church, why do you feel the need to be in communion with any organization? Why not just start your own? Why move up through the ranks when you can just declare yourself your own pope. Honestly don't understand.

This is a great question. The answer is the sedes are already guilty of making themselves their own Pontiff by their very position. They say they want communion with the Church, however, they deny the very Bishop that makes this communion possible. In reality what every sede wants is for the Church to be in communion with them.

[Lefebvre]

Lefebvre, what would it take to convince you of the plenist position?

 

Tell me what that is, and I'll let you know :p

 

Sedevacantism, material/formal thesis, conclavism, recognise-and-resist, etc. I know my share of Trad lingo, but I confess this has escaped me...

[Nihil Obstat]

Sedeplenism meaning "the seat is full", I.e. not vacant.

[Lefebvre]

This is a great question. The answer is the sedes are already guilty of making themselves their own Pontiff by their very position. They say they want communion with the Church, however, they deny the very Bishop that makes this communion possible. In reality what every sede wants is for the Church to be in communion with them.

Hmmm... Dust's question didn't really seem addressed to you; but thanks for answering on my behalf. And, you know, the tinge of arrogance and gross over-generalisation... but that's cool too I guess :/

 

Sedeplenism meaning "the seat is full", I.e. not vacant.

Oh, well, that's a good question. Now, I assume you don't mean the SSPX recognise-and-resist position which is technically sedeplenist. In order to convince me, I guess I would have to be convinced why all the many, many, many statements of previous Popes and councils which in many cases directly condemn many of the changes VII introduces regarding ecumenism, religious liberty, the exclusive salvific nature of the Church, etc etc suddenly mean diddly-squat. That most of all would be nice, since the claims that VII is like, filled to the brim with damnable heresy are largely derived from those statements.

[Credo in Deum]

(A. I'm not a Conclavist. The Conclavist position is impossible for numerous reasons. (B. If a postcounciliar Pope were to reject VII, then I daresay most sedes would be screaming Habemus Papem from the top of their lungs,

A. I never said you were, and of course it's an impossible position, however, the point is descent leads to greater descent. Sedevacantism is linked with conclavism. Also since B. will never ever happen, then you have no other options but to A. always hold that the seat is vacant (which is heresy), B. be a conclavist (heresy), C. be a Protestant (heresy), or D. Accept that Francis is the valid Pope of the Catholic Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

Let us go bare bones here, absolute minimum. What would make you go sspx rather than sspv or cmri?