Rad Trad Vocation?

[Cherie]

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

It was not meant to be inflammatory. It was an honest comparison in an effort to gain more understanding. I happen to know a lot about Mormon theology, and my understanding of the sedevacantist position seemed to match up quite nicely. The Mormons might not be properly Christian, but they do follow the Bible, and they claim to believe that, despite 500 years of the Church being "lost," the gates of hell didn't prevail against the Church. I was thinking sedevacantists might have a similar explanation, and if not, I wanted to know what that explanation was.

[Lefebvre]

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.

Yes, from your viewpoint I suppose those are the only options. But I honestly don't see how telling me that if I'm a sede I'm a heretic is expected to have any effect. Telling any sedevacantist that will probably be remarkably ineffective because to the sedevacantist you are the heretic. It just goes round and round and everyone goes home as convinced as they were of their position as they first were when they started to play ball.

 

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

Someone telling me why the SSPX's position isn't sheer ridiculousness. I mean, if you accept Francis as Pope and all the Cardinals and Archbishops and so on as holding legitimate authority, then fine that's your prerogative. But then you really don't get the choice to just follow Rome's edicts at your fancy. Deciding when you will obey and not obey the Pope, and when the Pope is being Catholic and when the Pope is being Modernist, does not recognise in any substantial way the position of the Holy Father as being filled. You may have his picture in the narthex and pray for him and his bishops at Mass, but at the end of the day you're ignoring Rome and doing your own thing in what strikes me as no less than glorified Protestantism. I respect the SSPX for recognising that there is a crisis in the Church, and that the problems of VII run much deeper then the "I prefer the TLM" stance of organisations such as the FSSP who don't see a problem with the Council, but I cannot understand their position. Either there is a Pope and you respect his authority, or there isn't so you don't. SSPX is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[veritasluxmea]

This really needs to be moved to the debate table...

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting position. I want to respond in greater depth, although I am a bit pressed for time.
Lefebvre, email me if you are so inclined. I.g.saintonge@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss this with you. But I think I will bow out of this thread.

[Credo in Deum]

Yes, from your viewpoint I suppose those are the only options. But I honestly don't see how telling me that if I'm a sede I'm a heretic is expected to have any effect. Telling any sedevacantist that will probably be remarkably ineffective because to the sedevacantist you are the heretic. It just goes round and round and everyone goes home as convinced as they were of their position as they first were when they started to play ball.

My dear friend I never said you were a heretic. I said to always hold the view that the seat is vacant is heresy. You are the one who applied the title of heretic towards yourself and sedevacantism since I think deep down you know the sedevacantists will never accept a postconcillar Pope as being valid and that the Church will never have a Pope that will say that Vatican II was an invalid council.

[chrysostom]

Lefebvre I ask you to read this:  http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-lost-sheep-contradicting.html

[Lefebvre]

This really needs to be moved to the debate table...

Agreed, sadly.

 

Interesting position. I want to respond in greater depth, although I am a bit pressed for time.
Lefebvre, email me if you are so inclined. I.g.saintonge@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss this with you. But I think I will bow out of this thread.

Will do.

 

My dear friend I never said you were a heretic. I said to always hold the view that the seat is vacant is heresy. You are the one who applied the title of heretic towards yourself and sedevacantism since I think deep down you know the sedevacantists will never accept a postconcillar Pope as being valid and that the Church will never have a Pope that will say that Vatican II was an invalid council.

Okay, point for Gryffindor.

 

Lefebvre I ask you to read this:  http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-lost-sheep-contradicting.html

I'm familiar with the miracles which Ss John XXIII and John Paul II are said to have worked through their intercession.

[chrysostom]

I'm familiar with the miracles which Ss John XXIII and John Paul II are said to have worked through their intercession.

 

And what do you think of them?

[Lefebvre]

And what do you think of them?

I... I have no idea. Not the foggiest.

[Cherie]

Interesting position. I want to respond in greater depth, although I am a bit pressed for time.
Lefebvre, email me if you are so inclined. I.g.saintonge@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss this with you. But I think I will bow out of this thread.

Don't bow out! This is a very interesting discussion, and you're a great part of it.

[Lefebvre]

I... I have no idea. Not the foggiest.

Emailed a sede bishop on the subject. Guess I'll find out!

[chrysostom]

Emailed a sede bishop on the subject. Guess I'll find out!

 

Should I take that to mean that you'll find out what you'll think?

Edited August 13, 2014 by chrysostom

[Lefebvre]

Should I take that to mean that you'll find out what you'll think?

In a sarcastic way, yes. It's more of a "in the many, many sedevacantist papers and arguments and rebuttals etc that I've read, not a single one has addressed the miracles, so I'll ask a really smart sede directly to see how it would be handled" kind of thing. No offense to +Sanborn either, but I have a feeling I'm not going to like the answer...

[chrysostom]

In a sarcastic way, yes. It's more of a "in the many, many sedevacantist papers and arguments and rebuttals etc that I've read, not a single one has addressed the miracles, so I'll ask a really smart sede directly to see how it would be handled" kind of thing. No offense to +Sanborn either, but I have a feeling I'm not going to like the answer...

 

Interesting.  If the miracles are true I think the obvious conclusion is that the sedevacantist premise is false.

 

Do you anticipate that you won't like the answer because you think it won't properly address the miracles or because it will push you closer to or further from the sedevacantist position?  I don't know you well enough to know what you meant by that statement...

[Lefebvre]

Yes, that... would seem to be the obvious conclusion. It would be so simple, I am rather pre-emptively irritated I missed it.

And I feel that His Grace's reply will not adequately address the issue; pushing me farther from the sede position. If the miracles could not be refuted; that would be hefty proof against sedevacantism. This irritates me due to, well, perhaps humiliation. I have been rather firm in the sede position and missing such a chink in the armor would be irksome. Of course, the most it would do is push me to the SSPX as the issues with VII are still extant, but that is another issue.

Interesting, interesting indeed.

[Catherine Therese]

All the interesting conversations happen here when I'm either asleep or at work... I'll be popping BAC in here when I can get away from the office...

[Lefebvre]

There we go, moved to the proper place.

[dUSt]

So my question here I suppose is, do you think God can call people to vocations outside what you consider the body of the Church?

 
Like, into Byzantine Paganism?

[Basilisa Marie]

I think there are two main parts to a vocation, the call and confirmation.  The individual hears the call of God to a particular way of life, and the community confirms the call in an official way. So a man feels called to the priesthood, and the diocese accepts him for formation and the bishop lays hands on him. A woman feels called to a particular religious community, and the community accepts her. If either part is missing, it's not considered a "true" vocation. That's why, for example, even though some women may feel called to the priesthood, we know them to be misinterpreting something (at best) because the Church will not (and cannot) confirm that call. 

So regarding your question, God does not call anyone away from the Church. You may feel your call is valid because a sedevacantist community "confirms" it, but because they aren't in line with the pope, it's impossible for it to be a true call. Instead, it may be a call to be a priest within the proper hierarchical system, maybe even one with a particular love of traditional devotions and a gift with rhetoric and a mind for philosophy, but not with those who reject the pope. It can't work that way. 

 

I mean, think about it.  If you suddenly allowed that, it'd set a dangerous precedent. What's to say I can't ignore my bishop and set up my own strange religious hippie liberal community that worships God as Mother and embraces new age philosophy? If I feel called to it and there are people around that agree with me, what's stopping me? You're effectively saying that authority doesn't really matter, all that really matters is what you feel. 

[Lefebvre]

I'm pretty sure I'm just going to have to pray for a long time...