It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:02 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
 Sedevacantist religious orders 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
Please help me make this list.


I, for one, would rather not. If you want to debate qualifications of a particular group, fine, but such lists have the appearance of giving way too much unifying power to a particular qualifier that is just a momentary situation. It lumps the highly orthodox in with the blantantly weird to the advantage of the latter and disadvantage of the former.

If I received two flyers on my door tomorrow. one advertising a meeting of true Catholics, and the other a meeting of "sedevacantists" I would have much more interest in going to meet the Catholic claimants. There are no "Sedevacantist Religious Orders" in my view, just groups of Catholic religious promoting and practicing the true and Catholic faith. If you find a group advertising themselves merely on the fact of their "sedevacantism", then my advice: Run away!

Such a list would serve no purpose other than to blur distinctions and sow confusion.


Sun May 28, 2006 1:29 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
I agree with all of this and I hadn't thought of most of it beforehand. :)

May I add another reason, Geoff? It tends to promote the party spirit which has done so much damage to Holy Mother Church already during this crisis and no doubt will do a lot more yet before the crisis is over.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 28, 2006 9:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Eastern MA, USA
New post 
Could it have been that the original author of this thread's intent was to inform people of various orders who may have a vocation? Surely this was just an innocent attempt to do so, although a "sedevacantist order" is a poor choice of words. I also would not have included certain groups had I posted it myself.


Mon May 29, 2006 3:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Janel wrote:
Could it have been that the original author of this thread's intent was to inform people of various orders who may have a vocation? Surely this was just an innocent attempt to do so, although a "sedevacantist order" is a poor choice of words. I also would not have included certain groups had I posted it myself.


Yes, sure, Janel. I trust that the originator of it meant well.

Btw, the so-called "Priestly Society of Christ the King" is not sedevacantist.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 5:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
I took the "Priestly Society of Christ the King" off the list.

If I were to become a priest I would most likely seek out an order which would not expell me for not uttering "una cum". I'm actaully an alter server at an SSPX chapel, yet I see a huge difference in assisting at a mass where the Priest wrongfully says this and me actually saying it myself. I could not do this. So perhaps I could join a Catholic order who recognizes Benedict XVI as pope, but only as a Religious Brother; not as a Priest.

Were you ever to become a Priest, could you utter the words "una cum (some imposter)". Would you actually stand their in Persona Christi and utter what you know to be false? Wouldn't this be a type of blasphemy?

I understand what you have said though and I see the truth in it. Certainly there have been some groups that have in the past been impredunant. To associate the really upstanding groups with these other groups who have a bad reputation could present a problem. Except, what problem is it really going to present?

People looking for quick little jabs arn't even going to take the time to make a guilty by association comment. They're just going to say something like "You can't judge the pope" or "These people are crazy". Even if they did try and smear with some guilt by association I do not think this is actually a problem. The current crisis isn't going to be resolved by people one day coming into contact with a group and saying "Oh look, these guys are pretty normal afterall." A person who is actually seeking the truth to the extent that they are willing to really listen to the arguments for the sedevacantist position has long ago stopped worrying about whether or not they appear "normal". They don't care about convention. They've left pride behind in prusuit of something more important; reality.

Has an agreement on one or two points with an otherwise ridiculous group ever cuased you to alter your stance on that which you see eye to eye with them on? Let's say you believe in the right to private property. Then you find out that some crazy "Satanic libertarians association" also believes in the right of private property. Would you stop believing in private property rights after discovering the existence of this group? Would your name listed along side the name of this group on a list of private property advocates really damage your reputation? Not in the eyes of anyone being at all careful in their thinking. You're not going to scare off people who are actually seeking the truth, and the one's who are not seeking the truth won't really be furthered along on their sinful path due to the existence of this list.

Another problem is that many traditional Catholics would not agree as to which orders are actually corrupt and which one's are upstanding. I agree with Griff Ruby's stance on this. We should stop all the infighting.

I suppose it may have been easier to have just posted a question. What I would like to know is what religious orders or priestly societies do you know of that do not currently require their Priests to utter "una cum Benedict XVI".


Mon May 29, 2006 9:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
brogan wrote:
If I were to become a priest I would most likely seek out an order which would not expell me for not uttering "una cum". I'm actaully an alter server at an SSPX chapel, yet I see a huge difference in assisting at a mass where the Priest wrongfully says this and me actually saying it myself. I could not do this. So perhaps I could join a Catholic order who recognizes Benedict XVI as pope, but only as a Religious Brother; not as a Priest.

Were you ever to become a Priest, could you utter the words "una cum (some imposter)". Would you actually stand their in Persona Christi and utter what you know to be false? Wouldn't this be a type of blasphemy?


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I serve Mass on occasion also. I recently served a 7am Mass for Fr. Schmidberger when he visited Perth, with I think one layman present outside the sanctuary. It was quite an experience, in the half-dark of an autumn morning, virtually all alone there with this man who the night before had attacked our position mercilessly. He was angelic on the altar, btw, and very edifying - humble and friendly in person. Charity does really cover a multitude of "sins."

But if I was a priest I would in conscience have to refuse, of course, to mention Ratzinger as pope when I do not think that he is. To do so would be to lie. In fact, I would say that if I thought the server or the layman in the pew were truly regarded as sharing in the priest's error of fact in this matter, then I would not even assist at such Masses.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 29, 2006 10:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Fr. Schmidberger...who the night before had attacked our position mercilessly.


John,

Is that his official line? Does he tolerate SSPX priests who hold the sede position privately?


Mon May 29, 2006 11:43 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Cam wrote:
Is that his official line? Does he tolerate SSPX priests who hold the sede position privately?


Yes, but not "officially." :)


Mon May 29, 2006 1:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post Re: Sedevacantist Religious Orders
brogan wrote:
Please help me make this list.


The Monks of Syon Abbey in Copper Hill , VA. They are associated with Bishop McKenna O.P. and are a monastic group in the benedictine tradition . They were formed in 1962 in Lexington KY. , but once the changes occured they started traveling around the USA offering the TLM to whoever needed it and were able to return to a monastic existence in 2000. Lol I realize you didn't ask for a biography , sorry.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:04 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Thank you Clark. I've updated the original post.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
I would still be interested in knowing which groups were sedevacantist. I am perfectly okay with orders that aren't and believe them to be valid. But I would like to someday soon find a group that I most closely can relate to in regards to the current situation. At this point that would mean a sedevacantist group. I am also considering the priesthood or some religious vocation, I don't believe I would want to join an order that is not sedevacantist if I am a sedevacantist, even if I don't have an inherent problem with the non-sede orders.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:12 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Roanoke, VA
New post 
brogan wrote:
Thank you Clark. I've updated the original post.


Wow I feel dumb, I didn't know they had a webpage... I got all that just by asking one of the monks a few months ago.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:18 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
To All In General:

The bulletin from St. Gertrude the Great (Bp. Dolan) has been running a series called Catechism of the Changes authored by Bp. Sanborn. In this week's bulletin, located here: http://www.sgg.org/bulletin/bulletin.pdf, Bp. Sanborn continues his reasoning opposed to 'una cum' Masses. I believe there may have been some statements last week, but you'll get the gist by reading this week's bulletin.

I think this issue (una cum) has developed a life of its own, and now stalks sede land where once it was not. As the years increase without a pope/hierarchy, issues will continue to come to the fore that were not considered years ago. I am going to start a new thread about this as well as the issue of belonging to a non-apostolic, non-juridical, non-visible church that has no virtue of obedience being practiced anywhere, and how long that really can be considered a proper response to this crisis.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:46 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Almost the entire problem with the Internet can be summed up in the statement that people may do their own theology and law and then publish it irresponsibly. We have no intention of adding to the problem here.


In the light of the foregoing, I believe my idea of starting a separate thread regarding dangerous changes in the sede world is best left unstarted. I'm sure it would have quickly devolved into my own theology or observations of the current state of affairs. A little 'coercion' is a wonderful thing.:!: Thanks for the reminder John, and keeping us on track.

I do have a question concerning theologians. Why are the theologians such as Cajetan, Suarez, Bouix, John of St. Thomas, and Garrigou LaGrange (heretical pope) passed over in favor of other theologians? Given the scope of the crisis (pope and entire hierarchy defecting), and, please correct me if I'm wrong, no theologian addressing this scenario (St. Robert Bellarmine, et. al. speaking to the issue of only an heretical pope), why can't an individual opt for Garrigou LaGrange's position?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:05 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
I do have a question concerning theologians. Why are the theologians such as Cajetan, Suarez, Bouix, John of St. Thomas, and Garrigou LaGrange (heretical pope) passed over in favor of other theologians? Given the scope of the crisis (pope and entire hierarchy defecting), and, please correct me if I'm wrong, no theologian addressing this scenario (St. Robert Bellarmine, et. al. speaking to the issue of only an heretical pope), why can't an individual opt for Garrigou LaGrange's position?


Excellent question. As far as I can tell, the answer is that one may adopt that position if it appears true.

However, one must keep in mind that we only resort to the "heretical pope" solution because we cannot see how this crisis can be reconciled with Catholic doctrine otherwise. And if one adopts the minority position on the heretical pope thesis, as you suggest, then the problem of the crisis is not solved. So there does not seem to be any point in doing that.

You're quite right that no theologian addresses our scenario in toto. But we must follow the theologians as far as we can. It seems to me that unless we do so we are adopting an essentially Protestant approach, as can be seen on any number of threads over on Angelqueen. For example, some of the resident experts there will argue that "history" is the final arbiter of truth; not stating their complete thesis (probably because they don't realise what they are saying), which is that their private interpretation of a particular account or accounts of history will be their rule of Faith. On that theory they bring forth (as Chris Ferrara does) the case of Pope Formosus, as though their private interpretation of their choice of account of his reign (none of them quotes Cardinal Baronius, for example - why not?), will somehow weigh against the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope thesis. It's positively strange, but if it proves anything, it demonstrates that these people haven't thought about these matters in any depth, and nor would they know how to think about them correctly even if they did give them the attention they deserve. Because they do not know what the proximate rule of Faith is, and nor have they sufficient appreciation of their own limitations to bend their intellects to the work of others more competent than themselves on matters not directly of Faith (i.e. the theologians, canonists, etc.).

The same reasoning leads us to the conclusion that Feeneyism is essentially Protestant. The Feeneyite is the chap who rejects the theologians in favour of his own interpretation of the primary data, which in theology is Scripture and Tradition. And that, in a nutshell, is making oneself the magisterium.

Now, the really worrying aspect of all this is that we have now reached a point where the younger traditionalists are the writers and debaters (Chris Ferrara is an example, but any number could be cited - including me), and the older pre-V2 Catholics are retiring and disappearing; but the younger chaps don’t have the sense that this situation is weird and cannot last. On the contrary, the general impression one receives from reading their works is that this crisis is not much different from a few previous ones and we have all that we need (pope, bishops, priests, etc.) and no fundamental problems. Archbishop Lefebvre did not conclude that the See of Rome is vacant, but he certainly never stopped thinking that the crisis was an unfathomable mystery. This, I think, was because he knew his theology. And it is because the younger chaps haven’t read any theology that they are so blissfully unaware of how impossible the present situation is.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Thanks, John. I think I'll spend some time with Wilhelm & Scannell. Another question, though. Without getting into personal characters, why do you think Bp. X, Y, or Z promotes anti-una-cum? Would they not know the theologians' opinion about something like this? Or, perhaps, it's their love for Holy Mother Church and their holy wrath at seeing what the thugs have attempted to do to her, that persuades them that this position is the correct one? Their average chapel-goer is being told things that don't appear to square with the mind of Holy Mother Church: but, they wouldn't know that, would they?

What's an ordinary layman to do? Most of us, including myself, are still working on our basic catechism, and can hardly spell theologian, let alone reading some of their works. How do we remain truly Catholic, and not let ourselves be led down 'wrong' paths? :?:

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.