It is currently Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:11 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
 Dogmatic "sedevacantists" and practical schism? 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Dogmatic "sedevacantists" and practical schism?
A recent email from a correspondent with some comments on it below.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Sent: Sunday, 10 September 2006 1:05 PM
To: 'John Lane'
Subject: Thoughts


Dear John,

Here are some thoughts on what I think should be our attitude towards the SSPX clergy and towards sedevacantists who treat them as anathema. And why I find that I am less tolerant of dogmatic, hardline sedevacantists.

1. The SSPX position is a legitimate position to hold. The Church has not pronounced, it is a disputed matter. We have certitude regarding sedevacantism but we cannot impose this on those that differ. We must treat them as fellow Catholics that we see hold an erroneous position. We are the ones if you like, that appear to have gone out on a limb, compared to normal times, and to sedeplenists look as if we are not subject to the Sovereign Pontiff.

2. Sedevacantists that condemn the SSPX and treat them as less than fellow brethren are not simply holding an erroneous position, on a disputed matter. How we are to treat fellow Catholics, including those that we see hold erroneous positions on matters not judged by the Church has never been a disputed matter. It is clear that we are to retain the bonds of unity and charity with fellow members of the Mystical Body. This is Christianity. This is what perturbs me so much about these hardline sedes. What they are doing is not actually legitimate.

3. It does not follow from holding the sedevacantist position that sedeplenists are not Catholic. However, we should be able to understand that for those that do hold the sedeplenist position, it is possible for some to think of sedevacantists as not Catholic. And we have to see that this would be indeed the right thing to do in ordinary times, the Catholic position, as Catholics must be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff, and those that are not subject would be schismatics. Fortunately, there are few out there that take this extreme position by being so unforgiving in these confusing times, as they too make allowances. These sedeplenists that do not take the hard line position are those that have a broader mind, in the good sense, and can see why we hold to the sedevacantist position, even though they think it erroneous, and therefore they apply Christian principles and treat us as fellow Catholics, albeit ones in error. Such as all the SSPX priests I have ever met, and laypeople, bar one perhaps.

So, whilst we have to refrain from making uncharitable judgements for either party, it is perfectly legitimate to feel repelled and to speak out against what we see is a position in contradiction with undisputed teachings on how we are to treat our fellow Catholics. If we have faith without charity we are as "tinkling cymbals". And if we breach charity with fellow Catholics and trangress Christian principles will our faith remain intact?

The are only two excuses I can think of for sedevacantists treating the SSPX as less than fellow Catholics.

1. If they hold that sedevacantism is not a disputed matter, but something that must be believed to be Catholic. If this is the case, then they are elevating their judgements to those of the Church, which is an incredibly arrogant, proud thing to do in addition to being super erroneous. They do not know their faith as well as they think they do. They would need to prove that the sedevacantist opinion is not an opinion but a dogma. This position would indeed lead to schism eventually I believe.

2. If they hold the position that the SSPX are schismatic. And if this is the case, then they had better have good evidence, as they will be judged as they judge. And I am not prepared to risk that judgement nor give any excuses for it either without solid evidence. It must be proven according to Catholic teachings and leave no room for dispute.

Further, if a sedevacantist hold neither of the above two propositions then he has no excuse for breaching the bonds of unity and charity with the SSPX.

So, to sum up - The hardline sedevacantist who casts others out of the church or severs communion with SSPX sedeplenists cannot be defended, as opposed to the SSPX sedeplenist because the former's actions are a transgression against the bond of unity we must keep with fellow Catholics so as to retain our membership in the Church. Whereas the latter's position, whilst erroneous, is permissable, and does not result in a breach against the bond of unity with fellow catholics. The sedevacantist that severs communion with the SSPX or any traditional Catholic for that matter or treats them as schismatics is in fact in danger of schism themselves.

John, please give me your thoughts and let me know if I am wrong on any of this.

Sincerely,


_____________________________________________________________


Dear X,

I think that is almost all exactly right.

But, we must note, I think, that it is possible legitimately to avoid other Catholics even though one recognises them as one's fellow Catholics, for several reasons. For example, if their errors, no matter how innocently held, constitute, in our judgement, a danger to ourselves or our children. Of course, this is all a question of prudent judgement formed with appropriate reluctance whilst considering the almost incalculable good of that peace which Our Lord commanded us to keep.

One thing that bothers me about this whole willingness to condemn and cut off communion is that the spirit of the old traditional Catholics of the 'seventies and 'eighties was to highlight principles and issues, and not so much persons. So we would be concerned with whether the priest we were thinking of approaching was genuinely ordained, or only "ordained" in the new rite. It was a question of principle. Some persons would fall foul of it and we would avoid them. But the spirit of this new situation feels schismatic. It's like the SSPX is now regarded as a monolithic institution with an openly heretical or schismatic agenda to which all of its members subscribe, and which must therefore be avoided per se. If that is true, then let those who think it say so without dissembling, and then prove it properly, as you've said in your email. And if it isn't true (which it isn't, in my view) then these fellow Catholics of the SSPX must be treated with kindness and every possible excuse made for them in those points where we differ with them. There is no third (Catholic) way.

As for "schismatic" sedevacantists being indefensible - I think perhaps that is a little strong. One could, for example, point out in their favour that they may be motivated by a genuine zeal for the unity of the Church and they may not be well-instructed on the things you mention. It's ironic, and one of the paradoxes of our era, that a zeal for unity may even lead to a kind of practical schism. !

Thank you for such a lengthy and interesting email on this question. It's the best thing I've seen on it for some time!

Yours in Christ, King of our intellects and wills,
John Lane.


Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:18 am
Posts: 19
New post 
I must say that the above exchange between Mr X and John Lane has got to be one of the best informal presentations of the problems the Church faces from within that I have ever seen. Could wipe out a number of threads in one fell swoop!

I can only think think that the fact that no one has yet responded is because they are speechless and in as much awe as I, at the truth of the above!

Thank you Mr X and Mr Lane.

Simplicius


Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:31 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
I can only think think that the fact that no one has yet responded is because they are speechless and in as much awe as I, at the truth of the above!


Be careful of unwarranted and quickly drawn speculations.

:D


Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:18 am
Posts: 19
New post 
LOL! I hope you noted that I did think twice about it! :D


Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Fairly self-explanatory.

I have seen it used in various ways. I assumed it was a synonym for those whom I refer to as "Denzinger-thumpers," such as the Dimond Brothers, who tend to exclude the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and insinuate that things like Catechisms and even the Code of Canon Law are not just fallible, but positively erroneous, thus meaning the Church has positively given evil laws and taught errors - even hereries.


Tue May 22, 2012 5:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Re: The Term "Domgatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
I mean by that term those who elevate their view into a dogma. I'm referring to anybody who makes the vacancy of the Holy See a matter of faith, or makes the recognition of this reality a shibboleth for membership in the Church.

The Dimonds do appear to do this, since they apparently have people like me on a list of known heretics or something, although I'm not really familiar with their writings so I could be mistaken.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 22, 2012 5:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
John Lane wrote:
I mean by that term those who elevate their view into a dogma. I'm referring to anybody who makes the vacancy of the Holy See a matter of faith, or makes the recognition of this reality a shibboleth for membership in the Church.

The Dimonds do appear to do this, since they apparently have people like me on a list of known heretics or something, although I'm not really familiar with their writings so I could be mistaken.


Hmm.

Personally, I am not overly comfortable with using Dogmatic pejoratively (rather remiscent of what happened to the word Propaganda), and I fear it could be minsinterpreted as meaning anyone who takes a strong stand on an issue, (which issue isn't, itself, clearly elevated to a Dogma of the Church) as being "Dogmatic," e.g., someone taking a stand on some issue based on learned competency or expertise in agreement with logic and reason. Not everything true or correct is dogmatised. Consequently, we might find people accusing each other of being "dogmatic (x)" anytime they take a firm stand on something like a moral issue or controversy and imploring others by argument to take that same position, with the implication that they are necessarily wrong.

I think it may be worthwhile to consider the problem more carefully and isolate specifically the error, and then appropriately delineate and label it.

Further, since it is Dogma that the Church cannot give evil laws or teach error/heresy (i.e., that She is Spotless, indefectible, etc.) is it not immediately deducible from Dogma that heretics or the doctrines of heretics cannot (by reason of contradiction) be authentic representatives of the Church's Magisterium? Is not exposing heretics and their heresies in actuality a defense of the Church's Dogma regarding Her indefectibility?


EDIT: ADDED: The Bolded/italicised clause for clarity.


Tue May 22, 2012 6:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
MConstantine wrote:
Further, since it is Dogma that the Church cannot give evil laws or teach error/heresy (i.e., that She is Spotless, indefectible, etc.) is it not immediately deducible from Dogma that heretics or the doctrines of heretics cannot (by reason of contradiction) be authentic representatives of the Church's Magisterium? Is not exposing heretics and their heresies in actuality a defense of the Church's Dogma regarding Her indefectibility?

Well put. Thank you.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue May 22, 2012 11:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Might I submit that the problem is actually a form of (what was historically known as) rigorism ? And, therefore, those who advocate are (like to the) Rigorists?

That is, something akin to those who during the early persecutions of the Church would not tolerate the lapsi (i.e., those who burned incense to the emperor) to be readmitted to communion? They (the rigorists) appear to have been quite a powerful party; but none accused them of being heretics, just of being excessive disciplinarians; indeed, it is quite likely that the sentiments of most Catholics who endured the persecutions were with the Rigorists; but, nonetheless, submitting to the Church's Faith and teaching, which is inclined to justice as well as mercy, were therefore lead to be merciful and finally preferred instead to impose a long penance on the lapsi.

I cite, for example, an article from this Wesbite, by a Mr. Daly, entitled A Case of Confusion :

Quote:
The consequence of this [error] is that we "hard liners" [who traditionally are referred to as rigorists] were deeming excluded from the Church many persons who were in fact still members.


Now, of course, the lapsi really were outside of the Church by even Divine Law, and most probably Ecclesiastical law also, but this was not debated: the debate was over what to do with them.

However, here and in this case, the error seems to be presuming that those who err owing to deception or err "in good faith" are ipso facto excommunicated for schism or heresy; whereas, things like wilfulness and pertinacity need to be established.

The benefit of such a description is that it has an historical link and root, which is of course most persuasive for sincere Catholics - and even the most zealous Sedevacantist - such that someone being (rightly) accused of it can readily be edified by the very term itself by researching it; and, perhaps consequently, be lead to reconsider their position, based on the history and example of the Church and finally denounce their error or, at least, reform their position. Further, it does not deny the Catholicity of the one erring, likely also himself in good faith.

The Rigorists needed to be reminded above all of the extent of God's Mercy, as also His Will and desire for all men to repent of their sins and finally be reconciled to Himself, and come to the knowledge of the Truth in His only-begotten Son; and, above all, obtain Salvation by His merciful Grace through His holy Catholic Church.


Pax Christi.


Last edited by MConstantine on Wed May 23, 2012 12:31 am, edited 4 times in total.

Tue May 22, 2012 11:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Ken Gordon wrote:
MConstantine wrote:
Further, since it is Dogma that the Church cannot give evil laws or teach error/heresy (i.e., that She is Spotless, indefectible, etc.) is it not immediately deducible from Dogma that heretics or the doctrines of heretics cannot (by reason of contradiction) be authentic representatives of the Church's Magisterium? Is not exposing heretics and their heresies in actuality a defense of the Church's Dogma regarding Her indefectibility?

Well put. Thank you.


O don't thank me; thank Saint Thomas and Scholasticism for teaching us how to think and formulate ourselves with clarity. If you like that and want to see more of it, promote and encourage Scholasticism to be taught and studied.

But thank-you, notwithstanding, for the compliment!


Pax Christi.


Tue May 22, 2012 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Thanks for the thoughts, MC.

There's no right or wrong in these things, it's a question of rhetoric, with all of the usual considerations which must be weighed. For that reason your thoughts are indeed helpful.

The word "dogmatic" is already used, and has been since I was a small boy at least, in everyday speech in the way that you are concerned that it might get used if I continue as I'm doing. :) It is a commonplace to say that somebody is "dogmatic" when we mean that he is too sure of his own judgement. But that's a reason to use it that way, since the audience will get the point.

The word "propaganda" has changed meaning. The term "indocrinate" has undergone a similar change. So many words which used to have good and useful meanings now have either been flattened into synonyms (Good, Double-Good?) or utterly changed their meaning so as to signify the opposite of what they used to (e.g. "terrific"). But in the present case, I am not suggesting a change of meaning at all. I am using the word with some precision, I think.

There is a concept called "positive heresy" which is the error of making something a dogma which is not the teaching of the Church. Calling people who do this "private dogmatisers" or something similar, would be very precise and accurate. It would define their error well, by emphasising the elevation of their own judgement into that of the Church. The spirit I am attacking is precisely of this nature. But I don't wish to suggest that the "dogmatic sedevacantists" are heretics, because they are not.

"Rigorists" is good, I agree, but it has become commonly used in moral theology and therefore has a rather specific technical connotation, a connotation I don't wish to convey in this context. I certainly don't wish to suggest that the people I have in view are applying a true doctrine without sufficient moderation. I wish to convey the precise problem, that they actually err in categorising the truth that we all agree upon. They give it the wrong status. This is a very serious error, pregnant with massive potential evils, and has actually produced many of those evils.

A better example is John Daly's use of "New Luciferians", which is perfect, since the people he had in view were falling into precisely the error that the Luciferians did.

The other thing to keep in view is that I have a very specific audience in mind - the non-sedevacantist who is prejudiced against "sedevacantism." The rhetorical technique is to re-define that term so as to create a clear difference between what I am putting forth and whatever it is they know that they don't like. So the idea is "yes, I'm with you, dogmatic sedevacantism is a problem, now let's talk about true sedevacantism." And I can tell you, this works.

Anyway, it isn't something I haven't thought about, and I'm open to further thought, but I don't see any problem yet and I haven't any better term.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 23, 2012 1:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
John Lane wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts, MC.

There's no right or wrong in these things, it's a question of rhetoric, with all of the usual considerations which must be weighed. For that reason your thoughts are indeed helpful.

The word "dogmatic" is already used, and has been since I was a small boy at least, in everyday speech in the way that you are concerned that it might get used if I continue as I'm doing. :) It is a commonplace to say that somebody is "dogmatic" when we mean that he is too sure of his own judgement. But that's a reason to use it that way, since the audience will get the point.

The word "propaganda" has changed meaning. The term "indocrinate" has undergone a similar change. So many words which used to have good and useful meanings now have either been flattened into synonyms (Good, Double-Good?) or utterly changed their meaning so as to signify the opposite of what they used to (e.g. "terrific"). But in the present case, I am not suggesting a change of meaning at all. I am using the word with some precision, I think.

There is a concept called "positive heresy" which is the error of making something a dogma which is not the teaching of the Church. Calling people who do this "private dogmatisers" or something similar, would be very precise and accurate. It would define their error well, by emphasising the elevation of their own judgement into that of the Church. The spirit I am attacking is precisely of this nature. But I don't wish to suggest that the "dogmatic sedevacantists" are heretics, because they are not.

"Rigorists" is good, I agree, but it has become commonly used in moral theology and therefore has a rather specific technical connotation, a connotation I don't wish to convey in this context. I certainly don't wish to suggest that the people I have in view are applying a true doctrine without sufficient moderation. I wish to convey the precise problem, that they actually err in categorising the truth that we all agree upon. They give it the wrong status. This is a very serious error, pregnant with massive potential evils, and has actually produced many of those evils.

A better example is John Daly's use of "New Luciferians", which is perfect, since the people he had in view were falling into precisely the error that the Luciferians did.

The other thing to keep in view is that I have a very specific audience in mind - the non-sedevacantist who is prejudiced against "sedevacantism." The rhetorical technique is to re-define that term so as to create a clear difference between what I am putting forth and whatever it is they know that they don't like. So the idea is "yes, I'm with you, dogmatic sedevacantism is a problem, now let's talk about true sedevacantism." And I can tell you, this works.

Anyway, it isn't something I haven't thought about, and I'm open to further thought, but I don't see any problem yet and I haven't any better term.


Alright, I see and understand better now - thank-you.

I must confess, though, if someone were to call me a "dogmatic sedevacantist," my knee-jerk reaction would be to rather think of it as like to being called "a Papist" (and I have been). It seems to have the potential to become an insult that is actually adopted by the community and worn with pride. We Roman Catholics of English descent do love our Popery, regardless of what the Protestants say! The term "Dogmatisers" seems more apt at expressing the error; or even "(a) dogmatising sedevavantist".


Does this issue happen to be related to the una cum debate? I am presently reading an article on your site about it that criticises (then) Fr. Sanborn's denunication of all una cum Masses for certain reasons, which reasoning you object to. What I find difficult is that while you rightly observe that (then) Fr. Sanborn's article lacks authoritative references, nonetheless, your critique also seems to make mention of them but yet not footnote them... it would be nice if that article included footnotes or references to the authoritative texts you had in mind when you wrote it.


Thank you for your reply, Mr. Lane,
And keep up the solid work!


Pax Christi.


Wed May 23, 2012 1:25 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Yes, well it was a set of informal notes for a friend, but if you want references, check my article The Question of Assistance at the Mass of a Priest Who Professes Communion With John Paul II as Pope. There you will find the relevant material from de la Taille, and Ad evitanda scandala, and if there are any other references you require, just ask.

Re. "dogmatising sedevavantists" - I like it! I might start using that instead. Thank you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 23, 2012 6:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
The term, "dogmatic sedevacantist", as is commonly used in the United States generally means a sedevacantist who declares anyone who does not accept the sedevacantist thesis as outside the Church. It seems that all (in my experience) anti-sedevacantists and most non-sedevacantists believe that all sedevacantists are, by definition, "dogmatic sedevacantists".

The fact of the matter is that I personally know many sedevacantists and none of them believe that sedevacantism is a dogma, that is, none of them contend that someone who thinks Benedict 16 is a pope is, by that reason alone, outside the Church. Further, I don't think most sedevacantists do. Unfortunately, for some reason most people who are not themselves sedevacantists seem to think that the Dimond brothers are the prime example of what a sedevacantist is.

As for the una cum issue, I am bothered by the declaration that a person who assists at a Mass of a priest who adds Benedict's name to the Canon is necessarily in communion with heretics and is therefore outside the Church. This would also seem to be "dogmatic sedevacantism" and because there is a sizable number of traditional communities that subscribe to this thesis, it adds to the impression of the non- and anti-sedevacantists that all sedevacantists necessarily declare that others are outside the Church.

Whether or not we should use the term in this way, it is the term that has been coined in English and it has to be used in order to effectively communicate thoughts. I'm not particular to the term "sedevacantism" either as it's not really an "-ism" as is "Catholicism". The suffix connotes a doctrinal belief while, ideally, we need a term that merely reflects the recognition of a fact. After all, we don't call belief that the sky is blue as "blue skyism" and the people who hold that truth as "blue skyists".


Wed May 23, 2012 1:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
TKGS wrote:
I'm not particular to the term "sedevacantism" either


The term doesn't bother me, simply because it essentially conveys the fact that Sedes are centred around the Chair of Peter; indeed, even those who contend against the SV position seem to enjoy teaching what Sedevacante means. Further, unlike say Protestantism or Anglicanism or Eastern "Orthodoxy", the name itself is borrowed from a legitimate state of the Church Militant: i.e., when She enters an interregnum.

When I think of Sedevacantism I think of the Pope's (I believe it was Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical to the bishops about the dangers of Freemasonry) admonishment to (above all) "Stay close to Us."

A Sede truly cleaves to the Holy See and the Chair and Authority of Peter with loving, filial obedience and trust.


Wed May 23, 2012 2:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
MConstantine wrote:
[A Sede truly cleaves to the Holy See and the Chair and Authority of Peter with loving, filial obedience and trust.


This is probably the most difficult concept to get people to understand. In my experience, people who are just ignorant of what sedevacantism is can grasp this if they choose to do so; anti-sedevacantists, on the other hand, positively refuse to even entertain the possibility. It seems to me that the anti-sedevacantist, particularly, come to the conclusion that it is a thought-crime and immediately shut down all human intellect.


Wed May 23, 2012 4:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Actually, I kinda like the shortened term "sede" since that includes us sede-impeditists. :lol:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed May 23, 2012 5:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
TKGS wrote:
... It seems to me that the anti-sedevacantist, particularly, come to the conclusion that it is a thought-crime and immediately shut down all human intellect.


LOL!


Wed May 23, 2012 6:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Dear TKGS and MC,

Thanks for that. You both make interesting and good points. Our SSPX priest says that in his view sedes love the pope too much. :)

I didn't know the term "dogmatic sedevacantists" is in general circulation. That must be where I got it. The point, I think, and TKGS you touch on it by associating the anti-una-cum view with the term, is that in concrete terms there are two wildly differing "sedevacantisms." One renders the Catholic safe from Modernists, without taking away any of his Catholic life. The other renders the Catholic safe from Modernists and subjects him instead to a complete dislocation of his Catholic life. If he's fortunate, he lives in a place where there is a solid sedevacantist priest and his Catholic life continues without this dislocation. But if not, he loses frequent access to the mass and sacraments, and association with fellow Catholics, etc. Not to mention the mental wilds that many of that type end up in.

Of course, there's another question here, which is to what extent the wild-eyed types choose "sedevacantism" as the most extreme position they can identify, and to what extent the extreme theory destabilises normal people. Maybe it's some of each.

Ken, :) I like "sedes" too.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 24, 2012 12:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:27 pm
Posts: 14
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
John Lane wrote:
Dear TKGS and MC,

Thanks for that. You both make interesting and good points. Our SSPX priest says that in his view sedes love the pope too much. :)

I didn't know the term "dogmatic sedevacantists" is in general circulation. That must be where I got it. The point, I think, and TKGS you touch on it by associating the anti-una-cum view with the term, is that in concrete terms there are two wildly differing "sedevacantisms." One renders the Catholic safe from Modernists, without taking away any of his Catholic life. The other renders the Catholic safe from Modernists and subjects him instead to a complete dislocation of his Catholic life. If he's fortunate, he lives in a place where there is a solid sedevacantist priest and his Catholic life continues without this dislocation. But if not, he loses frequent access to the mass and sacraments, and association with fellow Catholics, etc. Not to mention the mental wilds that many of that type end up in.

Of course, there's another question here, which is to what extent the wild-eyed types choose "sedevacantism" as the most extreme position they can identify, and to what extent the extreme theory destabilises normal people. Maybe it's some of each.

Ken, :) I like "sedes" too.


I find the priesthood (and the sacraments) has a normalising, so to speak, effect on Catholics and Catholic communities.

Case in point: The history of the CMRI.

Even the Nine, in the U.S., is a source of countering the extremes of Feeneyites and Dimondism or the "Denzinger-thumpers".

The effects of Scholasticism are also healthy. It authoritatively teaches us the differences between vice and virtue, healthy and unhealthy. It's the kind of learning that produces Dantes - people who can adequately reconcile the paradox of God's Justice and Holy Wrath with His infinite Mercifulness, for example.

Hilaire Belloc wrote that most heresies result from someone trying to take a Catholic paradox (mystery) and rationalise it; hence, for example, Islam and Mohammad, who's error was trying to rationalise the Trinity and Christ's Divinity and which resulted in denying the first (under a strict Monotheism) and and also the latter (by reducing Christ to but another Prophet), whilst yet practically adoring the Virgin Mary! Islam is, in fact, a heresy: it's Catholicism without the mysteries and paradoxes, which they wrongly hold to be contradictions.


EDIT: ADDED:
"the priesthood... has a normalising... effect on Catholics". Speaking of Dante and the Nine : In Dante's Divina commedia, "the Nine" are mentioned in Purgatory, meaning the Nine (classical) Muses, from whose "breasts" artists and Poets (especially) suck the milk of their art, which Homer is said to have had more than any other, and to his fill; hence bringing health to the community by their drawing wisdom from the heavenly sources, established for our edification (i.e., and analagously, the Church, the priesthood and the Sacraments).


Thu May 24, 2012 2:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Term "Dogmatic Sedevacantism" - Please Define.
Well, Belloc notwithstanding, to my mind, G. K. Chesterton was at least one of, if not the finest of Catholic philosophers of the 20th century. He had a childlike simplicity about him that was most loveable, and he was a very, very fine Catholic. I also have the highest regard for J. R. R. Tolkien. And another of my favorites was Evelyn Waugh. Good Catholics all.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu May 24, 2012 5:06 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4335
New post Re: Dogmatic "sedevacantists" and practical schism?
I've been tidying up the forums, and I've merged two topics here, both on the concept of "dogmatic sedevacantism".

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:46 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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.