It is currently Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:44 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 Change in sede position - or no pope, I'm pope 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Change in sede position - or no pope, I'm pope
Quote:
Eamon said:

However, my main argument in bringing up the Thuc lines, the CMRI, etc, is merely to establish that our resistance (lay and clerical) has not been this pre-packaged deal that has never changed throughout the decades in the face of evidence - in the order of fact, relative to Church teaching.


I sometimes disagree with Eamon, but what he's stated above in another topic is absolutely true. This is why I brought up the Thuc issue in the first place. First, I'm old enough to remember V2 days rather well. I suspect most on this forum have no actual experience pre-V2. Secondly, I've been a sede since the early 80's, again probably well before most on this forum. Third, I've experienced all the see-saws of the sedes, and there have been plenty, for which I'll be charged with bringing up scandal. What I'm going to detail is history and I've lived it along with many others. It was common and public knowledge, and I'm very sorry if someone takes the following as scandal. So be it.

Britons Catholic Library: several members of this forum were proponents, supporters, active apologists, etc. This position was extremely rigorist which ended up with about 10 people in the world being Catholic. These apologists have changed their position substantially. However, what happened to those people that bought the argument, and now still believe it?

Thuc Consecrations: absolutely considered unacceptable by all well-known trad/sede clergy through the better part of a decade. Interviews, studies, etc. were undergone, and the consensus was not to bother with these 'prelates' as they were doubtfully valid. Time would intervene with no bishop in sight, and suddenly we started seeing studies that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these consecrations were unquestionably valid. However, what happened to those people that bought the original arguments, and now still believe them?


CMRI: an incredibly scandalous cult/group throughout the better part of the late 70's into the 80's. No reasonable traditional Catholic, let alone sede, would get near this group, and that included all the sede clergy. In point of fact, there were many articles detailing the problems of this group in the Catholic press and later in the secular press. After the removal of Schukhardt, the group supposedly did an overhaul, and receiving orders eventuall from the Thuc line became acceptable to some. However, what happened to those people that bought the original argument, and now still believe it?

Una Cum: This was not even on the map throughout the 80's, and mentioned rather timidly beginning in the early 90's. All sede and trad clergy made no issue about this in the context of finding and attending a valid Mass. Suddenly, it's become a hill to die for. However, what happened to those people that lived comfortably with 'una cum' for years, and now still believe it?

SSPX: Most acceptable clergy, except the old-timers, were SSPX or had left the SSPX. Most sede clergy had some theological problems with the SSPX, but throughout the 80's and into the some of the early 90's, had little problem with people attending an SSPX mass. Now, several of the most popular sede prelates can't castigate the SSPX enough, and I believe consider it 'gravely' sinful to attend their Masses. They won't even allow as a baptismal sponsor an SSPX chapel-goer. However, what happened to those people that lived comfortably with the SSPX, and now still believe them OK?

These are only some of the major historical/theological changes for the sedes in the last 20-something years. What I can see is going on is the process that if we sedes say there's no pope, somebody becomes a pope for us; most times it's ourselves; often, though, we look for to someone we think is more instructed or, perhaps, the clergy to be our pope. This has become a dangerous process, because, as you can see, if you've chosen the 'wrong pope', what then?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:46 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Dear Teresa,

Did you study Fr. Cekada article regarding the Thuc line? I think not, for you keep printing the same negative observations regarding the past.

Please study his essay on the Thuc Line, minus all this baggage. Look at this issue in light of Catholic Sacramental Theology and principles.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:00 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Eastern MA, USA
New post Re: Change in sede position - or no pope, I'm pope
[
Quote:
u]CMRI[/u]: an incredibly scandalous cult/group throughout the better part of the late 70's into the 80's. No reasonable traditional Catholic, let alone sede, would get near this group, and that included all the sede clergy. In point of fact, there were many articles detailing the problems of this group in the Catholic press and later in the secular press. After the removal of Schukhardt, the group supposedly did an overhaul, and receiving orders eventuall from the Thuc line became acceptable to some. However, what happened to those people that bought the original argument, and now still believe it?


Dear Teresa,

I think there is enough evidence to say without a doubt that the CMRI is not the same group that it was under Shukhardt. So your saying that they "supposedly did an overhaul" sounds like you do not believe this ever happened. Is this correct?

Bishop McKenna actually helped them rewrite their constitution, if I am not mistaken and the order is quite different. I have had the privalege of hearing firsthand of the history of the CMRI from beginning to present, straight from them. Have you made any effort to check for yourself whether they actually did reform? I would like to know if you have ever been to their chapels and seen that they do not behave like a cult for yourself?

After you are able to do more reading about the Thuc lines, it might be worthwhile to actually talk to one of their (the CMRI) priests or religious and see for yourself. It seems like you are looking at the Thuc lines through the scandal caused in the past by Shuckhardt and some of his followers before they even reformed.


In response to your overall post, I would just say this. Living in such times we are required to go above and beyond what a Catholic would normally have to do. But I do believe God has given many simple people, as well as people gifted with a strong intellect, the grace to wade through it all. It is important to be grounded in Catholic principles and that we understand the issue of jurisdiction so that we may know how to behave in the state of sede vacante. The next and more important thing is to give others the benefit of the doubt (when possible), and try to use the utmost charity in dealing with others. We cannot have all of the answers nor do we need to because we are not the Church. The common understanding of a layman on how to react to our times can change as more information is brought to light.

Certainly, the tool of internet has done much to provide many people more information and help on these issues. The internet can spread error as we have seen done, but it has allowed many people to sort out these issues together in forums such as this one.

I hope this makes some sense.

A Blessed Pentecost!

JMJ,
Janel


Last edited by Janel on Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:32 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Please study his essay on the Thuc Line, minus all this baggage.


Dear Vince,

I think you've missed Teresa's point. She is only highlighting the differences and changes she perceives, not so much attacking the validity of the Thuc line.

Teresa, I've just posted something a propros your point here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?p=602#602

It's a worthwhile reflection you bring up. Let's see where it goes.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:33 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
My point was not to argue the underscored issues, but rather to show that historically things have changed/developed/altered, whatever. I'm not interested in discussing Thuc, CMRI, or 'una cum'. These are just bulleted items detailing what individuals have had to grapple with over time. These issues were 'pontificated' on at one time with certain conclusions. People adhered to those conclusions. Later, the conclusions were altered. Did the people adhering to the prior conclusion change to the new one, and, if not, what then?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:50 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
We Catholic's need a Pope and a hierarchy to guide us. That is why Christ set up His church this way.

Of course there is going to be vast confussion and disagreement when a bunch of lay people (and a relatively few number of prelates) try to sort out what is going on after the hierarchy has defected from the faith.

Also on the una cum issue, I think it is pretty clear what you are getting at. Before there was an avalibility to go to "non una cum" masses most did not have a problem with assisting at una cum masses. Then, all of the sudden, they have an option to go to "non una cum" masses and they are almost instantly completely opposed to assistence at una cum liturgies.

Your post is really almost just a psychological observation. It's really easy for fallible human beings to make themselves believe what they want to believe.

I think we should just look at all the arguments on various issues calmly and make a level headed and reasonable decission. We should pray uncessingly to the Blessed Virgin and trust that She will obtain for us the necessary grace to know what it is God wills for us to know.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
brogan wrote:
Your post is really almost just a psychological observation. It's really easy for fallible human beings to make themselves believe what they want to believe.


I don't think it's a psychological observation when in point of fact it's an historical fact. You have also noted the historical fact about the 'una cum' issue. I can't conclude that because Benedict XVI says he's a Catholic, then does everything known to man contrary to the Faith, that it becomes only a psychological observation to note the contradiction. Your statement makes the whole sede position, a 'psychological observation'. What has happened in the sede world as detailed in my original post is historical fact. Conclusions based on those facts are the 'what then' piece.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:44 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
brogan wrote:
Also on the una cum issue, I think it is pretty clear what you are getting at. Before there was an avalibility to go to "non una cum" masses most did not have a problem with assisting at una cum masses. Then, all of the sudden, they have an option to go to "non una cum" masses and they are almost instantly completely opposed to assistence at una cum liturgies.


That is not just. It is true that the people concerned did not have access to a Mass in which the priest did not mention the name of Paul VI and then, later, JP2. But it is unfair to accuse them of flipping over to a new position in that way. I can say from direct observation that many of those who made the decision not to assist at such Masses did so when they had no easy access to an alternative. It was far from a convenient choice. Quite the contrary.

What I think is their view is something like this. They believe in the unity of the Church and they love the Church so much that they find the claim of Benedict insufferable, and any public acceptation of it unbearable also. This is a perfectly Catholic and praiseworthy mentality, too, I hasten to add.

I think their conclusion, however, is quite erroneous and in fact damaging to the unity of the Church, and I will fight it with my last breath.

Please try to recall that unless ill-will is manifest we are strictly obliged to believe in the good will of our opponents. And in this particular controversy it is quite easy to see how both sides have good intentions – even heroically virtuous intentions perhaps, in some cases. But even heroic virtue does not bestow infallibility.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Thank you John for giving me the link. I've reread the post, and I see now what is happening. However, we need to pray so very much and ask the Holy Ghost for guidance in these very difficult times. We have to be careful not to invest someone other than a 'true' pope with papal infallibility, but yet heed those who we know are holy, wise, and love Holy Mother Church; e.g., you Mr. Lane, John Daly, Mr. Omlor, Mr. Larrabee, and some very holy clerics like Father Stepanich, et. al., and as you said not attribute ill-will to anyone that we know is trying their very best to stay Catholic in perilous times.

I often think of Tobias and his wonderful statement, "We are the children of saints, and look to that life that God will give to those that never change their Faith in Him".

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:09 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Quote:
Your post is really almost just a psychological observation. It's really easy for fallible human beings to make themselves believe what they want to believe.


I don't think it's a psychological observation when in point of fact it's an historical fact. You have also noted the historical fact about the 'una cum' issue. I can't conclude that because Benedict XVI says he's a Catholic, then does everything known to man contrary to the Faith, that it becomes only a psychological observation to note the contradiction. Your statement makes the whole sede position, a 'psychological observation'. What has happened in the sede world as detailed in my original post is historical fact. Conclusions based on those facts are the 'what then' piece.


My goodness I think I'm going to need to be more careful in how I state things. What I should have said is "Your post leads me to a little psychological observation..."


John Lane wrote:
brogan wrote:
Also on the una cum issue, I think it is pretty clear what you are getting at. Before there was an avalibility to go to "non una cum" masses most did not have a problem with assisting at una cum masses. Then, all of the sudden, they have an option to go to "non una cum" masses and they are almost instantly completely opposed to assistence at una cum liturgies.


That is not just. It is true that the people concerned did not have access to a Mass in which the priest did not mention the name of Paul VI and then, later, JP2. But it is unfair to accuse them of flipping over to a new position in that way. I can say from direct observation that many of those who made the decision not to assist at such Masses did so when they had no easy access to an alternative. It was far from a convenient choice. Quite the contrary.


Either most did deal with the "una cum" issue this way or not most dealt with it in this way. I don't know anything about it.

I am not claiming any facts here. I know absolutely nothing about this as I've only been in the sede camp since last summer.
I was saying that Theresa's post was insinuating that most acted in this manner. She responded by telling me that this was a historical fact plain and simple.

The things people did and their motivations for doing what they did are two different things. I think I assumed that Theresa was meaning the later when she may have been talking about the former.

You're right that we should assume the best intentions on the part of other catholics. So I probably also shouldn't have assumed that Theresa wasn't assuming the best of intentions on the part of the early sedevacantist.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John Lane wrote:

"What I think is their view is something like this. They believe in the unity of the Church and they love the Church so much that they find the claim of Benedict insufferable, and any public acceptation of it unbearable also. This is a perfectly Catholic and praiseworthy mentality, too, I hasten to add.
I think their conclusion, however, is quite erroneous and in fact damaging to the unity of the Church, and I will fight it with my last breath."

I agree with this entirely. I would say however that I don't believe there are all that many who demand that their "parishioners" never attend a "una cum" Mass for any reason.

I believe, and this is from my own experience, that any idea that tends to make one exclusivist (by this I mean somehow breaking communion with other traditionalists, not just holding a position different from others…but attempting to impose that position on everyone) is what is most damaging. This is damaging to souls, not just the unity of the Church. I have several examples in mind; although I don’t see any value in elaborating on them in public.

I’ll include a general observation as an example...It is my understanding, again from personal experience, that a great many of SSPV “parishioners” do not themselves subscribe to the “Thuc-line position” their Priests seem to hold…they think it is nonsense.

I have seen this exclusivist attitude in certain SSPX circles as well…it is an easy thing to fall prey to…as pride is seldom lacking in Traditionalists in general…myself included.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:24 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
brogan wrote:
My goodness I think I'm going to need to be more careful in how I state things. What I should have said is "Your post leads me to a little psychological observation..."


Brogan, no need to be more careful; I was the one that responded in a curt and unkindly manner. I will try in the future to adhere to the guidelines of this forum more rigorously. I picked up some bad habits in my very short sojourn at Fisheaters. I'm sorry for the unnecessary sharp retort.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.