porziuncola Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 As per vows of obedience, I believe the CMRI has their religious sign a statement promising that they are either sedevacantist or keep non-sede views to themselves, but I have no idea whether they require a vow of obedience to the Congregation. Neither do I know for the SSPV for that matter although they have a rigid reputation so probably so... I'll have to check. :huh: why would a non-sede join the CMRI? Serious question, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefebvre Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 :huh: why would a non-sede join the CMRI? Serious question, btw. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 :huh: why would a non-sede join the CMRI? Serious question, btw. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissylou Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I think the ICKSP may have the most unfortunate set of identifying letters of any religious congregation ever. Other than that (which arguably should not be a disqualifier, but I would consider it a cross) I am staying quiet on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I think the ICKSP may have the most unfortunate set of identifying letters of any religious congregation ever. Other than that (which arguably should not be a disqualifier, but I would consider it a cross) I am staying quiet on this one. What is wrong with ICRSS? :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porziuncola Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porziuncola Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefebvre Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherie Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefebvre Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now