Rad Trad Vocation?

[Credo in Deum]

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.

Tell that to the conclavists. If you follow the sedes and choose to leave, then I personally do not see what other options you have but to go further down the rabbit hole of descent and be a conclavist, since you will never accept a postconciliar Pope as being valid.

[linnie]

 the Church has been hijacked by Modernists and everyone from Francis on down is an illegitimate heretic 

 

really?  this is insulting and inappropriate.  I thought this phorum was for those interested vocations within the Catholic Church.  Not for promoting an alternative church

[Lefebvre]

Tell that to the conclavists. If you follow the sedes and choose to leave, then I personally do not see what other options you have but to go further down the rabbit hole of descent and be a conclavist, since you will never accept a postconciliar Pope as being valid.

(A. I'm not a Conclavist. The Conclavist position is impossible for numerous reasons. (B. If a postcounciliar Pope were to reject VII, then I daresay most sedes would be screaming Habemus Papem from the top of their lungs,

 

really?  this is insulting and inappropriate.  I thought this phorum was for those interested vocations within the Catholic Church.  Not for promoting an alternative church

What? That is the sede viewpoint, which I've spent the last few posts discussing. I never said y'all had to believe it, or even necessarily that I believe it. But it's impossible to discuss why sedes believe what they do, or why they do not believe themselves to be outside communion in any meaningful sense, without making clear that the current hierarchy is, from a sedevacantist position, illegitimate and heretical. It is the raison d'etre of the entire phenomenon. And I am interested in vocations in the Catholic Church, and I am not by any stretch of the imagination "promoting an alternative church." I stated my position in the OP and asked a simple, vocations-related question which was in no way meant to be inflammatory. The thread has, er, drifted somewhat, but don't bash me for something I didn't do, if you would be so kind.

[Nihil Obstat]

Lefebvre, what would it take to convince you of the plenist position?

[Credo in Deum]

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.

This is a great question. The answer is the sedes are already guilty of making themselves their own Pontiff by their very position. They say they want communion with the Church, however, they deny the very Bishop that makes this communion possible. In reality what every sede wants is for the Church to be in communion with them.

[Lefebvre]

Lefebvre, what would it take to convince you of the plenist position?

 

Tell me what that is, and I'll let you know :p

 

Sedevacantism, material/formal thesis, conclavism, recognise-and-resist, etc. I know my share of Trad lingo, but I confess this has escaped me...

[Nihil Obstat]

Sedeplenism meaning "the seat is full", I.e. not vacant.

[Lefebvre]

This is a great question. The answer is the sedes are already guilty of making themselves their own Pontiff by their very position. They say they want communion with the Church, however, they deny the very Bishop that makes this communion possible. In reality what every sede wants is for the Church to be in communion with them.

Hmmm... Dust's question didn't really seem addressed to you; but thanks for answering on my behalf. And, you know, the tinge of arrogance and gross over-generalisation... but that's cool too I guess :/

 

Sedeplenism meaning "the seat is full", I.e. not vacant.

Oh, well, that's a good question. Now, I assume you don't mean the SSPX recognise-and-resist position which is technically sedeplenist. In order to convince me, I guess I would have to be convinced why all the many, many, many statements of previous Popes and councils which in many cases directly condemn many of the changes VII introduces regarding ecumenism, religious liberty, the exclusive salvific nature of the Church, etc etc suddenly mean diddly-squat. That most of all would be nice, since the claims that VII is like, filled to the brim with damnable heresy are largely derived from those statements.

[Credo in Deum]

(A. I'm not a Conclavist. The Conclavist position is impossible for numerous reasons. (B. If a postcounciliar Pope were to reject VII, then I daresay most sedes would be screaming Habemus Papem from the top of their lungs,

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.

[Nihil Obstat]

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

[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.