Rad Trad Vocation?

[chrysostom]

Yes, that... would seem to be the obvious conclusion. It would be so simple, I am rather pre-emptively irritated I missed it.

And I feel that His Grace's reply will not adequately address the issue; pushing me farther from the sede position. If the miracles could not be refuted; that would be hefty proof against sedevacantism. This irritates me due to, well, perhaps humiliation. I have been rather firm in the sede position and missing such a chink in the armor would be irksome.

 

If it were before 2010 I might ask you to go to Sister Caterina Capitani's community and witness the miracle still taking place, seeing the woman with a stomach the size of a prune, no spleen, and no pancreas go about living an extremely active life, staying till late at night and rising early, eating hearty meals and the occasional ice cream well into her late 60s.  She was perfectly healthy and needed no nutritional supplements or treatments.

 

People can survive with no stomach, but this is what happens to them (lower part of the page, "Life After Surgery").  They also need monthly vitamin B12 shots because only the stomach can absorb it.  Sister Caterina exhibited none of these symptoms and took no vitamin B12 shots.

People can sometimes survive with no pancreas, but only if they take daily injections of insulin and pills that contain digestive enzymes for the rest of their lives.  There is no "winging it".  Without those injections and pills, you die.  It's very simple.  Yet Sister Caterina took no injections and no pills.

 

The documentation of the initial miracle is extensive.  But what is perhaps more amazing is the miracle that lasted 44 years.  Here, you can see her walking and talking in 2002.  I believe that she is displaying the relic of St. John XXIII at the beginning of the video - the relic that was placed on her chest as her stomach gaped open wide in 1966.

 

No one has contested this miracle, at least not to my knowledge.  I would be interested to see who could dare to.  And this miracle is utterly significant - as in, it is devastating - to the sedevacantist position.
 

 

Of course, the most it would do is push me to the SSPX as the issues with VII are still extant, but that is another issue.

 

What can I say to this?  Only what you have said about it yourself.

 

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 Traditional Latin Mass" 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.

 

[porziuncola]

If a postcounciliar Pope were to reject VII, then I daresay most sedes would be screaming Habemus Papem from the top of their lungs.

Seriously? As soon as the pope agrees with them they'll be convinced he's the pope? How is that any less ridiculous than what you argued is ridiculous about the sspx position?

[Vincent Vega]

Here's a fun side-topic that's intended without any barb: in the eyes of the Roman church, are the Anglicans who could reasonably claim apostolic succession any different from sedevacantist and/or other separatist movements who claim to remain inside the church?

[Not The Philosopher]

Here's a fun side-topic that's intended without any barb: in the eyes of the Roman church, are the Anglicans who could reasonably claim apostolic succession any different from sedevacantist and/or other separatist movements who claim to remain inside the church?

 

My guess is that they'd be in a position more similar to the Eastern Orthodox than the Sedevacantists.

 

But I don't think the Church recognizes any Anglican communities as having apostolic succession. I could be wrong about that, though.

[reminiscere]

Lefebvre, you make a terrible wannabe sede. You really don't seem to know much about sedes at all. I think the sedes would laugh if they saw your claims. 

 

First of all the sedes believe that Pope Francis and the other "conciliar" Popes were already heretics before their election, and so (barring John XXIII who they say could have been validly elected and Paul VI *possibly*) that the others were never validly elected to begin with. So if the man in white all of a sudden goes "rad trad" they still don't think that will automatically make him pope. They don't even believe Francis is a valid priest let alone bishop, so do your homework on that one first of all, I "dare say."

 

Secondly, no, the CMRI will not accept men for their seminary who are not already convinced sedes or on the fence like you, and will not ordain a man who's not a sede. The CMRI sisters are also much stricter re: sedevacantism after the 2007 split. The SSPV hold the sede and sede doubtful positions privately, you may have better luck with them, I really don't know but I don't know of any SSPV priest who recognizes Francis as pope, and names him in the Canon. I'd also like to add that you'd be getting a better intellectual formation at an SSPX seminary vs. the sede institutions, but that's a different story. 

 

Thirdly, I wish you hadn't dragged Archbishop Lefebvre into this mess by using his name as your username. Archbishop Lefebvre never wanted anything but to be Catholic as united to Rome as possible and was not a sede. 

 

Fourthly, I think it's extremely brazen for you to boast of currently being out of communion, but possibly open to returning to communion at some point. You know, when you feel like it. Maybe. Kinda. Seriously? Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Good luck on judgement day with that attitude. And "a subitanea et improvisa morte, libera nos Domine!"

[reminiscere]

Most Thuc-line sedes have an arguable case for validity. Anglicans don't, even with the "Dutch touch" it's too difficult. They'd have to be re-ordained, at least conditionally. 

 

Here's a fun side-topic that's intended without any barb: in the eyes of the Roman church, are the Anglicans who could reasonably claim apostolic succession any different from sedevacantist and/or other separatist movements who claim to remain inside the church?

 

[Lefebvre]

Lefebvre, you make a terrible wannabe sede. You really don't seem to know much about sedes at all. I think the sedes would laugh if they saw your claims. 

 

<3

 

First of all the sedes believe that Pope Francis and the other "conciliar" Popes were already heretics before their election, and so (barring John XXIII who they say could have been validly elected and Paul VI *possibly*) that the others were never validly elected to begin with. So if the man in white all of a sudden goes "rad trad" they still don't think that will automatically make him pope. They don't even believe Francis is a valid priest let alone bishop, so do your homework on that one first of all, I "dare say."

 

Okay, I admit, it was perhaps an overgeneralisation. That statement was based more or less off the material/formal thesis (sedeprivationism? I think that's another name for it) developed by Bishop McKenna, and was not meant to be universally applied to all sedevacantists. The jury is still out on how a new/valid Pope wold be elected, and I should have been more precise. Apologies.

 

Secondly, no, the CMRI will not accept men for their seminary who are not already convinced sedes or on the fence like you, and will not ordain a man who's not a sede. The CMRI sisters are also much stricter re: sedevacantism after the 2007 split. The SSPV hold the sede and sede doubtful positions privately, you may have better luck with them, I really don't know but I don't know of any SSPV priest who recognizes Francis as pope, and names him in the Canon. I'd also like to add that you'd be getting a better intellectual formation at an SSPX seminary vs. the sede institutions, but that's a different story. 

 

I'm not quite sure where I said anything else re: the CMRI, but I'll take that under advisement anyhow. And yes I probably would recieve a better formation at the SSPX's seminary. Not to bash the sede seminaries, but the SSPX's superior amounts of time, money, and resources usually adds up to better quality/

 

Thirdly, I wish you hadn't dragged Archbishop Lefebvre into this mess by using his name as your username. Archbishop Lefebvre never wanted anything but to be Catholic as united to Rome as possible and was not a sede. 

 

Um... I think "dragged into this mess" is a little strong but okay. Next time I choose a lovely-sounding French name for a username (I was considering going with Yves, but decided against it) I guess I'll PM you first? I'm not sure what you want me to say here.

 

Fourthly, I think it's extremely brazen for you to boast of currently being out of communion, but possibly open to returning to communion at some point. You know, when you feel like it. Maybe. Kinda. Seriously? Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Good luck on judgement day with that attitude. And "a subitanea et improvisa morte, libera nos Domine!"

 

Is this why you felt the need to be so rude in the preceding portion of this post? Look, I haven't boasted about being out of communion, or at least what you consider such. There is no  "Sede Pride" flag and I certainly wouldn't be waving one. As I said, sedevacantism is a position of logical necessity. Most sedes do not embrace it, and I do not embrace it, because we are bitter contrarians but rather because we consider it to be the only option. I don't see for the life of me how anyone could willingly cast away the institutions of the Church and diocesan structure unless they were convinced they had to; because that's a hefty toll. The sedevacantist vision of the Great Apostasy running rampant on earth isn't really a pleasant one. But at the same time sedevacantism is primarily an intellectual position; based off logic and canon law and... well mostly canon law. As such, my opinion on the matter can be changed if I am no longer convinced that sedevacantism is the best answer to what I perceive as the crisis wrought by Vatican II's changes. I'm sorry if the fact that I could theoretically be convinced to accept Francis as Pope bothers you so much; I don't mean to be arrogant about it. Perhaps I will one day have the same surety of faith which allows me to insult others who are not so secure.

 

Vincent Vega, wouldn't the ordination of women to the Episcopate seriously take a toll on the Anglican claims to valid apostolic succession?

 

Porziuncola, that is mainly held by those who accept the material/formal thesis that the current Pope according to most of the world is basically the "Pope-elect" and would assume the full powers of the Papacy once he rejected VII heresy. It isn't a universal view, my bad for insinuating that it was,

Edited August 13, 2014 by Lefebvre

[Lefebvre]

For those interested. I received a reply from His Grace this morning concerning the miracles, which was essentially "God cannot confirm something which is false through a miracle. Novus Ordo is false. Therefore, it is impossible that the NO has been confirmed through a miracle." He also specified that to his knowledge they found no miracles for John XXIII, and that the nun whom John Paul II cured of Parkinson's is still on medication for the affliction.

 

Certainly interesting; if perhaps... circular.

[Basilisa Marie]

Yeah, it's circular logic. "It must not be a miracle because I believe so strongly that the NO is wrong that I'm not open to believing in any miraculous evidence to the contrary." 

Doesn't sound like a reasonable argument to me. 

[Lefebvre]

Yeah, it's circular logic. "It must not be a miracle because I believe so strongly that the NO is wrong that I'm not open to believing in any miraculous evidence to the contrary." 

Doesn't sound like a reasonable argument to me. 

 

Yeah... sedevacantism is generally a highly logical argument espoused by highly logical people. But miracles trump logic sometimes.

 

*goes back to the Rosary*

[truthfinder]

Vincent Vega, wouldn't the ordination of women to the Episcopate seriously take a toll on the Anglican claims to valid apostolic succession?

 

Porziuncola, that is mainly held by those who accept the material/formal thesis that the current Pope according to most of the world is basically the "Pope-elect" and would assume the full powers of the Papacy once he rejected VII heresy. It isn't a universal view, my bad for insinuating that it was,

Isn't this sedeprivationist?

[Lefebvre]

Isn't this sedeprivationist?

Mhm. 

[veritasluxmea]

Here's a fun side-topic that's intended without any barb: in the eyes of the Roman church, are the Anglicans who could reasonably claim apostolic succession any different from sedevacantist and/or other separatist movements who claim to remain inside the church?

Anglicans don't have valid holy orders because they changed the form and words of ordination and therefore don't have apostolic succession. Sedevacantist/catholic separatists/SSPX/whatever do have valid holy orders and apostolic succession. I would hesitate to say Sedevacantist/catholic separatists/SSPX/and so on are truly separate from the church at this point; as far as I know they are in serious disagreement, and doing things their own way, but there is still a chance of working things out and they are still Catholic, albeit not well-behaving ones. 

 

Keep in mind that the Sedevacantist/catholic separatists/SSPX/and so on crowd is very, very small. I went to a FSSP parish growing up and am familiar with the staunch traditionalist crowd, but I'd never even heard of Sedevacantist or the SSPX until I found it on the internet last year. 

 

IMHO, I didn't find the Latin mass to be anymore more reverent than a reverent mass said in English. Actually, before religious groups and priests specialized in reverent Latin masses in response to liturgical abuse, they could be quite irreverent, badly pronounced, hurried, people wouldn't always cover their hair, would smoke in the pews or the vestibule, read books, and so on. The dream of a perfect liturgy before Vat II is... well, a dream. Certainly things got worse after Vat II and abuses were terrible, but that doesn't mean the Latin mass was perfect. Ever heard of the "good old days" syndrome? Now things are improving, at least where I live, and you can find reverent Latin and NO masses, which is a blessing. 

 

However, if one considers the NO to be invalid, it doesn't matter how reverent it is. But that's a separate issue. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by veritasluxmea

[anglefire]

Ok people please enlighten me some. I do believe that some of the anglicans are in communion with the church. They have become ordained priests in the Catholic church even if they are married. I am a cradle Catholic and I do know that some parts of the church splintered off after VC11 because they didn't really understand the documents. And alot of people still don't. Also the mass changed from Latin to English translation and some of it was lost. I remember some people saying if they did this there would be more participation. That was because they were not taught Latin at a young age. Fortunately I was and miss the Latin mass very much. Pope John Paul 11 was my all time favorite. So please if you can please enlighten me.

[dUSt]

Ok people please enlighten me some. I do believe that some of the anglicans are in communion with the church. They have become ordained priests in the Catholic church even if they are married. 

 

The Anglican priests in the Catholic Church are no longer Anglican. They converted to Catholicism and got special permission from John Paul II to retain some of their Anglican traditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Use

 

The nearest church to my home is actually an Anglican Use parish, and I enjoy their liturgy.