Rad Trad Vocation?

[Credo in Deum]

Because God works through the sacrament, not the person bestowing it.

So, if a priest privately rebels against the church and denies her teachings- but keeps it private and still pretends he believes- his sacraments are valid. If he brings it to the open- his sacraments are still valid. Being in a state of mortal sin does not erase the priest mark on his soul, it does not make his sacraments invalid. I was baptized (as a baby) by a priest who openly supported and taught heresy like women priests, among other things, and it is a valid baptism in the eyes of the Church, because he did it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Catholic baptism, despite him being in a state of mortal sin. (I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, however. That was just the way he had been taught and he was a very nice and sincere man.)

Ex opere operato.

[chrysostom]

Once a priest, always a priest, after the order of Melchizedek.

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Sedevacantis believe, generally speaking that they have valid Holy Orders. The orders of the CMRI's Superior General and in-house Bishop, His Excellency Bishop Pivarunas descend from those of Bp. Moises Carmona, who was in turn raised to the episcopate by Archbishop Thuc, an elderly Vietnamese archbishop who consecrated a number of bishops without Papal mandate after Vatican II. The orders of the SSPV -- noting, here, that the SSPV has always spoken strongly against the certain validity of the Thuc orders -- stem from the consecration of His Excellency Bishop Kelly by Bishop Mendez of Arecibo; who, while named a bishop by J23, was consecrated by Francis Cardinal Spellman.

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. Since different groups dispute each other's validity, how do people choose which to support?

I hope you don't mind my questions

[Lefebvre]

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. Since different groups dispute each other's validity, how do people choose which to support?

I hope you don't mind my questions

 

Well, people read up and decide who to support. I personally lean towards regarding the Thuc line as legitimate based off of the various apologia on the matter published by Fr Antony Cekada, but having not read the SSPV's magnum opus (The Sacred and the Profane by Bp. Kelly) on the subject of the Thuc line's potential illegitimacy I cannot say for certain which I support. 

[dUSt]

Well, people read up and decide who to support. I personally lean towards regarding the Thuc line as legitimate based off of the various apologia on the matter published by Fr Antony Cekada, but having not read the SSPV's magnum opus (The Sacred and the Profane by Bp. Kelly) on the subject of the Thuc line's potential illegitimacy I cannot say for certain which I support.

As soon as you do not support the pope the only one you are supporting is yourself and your own views.

[Lefebvre]

As soon as you do not support the pope the only one you are supporting is yourself and your own views.

That's great, Dust. Keep on keepin' on.

[brandelynmarie]

Too many "ifs, &'s & buts"...too easy to get carried far away from the Church...I'm not judging hearts or intentions, but it feels like treading into very dangerous territory.

That being said, I'm going to re-read this thread because perhaps I'm missing something...

[Lefebvre]

I think it would be beneficial to point out again that, while the loss of unity and tendency towards constant schism is evident in sedevacantism, the sede movement as a whole is nowhere near as fractured as many believe it to be (the main issue of contention being the aforementioned question of validity for Thuc-line bishops) and that even so, disunity is to be expected. According to the sedevacantist premise we are after all without a Pope; i.e. without the unifying figure who rules over and symbolizes the universal nature of the Church. While the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and as the body of believers remains faithful to the promise of Christ; in such a situation it is not unusual or necessarily a mark of negativity to be divided. 

[Credo in Deum]

I think it would be beneficial to point out again that, while the loss of unity and tendency towards constant schism is evident in sedevacantism, the sede movement as a whole is nowhere near as fractured as many believe it to be (the main issue of contention being the aforementioned question of validity for Thuc-line bishops) and that even so, disunity is to be expected. According to the sedevacantist premise we are after all without a Pope; i.e. without the unifying figure who rules over and symbolizes the universal nature of the Church. While the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and as the body of believers remains faithful to the promise of Christ; in such a situation it is not unusual or necessarily a mark of negativity to be divided. 

 

Not so, says Christ:"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." --Mark 3:25

 

Unity is one of the 4 Marks of the true Church; The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

 

 

 

[Lefebvre]

Not so, says Christ:"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." --Mark 3:25

 

Unity is one of the 4 Marks of the true Church; The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

Ah, yes, because the post-Council church is never divided or feuding with itself. ...right?

[Credo in Deum]

Ah, yes, because the post-Council church is never divided or feuding with itself. ...right?

 

There is a difference between brothers and sisters disagreeing within the family home and bringing the case to the dad for a decision vs. brothers and sisters leaving home while saying: "You’re not my real dad.  My real dad would do as I say, and think as I think etc... I will not come back home until a dad I want is residing under the family roof."  

[Lefebvre]

There is a difference between brothers and sisters disagreeing within the family home and bringing the case to the dad for a decision vs. brothers and sisters leaving home while saying: "You’re not my real dad.  My real dad would do as I say, and think as I think etc... I will not come back home until a dad I want is residing under the family roof."  

 

I can't extend that analogy without torturing in a manner which would get me convicted; so I'm not going to try. I do think you're misrepresenting the sedevacantist premise however, which is not "the Pope is not the Pope because he disagrees with me" but rather "the Pope is not the Pope because he agrees with, and expounds upon, views which have been manifestly condemned as heretical." It is not bitter trads angry at liberalisation or new reforms, it is that nearly all sedevacantists believe that the liberalisation, reforms, etc. are so flawed or outright heretical that they contradict the indefectibility of the Church. Since the Church is, of course, indefectable, than the body which promulgated the errors/heresies can therefore not be the Church. You can freely argue whether or not the documents of Vatican II are, in fact, heretical; or whether the judgements of previous Pontiffs which are so often used to condemn those documents as heretical are infallible or binding in such a way that, as part of the magisterium, they could not be altered or disregarded by an ecumenical Council. It does both sedevacantism and your own position a disservice, however, to misrepresent the sede position in such a petty fashion.

[Credo in Deum]

I can't extend that analogy without torturing in a manner which would get me convicted; so I'm not going to try. I do think you're misrepresenting the sedevacantist premise however, which is not "the Pope is not the Pope because he disagrees with me" but rather "the Pope is not the Pope because he agrees with, and expounds upon, views which have been manifestly condemned as heretical." It is not bitter trads angry at liberalisation or new reforms, it is that nearly all sedevacantists believe that the liberalisation, reforms, etc. are so flawed or outright heretical that they contradict the indefectibility of the Church. Since the Church is, of course, indefectable, than the body which promulgated the errors/heresies can therefore not be the Church. You can freely argue whether or not the documents of Vatican II are, in fact, heretical; or whether the judgements of previous Pontiffs which are so often used to condemn those documents as heretical are infallible or binding in such a way that, as part of the magisterium, they could not be altered or disregarded by an ecumenical Council. It does both sedevacantism and your own position a disservice, however, to misrepresent the sede position in such a petty fashion.

 

 

Sedes think the reforms are heretical, and they think the council should be discredited as a heretical council.  Sedes will not join in communion with the Church until they see a Pope agrees with their position.   Dress up the descent in fancy terms all you want.  At the end of the day Sedes will never agree that there is a legitimate Pope, until said Pope agrees with the the Sede position.

[Lefebvre]

Sedes think the reforms are heretical, and they think the council should be discredited as a heretical council.  Sedes will not join in communion with the Church until they see a Pope agree with their position.   Dress up the descent in fancy terms all you want.  At the end of the day Sedes will never agree that there is a legitimate Pope, until said Pope agrees with the the Sede position.

I suppose the primary fault with that statement would be the implication that sedevacantists are either at fault for using their facilities of reason (illuminated by faith) to come to a conclusion, or at fault for logically adhering to the position which that conclusion has birthed. But I won't argue the point, lest I be warned for bickering again or somehow give scandal to the faithful; which of course is not my intention.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Lefebvre

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Well, people read up and decide who to support. I personally lean towards regarding the Thuc line as legitimate based off of the various apologia on the matter published by Fr Antony Cekada, but having not read the SSPV's magnum opus (The Sacred and the Profane by Bp. Kelly) on the subject of the Thuc line's potential illegitimacy I cannot say for certain which I support.

Thanks for the reply. So how many Sedevacantist organizations are there? I know of the SSPV, CMRI, and the Most Holy Family Monestary (but they may not have parishes).