I learned something new about SSPX

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I don't think that the non-sedes attack sedevacantism out of the blue.  I only jumped into this thread because sedevacantism was being insinuated and I believe it's important that those on the fence see both sides of any particular argument.

I mean, let's call a spade a spade.  There is a large rift between SVs and SPs and each believes that the other rests upon a faulty and dangerous fundamental understanding of Church authority.  And that's ok.  It's good that we care about this and that we're passionate about discovering the truth and making sure others discover it too. 

Both sides insinuate against the other's position, but never say things against the person. I may call the recognize and resist position absurd, but I certainly know that intelligent, devout, pious, and rational Catholics hold the position. I know, I was an SSPXer.

As I've said, I have a respect for SVs and enjoy discussing with them even if I believe that they are wrong.  This is a tricky issue and what is most respectable in the dialogue on it is the respective zeal and consideration that both sides give to the primary question.

As do I for all Catholics!

[TrentCath]

Churchmen may teach heresy.  And robber councils may be called.  So can purely non-dogmatic councils be called.

There is not a clear distinction between the differing levels of authority, nor is there proper room for human error and the free will of the Church to err in sedevacantism.

Pope John XXII publicly proclaimed heresy for years and yet none of the saints, great theologians, or popes since the end of his papacy in 1334 have claimed that he lost his office.  To my knowledge, not one reputable member of the Church ever said as much.

And yet, modern day sedevacantists, if they were alive in the 14th century, would have to claim him to be an antipope.  If their views on Church authority are correct, why have they had not even one ally in the past 8 centuries?

This.
Modern day SV is a stage in life for some. Others just want to stand out.
Sadly, some get duped in it by strong influences.

 

[Parmandur]

Churchmen may teach heresy.  And robber councils may be called.  So can purely non-dogmatic councils be called.

There is not a clear distinction between the differing levels of authority, nor is there proper room for human error and the free will of the Church to err in sedevacantism.

Pope John XXII publicly proclaimed heresy for years and yet none of the saints, great theologians, or popes since the end of his papacy in 1334 have claimed that he lost his office.  To my knowledge, not one reputable member of the Church ever said as much.

And yet, modern day sedevacantists, if they were alive in the 14th century, would have to claim him to be an antipope.  If their views on Church authority are correct, why have they had not even one ally in the past 8 centuries?

To be fair, many at the time did say not only that John XXII was an Anti-Pope, but there was no more Pope in the world due to his apostasy; and that was for him saying something that was true! (that Jesus and the Apostles at least held property in common, against the Spiritual Franciscans)

[Benno]

Jayne, just read the first few posts, skipped to the end and predictably found the usual stuff...

Frankly, tell  your husband that a) many people here are mental cases who desperately need a little support group and b) he has every right to tell his wife to stop regularly checking in to a site that has a lot of closet sedes blowing their own silly trumpets.

[JayneK]

Jayne, just read the first few posts, skipped to the end and predictably found the usual stuff...

Frankly, tell  your husband that a) many people here are mental cases who desperately need a little support group and b) he has every right to tell his wife to stop regularly checking in to a site that has a lot of closet sedes blowing their own silly trumpets.

My husband has been doing much better lately.  I and others have been praying for him and he just happened to encounter a helpful person who recommended some books that seem to have pulled him through his crisis of faith.

He hasn't actually told me to stop checking on Fish Eaters.  I would have done it if he told me to.

[Benno]

Thanks for being OK about my post Jayne - it was insensitive but motivated partly out of concern believe it or not. The other part of my motivation was that whenever I check into this site after a while away I seem to come across the most objectionable stuff! I should just check into the prayer request section and butt out of the rest!

[NOtard]

As Jayne pointed out to me, I don't take seriously what people here post about science, because it's SO obvious that they haven't a clue about what they're talking about, so why would I take them seriously when they post about theology? For the most objectionable posts, when I look at the scripture being quoted, it's been taken out of context; when I read the actual canons of the council of Trent, they don't actually say what some people here claim that they say; in fact, when I do further research into any of it, it's never as cut-and-dried as some pople claim that it is.

In fact, a number of the people here post quite orthodox, reasonable, intelligent posts. So why does it affect me so much when people write <various things, let's not open the can of worms>? If that same statement were coming from a Protestant or an atheist, I would simply ignore it, thinking "you simply don't understand". Why do I consider it seriously when supposed Catholics say the same things, and pass over the other posters who disagree woith them? Partly, I think, it's because the negative stuff is often left to stand. For example, the last time I checked, it had been left as a consensus that believing that the Earth goes around the sun is a heresy. And partly, I think, is because of my personality type: If I get 9 compliments and a criticism, it's only the criticism that I will remember and take seriously, assuming subconciously that the compliments are just people being  polite. Partly, also, it's because there ARE people taking things too far the other way, so there is often a grain of truth in some of the things that are said here.

One thing that has helped, as Jayne pointed out, was that I've been reading a number of books recently, which have helped me to put things more into perspective in my own mind. For some issues, I have seen that there are, in fact, a number of Catholic positions, not only the extremes that people either hold or accuse others of holding. For other issues, it has helped a lot to read about the various things that have been written on the subject in the past 500 years (or even 2000 years).

Avoiding Fisheaters has also helped me get back a sense of perspective. But if Jayne is able to handle it, I wouldn't want to stop her. FE meets a need in her life that seems to outweigh the negatives, as it probably does for other people as well. What triggers a life-threatening allergy for one person may be an important source of nutrition for another.

[newyorkcatholic]

For example, the last time I checked, it had been left as a consensus that believing that the Earth goes around the sun is a heresy.

This is a good example of something that is *not* representative of traditional Catholics.

I know which thread you are talking about, which ultimately I found silly and ridiculous, so I did not expend energy in it.  I have no problem with believing the earth goes around the sun, at least when speaking from a Newtonian/Copernical point of view.  From a more modern point of view, there is no center of the universe and the question of what goes around what can always be complicated.

Anyway you should consider that people with crazy ideas, like geocentricism, are the ones who are most motivated to talk about them.

[NOtard]

For example, the last time I checked, it had been left as a consensus that believing that the Earth goes around the sun is a heresy.

This is a good example of something that is *not* representative of traditional Catholics.

I know that.

I know which thread you are talking about, which ultimately I found silly and ridiculous, so I did not expend energy in it.  I have no problem with believing the earth goes around the sun, at least when speaking from a Newtonian/Copernical point of view.  From a more modern point of view, there is no center of the universe and the question of what goes around what can always be complicated.

Of course.  And, in a spiritual sense, the Earth is the center of the universe, because that's where God became man.

Geocentrism is not actually one of my issues.  That particular case is one where I can easily say "this person doesn't know what he's talking about" and leave it at that.

Anyway you should consider that people with crazy ideas, like geocentricism, are the ones who are most motivated to talk about them.

That's actually a lot of the problem.  Some people are very motivated to talk about certain issues, and quite often the more reasonable people, who could have injected a sense of balance, find the discussion "silly and ridiculous, so [do] not expend energy in it".

[Vetus Ordo]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!