Post by Pacelli on May 17, 2016 16:43:20 GMT -5
May 17, 2016 13:57:42 GMT -5 @franciscansolitary said:
Good to blog here on Trad Cath Forum. Please allow me to attempt some further clarifications on my post that has been copied above on this thread. My understanding is that "most" Sedevacantists are what is often described as "dogmatic", which can also be translated as Fideist. Fideism is the essence of the standard Jansenist message as we find it in the writings of Blaise Pascal, a great writer no doubt but also a heretic who has done great harm to Catholics over many generations, especially among the French. During the 16th Century this was a typical theological position assumed by many who were "neutral", opposed the Council of Trent and wanted a half-Protestant solution to the Reformation instead of the Catholic Counter-Reformation that actually occurred. A prominent champion in that century for this in effect proto-Jansenist position was Fr. Albert Pighi or Pighius (1490-1542). An influential advocate of that position in recent years has been Fr. Noel Barbara. All of these writers have advocated a Fideist view of Papal authority in which the Catholic view of the capacities of human reason to achieve natural knowledge is denied. In other words, to these Fideist writers the question of a Papal sedevacante is a matter of dogma knowable by an act of faith alone and not something resolvable by the normal resources of human reason. Their view is that the Pope is to be obeyed blindly like a Pagan Chinese Emperor and even the most grave crises are essentially only matters to be dealt with by extremely abstract juridical legalisms only. Some juggling of legal formulas on paper is thought to be the only possible and adequate solution to the Great Apostasy. Just juggle a few juridical formulas and everything would be back to "normal", which the Fideists understand as a Western version of the usual heathen conformist Asiatic anthill. Roman personal freedom and noble individuality are ideas the redneck Fideists never seem to grasp.
What concerns me is a widespread Fideist/Jansenist trend that only obeys Papal authority like a moving goalpost that quickly recedes back many centuries until their obedience resembles the anti-Roman views of the Eastern Orthodox Photian heretics (who deny the divinity of the Holy Ghost). This dangerous popular view reduces the Church (and Catholic State) to mere Fideist syllogistic abstractions of an enfeebled human intellect. This viewpoint will say something like "all the Popes are heretics since -- (fill in the blank)". One quickly notices that in their view the number of Popes who are not heretics is small to vanishing. Examples would range from the C.M.R.I. of Bishop Pivarunas to the extreme example of the St. John the Baptist website of Mr. Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi. According to the followers of Bishop Pivarunas the authority of Pope Pius XII is negated by his illnesses so that Papal authority vanishes during any alleged Papal illness as is convenient. Mr. Ibranyi is the more realistic example of where this trend is actually headed: To a false religion uncomfortably like narrow-minded Eastern Orthodoxy or even Wahhabi Islam.
Clearly the Novus Ordo can exercise no valid or legitimate religious authority. If that be Sedevacantism, then so be it. But the juridical details of this are complex and often subtle enough to warm a wise and crafty Jesuit's heart. This writer prefers to avoid the label "Sedevacantist" due to the actual complexity of the question of the exact juridical status of the various recent occupants of the See of Peter in Rome. The Fideist approach is much too simplistic to be helpful. Actually this writer prefers the solution suggested by the Argentine writer Carlos Alberto Disandro, who was unquestionably much the most brilliant literary scholar of the last century. His analysis was that the Papal institution had actually been destroyed by the Anti-Pope John Paul II and has effectively ceased to exist, much like what occurred earlier to the Emperorship of the Holy Roman Empire. This logic follows the idea that Catholic history has always been apocalyptic and has culminated in the Apocalypse proper now unfolding before our startled eyes. Nothing in our religion has said that the Emperorship or Papacy had to continue intact through the entire Apocalypse and Second Coming of Our Lord.
During this Era of Catholic history to say that everything should go on like usual is probably somewhat unrealistic to say the least. But just as clearly the truth concerning the Papacy is an extremely hard truth and no one should expect most of even the best Catholics to burden themselves with such an incredibly painful wasp's nest. No doubt best to treat the Papal Question gently and go very easy with our horrendously persecuted fellow Catholics. They have enough troubles without burdening them with the more agonising details of Papal and Imperial Armageddon. Marian compassion and mercy must be our practical approach here.
As to the question of this writer's English literary style, a defence must be offered. My writing certainly doesn't lack for acerbic bite and some downright rudeness, at least on occasion. The reason for this style is not literary, but educational. We must find ways to reach the young men of the younger generation and this is anything but easy. Many of the older generations among us haven't a clue what our younger generation is currently facing. In truth the reality of the younger generation is utterly inconceivable to many of those among us who are no longer young. In effect it is a hyper-fanatic militarisation similar to the Middle Ages but happening extremely more rapidly than occurred then. The Final Battle of Armageddon is a difficult time to be a Catholic young man. The challenges for them are anything but manageable. They need some actual help from we of the older generation.
Therefore it is best to take the English language at face value and use it for all it is worth. Which is to say, Catholic writers of this time should appreciate the Anglo-Norman roots of our standard literary English. English is nothing if not a quintessential "Norman military bark". We should take that linguistic reality and run with it for all it is worth. Anglophone Catholic male writers of the present Era are like Norman warrior-poets calling forth the young English-speaking men to Holy War. Ours is definitely not a time for speaking in half-measures! What is needed is a genuine mastery of the historic English of the English Catholic aristocracy. Those who lack the proper Norman military bark had best stay home. Armageddon does not take prisoners.
The widespread redneck Fideism among us is in truth heavily infected with Jansenism. That unpleasant truth should be addressed. We Catholics are the actual noble elite of the contemporary world and we should face up to the way things actually are. The gentler tones should be left to the ladies who are the ones best to use them. One should add that only they can save our Western civilisation; their tones and style should not be strident. But contemporary Catholic young men are called to a much sterner reality. Theirs must be the sober Roman discipline to charge straight ahead with skull-breaking battle axes flying. Endurance is the chief military virtue and our young men are going to have to endure through very many upcoming military battles and conflicts indeed.
Until the entire world bends the knee to Our Lord Christ the King!
Sir,
Let me state that you have many obvious factual misconceptions about the position of sedevacantism, I can go through them with you, but first, I ask you, where did you gain your knowledge regarding both the position and the thinking of adherents of the position? Do you really believe that +Pivarunas holds the idea that you assign to him that papal illness causes papal authority to vanish. That's a very strange assertion, will you please support it with evidence? If you want, I can save you the time, you are wrong, he most certainly does not hold that position. If you disagree, provide evidence, or otherwise retract.
Regarding Richard Ibranyi, why do you even give him any credence? Are untrained laymen that make outrageous claims now to be put on par with the reasonable level headed Catholics who have argued the case or sedevacatism systematically with approved sources and logical precision for decades? Do you really believe characters like the Dimond brothers or Ibranyi are to be taken seriously, or are taken seriously by most of those who adhere to sedevacantism?
Also, I find it strange that you are tying Jansenism with Sedevacantism, I really wonder if you grasp what Jansenism is in light your strange application of it here. If you truly believe this idea, I would ask you to support it, demonstrating that the errors of the Jansenists are applicable in any way to the alleged "errors" of the Sedevacantists? Which specific errors of the Jansenists are you referring to? When you show that, please correlate it with the specific alleged demonstrable error of the sedevacantist position.
I can see that you have either been misinformed or have misunderstood the sedevacantist position, so let me ask you something, are you willing to put out of your mind what you have already incorrectly learned about the position, and give it a fresh start here? Just one last point, let me tell you that I am not interested in hearing about +Sanborn, +Dolan, Fr. Cekada, CMRI, SSPV or any other "clergy" of sedevacantism. I am only interested in discussing the position itself, not particular views of the varying groups that happen to hold the position, or variations of the position.