|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 9, 2023 13:49:19 GMT -5
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: This scenario he presents is similar to a boy asking his father for permission to do something that he believes is necessary, knowing full well that if if he says no, because his judgment differs than his, then he will do it anyway, because he thinks his judgment of necessity overrides his father's judgment.
How is a need to be judged in the first place, and who has the power to judge such a need? We can certainly judge needs for ourselves on many matters. We need food and water, that much is obvious. For the sacraments, however, that need is not judged by us as individuals, but by the Church, and the Church is governed by rulers and law, and that's where to look to understand how this need is met.
Throughout Church history, there have always been some disadvantaged Catholics who either had no access to priests or very limited access. All one has to do is think of remote areas of the world or hostile countries who kept the clergy out. Could Catholics in those lands say, "I will bring our case to the pope, to send send us a bishop, so we can have priests ordained, and if the pope will not, we will take matters into our own hands, as we have judged this to be a necessity, and our judgment overrides his judgment." All Catholics can easily see through this, that this would be wrong.
Now, I realize that we are dealing with an undeclared antipope, but this man is presenting things as a matter of principle, not conditionally applying his ideas to an undeclared antipope, but as general principles of things that can be done in regards to a certain pope, and this is false and not Catholic. Even if episcopal consecrations could be licitly done in a situation such as ours, and this has yet to be proven, it could never be done against the direct will of the Pope, no matter how much the necessity.
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: Who determines this? What criteria are to be used to form the judgment on when to do it and who should be the candidates? There are no rules here, and every rule proposed is just a made up rule. Ones man's judgment on what is prudent often differs from another man. Whether a man is good, or intelligent, or wise, or educated, or prudent, etc., his judgment on a myriad of issues differs from another a man with these same attributes.
This really gets to one key problem with this entire concept, its complete lack of oversight by the Church, and its total reliance on the judgment of the traditional bishops to govern themselves. One bishop may say, "it's only prudent to consecrate bishops if there is a dire need, that the current bishops must be elderly or sick," while another may say, "no, the emergency determines that we need a bishop for every region of the world, or even every country, or many bishops per country, etc." as there could be lockdowns again and Catholics can be without the sacraments, while another bishop may say, "I need more bishops to promote my opinion of the crisis, as if I die, Catholics may not get the sacraments from bishops and priests of my viewpoint." There are many other scenarios but I'm sure you get the idea.
In a recent controversy, Bp. McGuire took great issue, and very publicly at that, with Bp. DaSilva, that Bp. DaSilva did not consult with him, prior to announcing new episcopal consecrations as though that is a requirement. It seems that there are as many made up rules governing these consecrations as there are bishops out there. This man stated above that Bp. Williamson wrongly consecrated more bishops, but where are the rules on this written other than in his own mind?
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: And how is a real necessity defined in this circumstance, and who has the authority to define it?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 9, 2023 14:40:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 9:14:17 GMT -5
Does anyone know the case of the 14 nuns who left the CMRI in 2006 or 2007?
Here is one of them talking about the case, on this channel there are testimonies from people who belonged to different groups and they criticize their mentality, not only to sedevacantism but to the SSPX as well. It appeared to me as a result of the interview they did with the man who published John LEWIS,
if you are interested it would be interesting to know his opinions. Take a look at the topics covered on the channel
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 11, 2023 9:50:36 GMT -5
I'm thinking of listening to these, though my impression is that these people are focusing on bad experiences that people have had with traditionalists and not rational arguments. Do you think I'd be confirmed in that, @didymus?
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 10:14:50 GMT -5
I'm thinking of listening to these, though my impression is that these people are focusing on bad experiences that people have had with traditionalists and not rational arguments. Do you think I'd be confirmed in that, @didymus? I honestly do not intend to apologize for these people, I only shared it to hear opinions, and the truth is that yes, but in reality I feel that many of them criticize this because they have seen that traditionalism has become a cult and that it is not the Church. In some ways they have good reasoning, the problem is the conclusion, but there are always people smarter than me here who can give an opinion. Don't expect a treatise on theology, they are simple laymen. I actually think the man looks quite affected in this video.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 11, 2023 11:56:30 GMT -5
I'm thinking of listening to these, though my impression is that these people are focusing on bad experiences that people have had with traditionalists and not rational arguments. Do you think I'd be confirmed in that, @didymus? I honestly do not intend to apologize for these people, I only shared it to hear opinions, and the truth is that yes, but in reality I feel that many of them criticize this because they have seen that traditionalism has become a cult and that it is not the Church. In some ways they have good reasoning, the problem is the conclusion, but there are always people smarter than me here who can give an opinion. Don't expect a treatise on theology, they are simple laymen. I actually think the man looks quite affected in this video. I agree that one might have sympathy for such people, but I don't think their arguments are rational. There are certainly problems in the 'traditional movement', and if they were to hear that we recognise the problems (marriage tribunals, cult-like behaviour, etc.) and do not make excuses for them, whilst still holding to our rational thinking, they might soften. I do think, however, that they tar everyone with the same brush due to some experiences. For example, they say that we are 'schismatic' (whilst clearly not having done the necessary reading on the subject) and speak in ways which I think are calumnious, or come close to it. However, things have always been like this to an extent. Granted, it would have been much less of a problem when we had functioning diocesan structures in the West, and one could appeal to one's bishop, but I am reminded of an Evelyn Waugh quote about awkward priests, though I frustratingly can't find it at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 11, 2023 11:59:49 GMT -5
I honestly do not intend to apologize for these people, I only shared it to hear opinions, and the truth is that yes, but in reality I feel that many of them criticize this because they have seen that traditionalism has become a cult and that it is not the Church. In some ways they have good reasoning, the problem is the conclusion, but there are always people smarter than me here who can give an opinion. Don't expect a treatise on theology, they are simple laymen. I actually think the man looks quite affected in this video. I agree that one might have sympathy for such people, but I don't think their arguments are rational. There are certainly problems in the 'traditional movement', and if they were to hear that we recognise the problems (marriage tribunals, cult-like behaviour, etc.) and do not make excuses for them, whilst still holding to our rational thinking, they might soften. I do think, however, that they tar everyone with the same brush due to some experiences. For example, they say that we are 'schismatic' (whilst clearly not having done the necessary reading on the subject) and speak in ways which I think are calumnious, or come close to it. However, things have always been like this to an extent. Granted, it would have been much less of a problem when we had functioning diocesan structures in the West, and one could appeal to one's bishop, but I am reminded of an Evelyn Waugh quote about awkward priests, though I frustratingly can't find it at the moment. For sedes this is called the Dimond brother effect.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 11, 2023 12:23:24 GMT -5
I agree that one might have sympathy for such people, but I don't think their arguments are rational. There are certainly problems in the 'traditional movement', and if they were to hear that we recognise the problems (marriage tribunals, cult-like behaviour, etc.) and do not make excuses for them, whilst still holding to our rational thinking, they might soften. I do think, however, that they tar everyone with the same brush due to some experiences. For example, they say that we are 'schismatic' (whilst clearly not having done the necessary reading on the subject) and speak in ways which I think are calumnious, or come close to it. However, things have always been like this to an extent. Granted, it would have been much less of a problem when we had functioning diocesan structures in the West, and one could appeal to one's bishop, but I am reminded of an Evelyn Waugh quote about awkward priests, though I frustratingly can't find it at the moment. For sedes this is called the Dimond brother effect. Is it a commonly recognised phenomenon?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 11, 2023 12:35:00 GMT -5
it is for me. Example...when sorta trads and "conservative" NO on youtube and such want to do a program on sedevacantism...they always reach out to the psycho dimond brothers to present the "sede view". Youll never see them discuss it with me or paceli types of sedes.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 13:40:12 GMT -5
I honestly do not intend to apologize for these people, I only shared it to hear opinions, and the truth is that yes, but in reality I feel that many of them criticize this because they have seen that traditionalism has become a cult and that it is not the Church. In some ways they have good reasoning, the problem is the conclusion, but there are always people smarter than me here who can give an opinion. Don't expect a treatise on theology, they are simple laymen. I actually think the man looks quite affected in this video. I agree that one might have sympathy for such people, but I don't think their arguments are rational. There are certainly problems in the 'traditional movement', and if they were to hear that we recognise the problems (marriage tribunals, cult-like behaviour, etc.) and do not make excuses for them, whilst still holding to our rational thinking, they might soften. I do think, however, that they tar everyone with the same brush due to some experiences. For example, they say that we are 'schismatic' (whilst clearly not having done the necessary reading on the subject) and speak in ways which I think are calumnious, or come close to it. However, things have always been like this to an extent. Granted, it would have been much less of a problem when we had functioning diocesan structures in the West, and one could appeal to one's bishop, but I am reminded of an Evelyn Waugh quote about awkward priests, though I frustratingly can't find it at the moment. If I agree with you, I would like to read that quote.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 11, 2023 13:40:53 GMT -5
it is for me. Example...when sorta trads and "conservative" NO on youtube and such want to do a program on sedevacantism...they always reach out to the psycho dimond brothers to present the "sede view". Youll never see them discuss it with me or paceli types of sedes. Yes, I've noticed that; it's quite frustrating. The Dimonds do do quite a good job of explaining the basic position (Cassman was thoroughly wiped the floor with), but they have other ideas which are sectarian and mix some unsound ones in with the otherwise good Sede' arguments. I think they're chosen because they have more of a public face and are more well known. The problem with our type of Sede' (John Lane, Pacelli, John Daly, James Larrabee, etc.) is that they're not very interested in propaganda or having a public face. This means that they're not very well known.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 13:43:51 GMT -5
it is for me. Example...when sorta trads and "conservative" NO on youtube and such want to do a program on sedevacantism...they always reach out to the psycho dimond brothers to present the "sede view". Youll never see them discuss it with me or paceli types of sedes. I have not seen the other videos, but I have seen that their reasoning regarding the dogmas of the Church, apostolic succession, etc. are very correct, the problem is that the conclusion is that it is necessary to accept the things of modernism as part of the Church. They even see that traditionalism leads to an independent cult outside the Church and I think that is the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 13:49:29 GMT -5
it is for me. Example...when sorta trads and "conservative" NO on youtube and such want to do a program on sedevacantism...they always reach out to the psycho dimond brothers to present the "sede view". Youll never see them discuss it with me or paceli types of sedes. Yes, I've noticed that; it's quite frustrating. The Dimonds do do quite a good job of explaining the basic position (Cassman was thoroughly wiped the floor with), but they have other ideas which are sectarian and mix some unsound ones in with the otherwise good Sede' arguments. I think they're chosen because they have more of a public face and are more well known. The problem with our type of Sede' (John Lane, Pacelli, John Daly, James Larrabee, etc.) is that they're not very interested in propaganda or having a public face. This means that they're not very well known. For a long time I have wanted to do something to spread many of these things in audiovisual media, but it is difficult to be able to summarize things that deserve an article. Furthermore, I do not speak native English to be able to debate publicly and I would also like it to be done in English and Spanish since sectarianism is among Hispanics too.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 11, 2023 16:24:59 GMT -5
What do you think of the video of the former nun who, along with her, 14 nuns left the cmri? At least it seems interesting to me to listen to in full, don't expect a treatise on theology In the SSPX video of the boy they talk about who determines jurisdiction, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 11, 2023 18:20:16 GMT -5
it is for me. Example...when sorta trads and "conservative" NO on youtube and such want to do a program on sedevacantism...they always reach out to the psycho dimond brothers to present the "sede view". Youll never see them discuss it with me or paceli types of sedes. Yes, I've noticed that; it's quite frustrating. The Dimonds do do quite a good job of explaining the basic position (Cassman was thoroughly wiped the floor with), but they have other ideas which are sectarian and mix some unsound ones in with the otherwise good Sede' arguments. I think they're chosen because they have more of a public face and are more well known. The problem with our type of Sede' (John Lane, Pacelli, John Daly, James Larrabee, etc.) is that they're not very interested in propaganda or having a public face. This means that they're not very well known. The dimonds are fraud Larpers who grift truth and mix it with their cultish ideas They do not represent traddom in any way Imo
|
|