@CathoCop@_RiskTolerance@RealMattFradd My understanding is that Fradd relocated to Nashville from Florida last year and now attends the Church of the Assumption for its TLM.
@MoundLore Many people seem to imagine history as beginning at the last conquest they happen to know about. Everything before that disappears into an imagined world of static, indigenous populations.
@TaylorRMarshall Sure, but asking people to pray, sacrifice, and do penance for someone is different than the triumphalism you exhibit today around Leo.
I can't recall you ever showing an ounce of pride in Francis. What changed with Leo? You? Or the Vatican?
Thank you for the continued intelligent exchange.
In direct response to your numbered points, following same numbering:
1.
Traditional Catholic clergy enjoy jurisdiction by tacit delegation from the Church, as demonstrated in the other post (https://t.co/5gjikJVUlG). While unlike the bishops in 250 AD, traditional Catholic bishops are not residential bishops, yet, like those bishops, traditional Catholic bishops legitimately care for the flock in the limited way permitted to temporary pastors: teaching, ruling, and sanctifying. It is in this sense the analogy holds.
2.
Although St Vincent Ferrer was objectively in schism, it was always only material and he remained fully in communion with the Church the whole time. The point being made is that true communion can persist even in dissension and objective schism. You bring up the dissension among traditional Catholic bishops to discredit this, but such dissension does not preclude true communion as the Great Western Schism confirms.
3.
Bishops in 250 AD were independent in the sense that they had no common superior, the principle of unity. Yet, Bishops in 250 AD were in communion in spite of this practical independence because "they retained union with the (then vacant) Roman See." In exactly the same way, traditional Catholic clergy today retain this union with the vacant Roman See, in spite of practical independence. No traditional Catholic will deny retaining communion with the Roman See in the only way possible during its vacancy.
4.
You say: "Sede bishops are not performing the “divine mission” because they were never sent or assigned a mission."
Now, is that because the former Archbishop of Dakar and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers or the Archbishop of Hue Vietnam had no authority to "send" out clergy? Or is it because it is not possible, contrary to my demonstration in the other thread, for legitimate title and jurisdiction to be tacitly granted by the Church, as operates in Canon 309 for the same subject of vacancies not previously provided for?
5.
As Fr Ahern intelligently demonstrates in this study on "Mount St Michael: A Systematic Study " linked here https://t.co/4McV1OCku8, the CMRI has distanced itself from Schukardt and all its priests now have orders sanated by at least conditional ordination by unquestionably traditional Catholic bishops who have operated within the bounds permitted by law even in this crisis.
There have been excesses among traditional Catholics in this unprecendented crisis as the episode with Schukardt and the Palmarians demonstrate. Such episodes cannot be avoided when the Holy See and all episcopal sees are completely vacant. If we look to the Great Western Schism, we would find similar examples.
@GM20198114@TLM_Ryan@ChristineNiles1 Get your head out of the sand. It's not virtuous. It's pathetic.
Stop living up to the stereotype that Poles are idiots.
@ilJefeReardono@StephenKokx Being Christlike doesn't mean blind affirmation and telling people what they want to hear. That's Protestant cult of niceness behavior.
If you've ever raised a child, you know that if you truly care for someone, you tell them when they are astray.
@LukeNiewald@CathFamPodcast@NovusOrdoCope How exactly is sedevacantism rooted in an unwillingness to suffer? I'm curious about the lack of faith piece, too, but the second claim is unhinged from reality that I want to know how you'll explain it.
1) "sedevacantism" is not distinct from Catholicism.
Recognition of sede vacante is downstream from the impossibility of universally promulgated doctrines and disciplines contrary to Catholic faith and morals being a part of the Catholic religion (thus necessarily a bew religion) and the impossibility of such contradictions to come from the Catholic Church (thus the Conciliar Church is an institution distinct from the Catholic Church)
2) I have made it clear that the promulgation of the new religion which started at Vatican II is the basis for recognizing sede vacante.
Thus you could call me someone who recognizes sede vacante since at least 1965.
Whether Roncalli had or lost the Papacy (for example the argument concerning Pacem in Terris) or Montini never had it vs lost it is something the pope will have to declare on when we get one.
But those cases, prior to the promulgation of Vatican II, do not have the clear universal promulgation of doctrines and disciplines contrary to the faith.
Thus I don't understand your rather tired approach of pointing to Pius XII in this regard (even if it is possible he was that last pope of the Catholic Church.
3. You are again whiffing hard on this matter. The issue is that in the light of the promulgation of the new religion it is plain to see that the appointments made by the head of the new religion would naturally be of those men who further the new religion.
Unless you wish to argue that Pius XII universally promulgated doctrines and disciplines contrary to faith and morals, your arguments against haven't just come to a dead end. They were dead on arrival.
@zacdayvis We are the Church Militant for a reason. The Church has never seen evangelization, conversion, and spiritual warfare as mutually exclusive. Christ sent the Apostles to preach, but He also gave them authority over demons. Evangelization without spiritual warfare is not Catholic.
I cannot express how much I dislike the St. Michael Prayer after Mass. it is so, so jarring to me every time.
To say nothing of the intent/content of the prayer, the language, and repetition and prominence given to it breed a sense of paranoia and cynicism. Instead of going out to evangelize the world, everyone is ready to go to war with it.
This prayer is totally fine in private devotion. It does not belong in the liturgy (or effectively within the liturgy, when it is said after the final blessing but before the recessional hymn)
Video/podcast idea: Sede v. R&R debate, except the sedevacantist has to argue in favor of the R&R position and vice versa. @StephenKokx@CathFamPodcast@TLM_Ryan@Catholicizm1
Get on it, fellas. I think this one has legs.
@StephenKokx@TLM_Ryan@CathFamPodcast@Catholicizm1 Doesn't matter. This is all just a scheme for me to get a stack of clips of Tony and Ryan defending sedevacantism to play at Fatima Conference this year so we can all laugh and jeer at them.