Glad to see you started this blog! We have been wondering how you were doing! I am looking forward to reading more of your posts! I always think of you during Holy Week because of your good writings about the Pre-1955 Holy Week and the changes. Thank you for all the good writing you have done for the traditional movement!
Thank you for your kind words, Rita! When I get a comment like yours, it makes me think maybe this isn’t all for nothing after all. Hope you’ll stick around here!
Thanks for the post. What you have done is provide clarity to the process I have been perhaps using mentally or internally at discerning truth. I now have some tangible *method* (converging probabilities) thanks to you, & Newman. This is all new to me since Fiduccia Supplicans (& Francis) pried open my eyes last year. Let me try getting warmed up to it.
Glad to see you are doing well, Sean. As for "defending" your position, feel free to explain but there is no need to defend. A man must act in harmony with how he sees/grasps reality, something which should change as new information becomes available, he matures and looks at situations with wiser, more experienced eyes, and, hopefully, grows in virtue. Traddieland is full of people who give themselves endless latitude while granting little to none to those who see the crisis differently at any particular moment. The exact opposite should be the case and we must graciously allow each man to go through the process as God knows is best, offering what little help we can when asked. Godspeed, my friend.
If there was a way to lock your post at the top, I’d do it (is there?)!
Frankly, there might be more fertile soil there to meditate upon than my article!
I think of some of the old CI battles we had (you, Ladislaus, 2Vermont, etc), and I blush. But then your post offers consolation, and I thank you for that!
Hope you’ll be a frequent visitor here; I miss many of our conversations 💪
Also, Sean, stop on over ... as the first few posts on my Subatack made available audios of complete classes taught by Bishop Williamson, some of which I had to clean up to get rid of the background noise. https://vladsarto.substack.com
My wife & I were greatly assisted by the SSPX five-six years ago, and then had to see where they simply were not what they had long seemed to be. We agreed to SV about four years ago, and of course have had to deal with all that entrails. We enjoyed “As We Are?” greatly.
Newman was a tremendous guide for me, and always when I’m wavering I read his “Gerontius”, which restores my faith & soul. Glad to know that you view “As We Are?” as an exercise in Newman’s method & this article is likewise a good use of JHN.
Vatican I defined under anathema that there is perpetual succession at Rome. At the very least there must be some kind of moral continuity in the Roman line.
There are too many extracanonical clergy and splinter groups with no teaching authority, establishing "principles" and positions, in some cases vetoing papally approved rubrics such as the new Holy Week, or papally permitted practices like dialogue Mass, and finally metastasizing into a veritable pseudo-Magisterium.
Having been raised traditionalist before SSPX began, may I suggest that you throw out the entire fake magisterium of traditional clergy. Vomit it all out, all forty odd years of it, and you'll be better off.
The crisis began visibly around Vatican II (its roots obviously older) and ends with a true consecration of Russia.
I support the traditional Mass and eastern rites, and the magisterial documents Mgr Lefebvre cited.
Devotionally I support everything the pre Vatican II Blue Army did. Emphasis should be on sacrifices for sinners, Rosary, daily duty, monthly First Saturdays as Sr Lucia did.
I supported Mgr Lefebvre (because of his heroic effort to save the priesthood) but reject any implicit assumption of magisterial authority by extracanonical clergy, especially the denial of sacraments contrary to Moral Theology.
I support anti Masonry in the tradition of Pere Deschamps but condemn the proliferation of questionable right wing and especially white nationalist ideas among traditional Catholics.
My sympathies are with the younger generations who have to live through this.
Mr Collorafi, your comment here appeals to me at many levels. Naturally I went to your profile to find out more about you from your previous activity on SubStack. What find is thin: three "reads", none Catholic as far as I can see and a single comment in response to a post by Sasha Stone (notorious New Ager) of all people.
I'd genuinely appreciate being pointed to a better source of your online activity since on the basis of the comment here, I'm interested in following you and your sources and do not want to render judgment solely on the basis of your SubStack profile. Thanks, and God bless!
I sometimes post comments on Sasha because she has gone from left wing to Trumper. Usually my comments try to steer the conversation towards the subject of international bankers, secret societies etc., and against Zionists. Her Trumper audience is very mixed on these subjects.
I submit that Archbishop Lefebvre was himself a "sede-doubtist" (a term I think I coined some years ago on CathInfo.com, starting out as tongue-in-cheek term, since it's a conflation of Latin and English ... but then it actually started to make sense).
Neither dogmatic SV nor dogmatic R&R cared for my position, so I got it from all sides ... but it's what makes the most sense to me.
See, normally theologians hold the legitimacy of a Pope to be dogmatic fact, certain with the certainty of faith, but since not only +Lefebvre, but also +Williamson, and +Tissier all admitted at different times that it's POSSIBLE that these have not been legitimate popes ... and to admit of a possibility precludes the certainty of faith regarding the contrary ... they were never really "sedeplenists", but more those who in the practical order gave the benefit of the doubt (a doubt that the dogmatic SVs claim does not exist. Cf. +Sanborn's condemnation of "Opinionism").
Now, the problem with dogmatic SV is that they fail to recognize that the SV conclusion, while it most certainly does have a dogmatic premise, the Major (with which +Lefebvre agreed, BTW), there are additional (Minor) premises involved that do not enjoy the certainty of faith. Therefore, according to what I refer to as the "logical weakest link" principle, "peiorem partem sequitur conclusio", the conclusion (that the See is vacant) cannot be dogmatically certain either.
Canon Law experts (pre-V2) state that one is not to be accounted a schismatic for refusing submission to the Holy See ... if there are well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of those claiming to hold the office (among other reasons), and other theologians state that a "doubtful pope is no pope" (at least in the practical order, and for all intents and purposes).
Thus ... the "sede-doubtist" position, which is the only one that makes sense. Both of the dogmatic sides err in asserting that either conclusion can be imposed on consciences, and there's a danger of schism in either direction.
Excellent commentary.
Glad to see you started this blog! We have been wondering how you were doing! I am looking forward to reading more of your posts! I always think of you during Holy Week because of your good writings about the Pre-1955 Holy Week and the changes. Thank you for all the good writing you have done for the traditional movement!
Thank you for your kind words, Rita! When I get a comment like yours, it makes me think maybe this isn’t all for nothing after all. Hope you’ll stick around here!
I definitely plan to stick around and already subscribed to your blog!
May God bless your efforts!
Rita (aka AMDGJMJ)
Thanks for the post. What you have done is provide clarity to the process I have been perhaps using mentally or internally at discerning truth. I now have some tangible *method* (converging probabilities) thanks to you, & Newman. This is all new to me since Fiduccia Supplicans (& Francis) pried open my eyes last year. Let me try getting warmed up to it.
Glad to see you are doing well, Sean. As for "defending" your position, feel free to explain but there is no need to defend. A man must act in harmony with how he sees/grasps reality, something which should change as new information becomes available, he matures and looks at situations with wiser, more experienced eyes, and, hopefully, grows in virtue. Traddieland is full of people who give themselves endless latitude while granting little to none to those who see the crisis differently at any particular moment. The exact opposite should be the case and we must graciously allow each man to go through the process as God knows is best, offering what little help we can when asked. Godspeed, my friend.
GV!!!
If there was a way to lock your post at the top, I’d do it (is there?)!
Frankly, there might be more fertile soil there to meditate upon than my article!
I think of some of the old CI battles we had (you, Ladislaus, 2Vermont, etc), and I blush. But then your post offers consolation, and I thank you for that!
Hope you’ll be a frequent visitor here; I miss many of our conversations 💪
I think you know this, but you're forgiven. 😉 I look forward to reading the next installment. 😊
2V!
I probably owe you more apologies than anyone. Thanks for not beating me up for it!!!
Also, Sean, stop on over ... as the first few posts on my Subatack made available audios of complete classes taught by Bishop Williamson, some of which I had to clean up to get rid of the background noise. https://vladsarto.substack.com
I was not aware you had a Substack; can't wait to check it out!
What happens if you get your "converging probabilities" wrong? Garbage in, garbage out?
Correct: The more indications you can array for the contrary proposition, the less certain your conclusion will be.
As Ladislaus said, welcome aboard, Sean!
My wife & I were greatly assisted by the SSPX five-six years ago, and then had to see where they simply were not what they had long seemed to be. We agreed to SV about four years ago, and of course have had to deal with all that entrails. We enjoyed “As We Are?” greatly.
Newman was a tremendous guide for me, and always when I’m wavering I read his “Gerontius”, which restores my faith & soul. Glad to know that you view “As We Are?” as an exercise in Newman’s method & this article is likewise a good use of JHN.
God bless you.
Vatican I defined under anathema that there is perpetual succession at Rome. At the very least there must be some kind of moral continuity in the Roman line.
There are too many extracanonical clergy and splinter groups with no teaching authority, establishing "principles" and positions, in some cases vetoing papally approved rubrics such as the new Holy Week, or papally permitted practices like dialogue Mass, and finally metastasizing into a veritable pseudo-Magisterium.
Having been raised traditionalist before SSPX began, may I suggest that you throw out the entire fake magisterium of traditional clergy. Vomit it all out, all forty odd years of it, and you'll be better off.
Hi John-
Welcome.
May I ask what you consider the proper “crisis orientation?”
The crisis began visibly around Vatican II (its roots obviously older) and ends with a true consecration of Russia.
I support the traditional Mass and eastern rites, and the magisterial documents Mgr Lefebvre cited.
Devotionally I support everything the pre Vatican II Blue Army did. Emphasis should be on sacrifices for sinners, Rosary, daily duty, monthly First Saturdays as Sr Lucia did.
I supported Mgr Lefebvre (because of his heroic effort to save the priesthood) but reject any implicit assumption of magisterial authority by extracanonical clergy, especially the denial of sacraments contrary to Moral Theology.
I support anti Masonry in the tradition of Pere Deschamps but condemn the proliferation of questionable right wing and especially white nationalist ideas among traditional Catholics.
My sympathies are with the younger generations who have to live through this.
Are you the John Collorafi of "Keys Over the Christian World"?
Yes. It's free on Internet Archive btw.
Mr Collorafi, your comment here appeals to me at many levels. Naturally I went to your profile to find out more about you from your previous activity on SubStack. What find is thin: three "reads", none Catholic as far as I can see and a single comment in response to a post by Sasha Stone (notorious New Ager) of all people.
I'd genuinely appreciate being pointed to a better source of your online activity since on the basis of the comment here, I'm interested in following you and your sources and do not want to render judgment solely on the basis of your SubStack profile. Thanks, and God bless!
I sometimes post comments on Sasha because she has gone from left wing to Trumper. Usually my comments try to steer the conversation towards the subject of international bankers, secret societies etc., and against Zionists. Her Trumper audience is very mixed on these subjects.
I'm definitely liking your positions which closely mirror my ownconclusions.
Thanks for responding. My bad, I conflated her with him (Sacha Stone) so please disregard the New Age reference.
Thanks John!
Welcome aboard, Sean ... (from aka Ladislaus).
I submit that Archbishop Lefebvre was himself a "sede-doubtist" (a term I think I coined some years ago on CathInfo.com, starting out as tongue-in-cheek term, since it's a conflation of Latin and English ... but then it actually started to make sense).
Neither dogmatic SV nor dogmatic R&R cared for my position, so I got it from all sides ... but it's what makes the most sense to me.
See, normally theologians hold the legitimacy of a Pope to be dogmatic fact, certain with the certainty of faith, but since not only +Lefebvre, but also +Williamson, and +Tissier all admitted at different times that it's POSSIBLE that these have not been legitimate popes ... and to admit of a possibility precludes the certainty of faith regarding the contrary ... they were never really "sedeplenists", but more those who in the practical order gave the benefit of the doubt (a doubt that the dogmatic SVs claim does not exist. Cf. +Sanborn's condemnation of "Opinionism").
Now, the problem with dogmatic SV is that they fail to recognize that the SV conclusion, while it most certainly does have a dogmatic premise, the Major (with which +Lefebvre agreed, BTW), there are additional (Minor) premises involved that do not enjoy the certainty of faith. Therefore, according to what I refer to as the "logical weakest link" principle, "peiorem partem sequitur conclusio", the conclusion (that the See is vacant) cannot be dogmatically certain either.
Canon Law experts (pre-V2) state that one is not to be accounted a schismatic for refusing submission to the Holy See ... if there are well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of those claiming to hold the office (among other reasons), and other theologians state that a "doubtful pope is no pope" (at least in the practical order, and for all intents and purposes).
Thus ... the "sede-doubtist" position, which is the only one that makes sense. Both of the dogmatic sides err in asserting that either conclusion can be imposed on consciences, and there's a danger of schism in either direction.
God bless, Sean. Glad to see you around.
Ladislaus!!
I was hoping you’d show up here!
Excellent commentary, as always.
I’m hoping you’ll become a frequent commentator here. You’d be a valuable asset!