That’s the nature of a conversation. Often one thing leads to another, and rather than seeing it as a diversion, it can also be seen as an opportunity, or a bonus if you like.
I don’t think you will find many non-sedes interested in the nitty gritty of theology and canon law, especially not on a micro forum like this. As I mentioned before, most of us are happy to choose a prudent and trustworthy teacher and simply follow his advice on these complicated matters.
I posted an article arguing for the validity.
It is a very difficult question which has far-reaching consequences. I am with Samuel (not that he needs my agreement!) in that for us as laymen we are bound to simply take the prudent course. Does that mean we as laity need not study questions of theology? No. However, we also need to realize that the complexities and nuances of sacramental theology are lost to most.
Precisely why (like ABL and Williamson/de Mallerais) I believe there is positive and probable doubt regarding the validity of the new rite, without going so far as to declare its invalidity.
Somehow, every time I post this, you guys make a response as though I was declaring invalidity, or as though you feel the need to “pull me back” from the same Archbishops position you yourselves accept.
Maybe you got confused because I cited a sede author to explain the positive doubt (but not certain invalidity as that same author concludes)?
Unless I am mistaken, all three of us in holding Lefebvres opinion doubt the new rite.
If that’s the case, I’m not sure what there is to argue about, except that maybe you didn’t like that I used a sede author to lay out the reasons for doubt.
This is only my personal opinion and I don’t speak for Samuel but for me this is one of those questions that will really get us nowhere. We will never get any metaphysical certainty on the matter. Positive doubt – fine. Is Fr. Cekada (and sedevacantists) the only person to claim that the new rites are invalid?
I guess I could comb through all the articles and find some Latin tome (or an English translation) of some canonist or theologian and proceed to work backwards to try to prove that there is doubt or even invalidity of the new rites but again what good will that do.
This does not justify a certain indifferent attitude but I just can’t see this being a fruitful discussion unless one is perhaps…perhaps…trained in these issues which I dare say most of us are not.
This is also different from acknowledging the Crisis in the Church which can be objectively discerned.
I am surprised.
Obviously, if I would have known you guys had an aversion to the subject, I would not have posted it here.
No, I only speak for myself. In the larger scheme of things it is one of those interesting (very interesting) topics that unless the participants are well-versed in such theological principles it usually doesn’t go anywhere. I guess I am simply being verbose in saying I am ignorant on too many principles related to this subject to really contribute intelligently. Disregard my words and feel free to continue discussing it – seriously.
The subject is fine, but I can’t get excited about…
…entering into unproductive, unnecessary and endless discussions and arguments.
…taking any notice of untrustworthy teachers, like a Fr. Cekada, even if they sometimes may speak the truth.
You are welcome to discuss this subject here as much as you like, but I would be surprised if you found anyone here that’s capable and willing to pursue this with you.
I agree. Although it is an interesting topic, in the end (after all the endless discussions and arguments) the guy in white, the men in red and all the other modernists, homosexuals and infiltrators are still there!
What is needed is discussions followed by action, on how to best convert them or remove them and get our Church back!