Monday, October 10, 2022

Brian Holdsworth Had His Five Cents

The Despair of Sedevacantism
8 Oct. 2022 | Brian Holdsworth

[after opening sequence]

Sedevacantism didn't.
A layman read up what another layman had read in Saenz y Arriaga. Emergency conclave is an option.

That layman then called an emergency conclave. He was elected. He was finally consecreated bishop after waiting 21 years for it as Pope. And he died Aug. 2 this year.

But as to the Sedes who claim there was NOT a real Pope Michael, yes, it leads to some degree of despair and paralysis, apart from "staying spiritually sound" and remaining in the truth while others aren't there. Which even that is not quite all that despairing and not quite all that paralysed a will either.

8:30 As the clip was shown at the outset of the video, I answered it.

Sedevacantism, in 1986 to 1989 did not lead to just despair and paralysis of the will, it led to a papal election in 1990, followed up by a consecration of the pope to episcopal order in 2011, Gaudete Sunday.

I accept your principle, I do not accept that your conclusion follows from it.

2:46 Already checked both out.

Michael is lengthy and I came to it not realising he wasn't the host, I accused him (after too little sleep that night, and I crossed it out) of first hosting a debate and then editing so as to make it inaccessible without his comments interrupting. Not so.

Trent actually had another problem. I tried to comment, and at 10 minutes sth, I made first one comment, tried a follow up under it, and it was impossible to post the second comment.

I copied the comment that was still visible before actualising the link to the video, yes, my first of these was gone.

I haven't been able to get through if it was he or if it was someone in the cyber, since I am not the admin over in any place I comment from.

4:08 Dimond is, after Fr Cekada died, the so to speak best head in sedevacantism (unless I am and even that unless conclavism doesn't count as sedevacantism, but that's another matter).

But his usefulness is limited by the fact that he has a Feeneyite view of Baptism of Desire (non-existant, and especially implicit such in someone who was not aware he even should desire it).

This makes for a less than genial view on other actors within the "Sede family," notably Pope Michael who seems to have taken distance from Feeneyism. So, half of what he does is not really used by other Sedes.

And most are even less OK with Pope Michael than Vatican II clergy were. Two priests came to his deathbed, only one of them (the second) of his, the other of the diocese. And the man had such a stroke, one cannot actually say he made then and there a decision between them, but one can say that habitually he was for the clergy in communion with him. Like Fr. Francis Dominic who gave him the last rites.

4:26 "that means that there are not any validly ordained bishops"

Not even to Dimond! This was misrepresented by Trent Horn I think even in those ten minutes!

Dimond dissuades against Sede Mass centres in the US that he's aware of, NOT because all would be lacking Apostolic Succession, but because they are not Feeneyite in doctrine!

He's basically saying a Sede like the late Fr Cekada and the bishops he's in communion with are like real bishops in the Vatican II Sect when it started - real bishops, but not real doctrine.

And no, the validity of a Pope has no bearing in and of itself on the validity of bishops who are ordained in rites previous to that possible non-Pope (like the old Pontificale Romanum).

So, how many are going to repeat and over repeat this misrepresentation of what Sedevacantism implies or means just so they can paint Sedevacantists as "confessing the gates of Hell" did what they famously cannot: prevail against the Church.

5:07 Even the Dimond brothers, who missed the chance of being in Communion with the Visible Church and valid sacraments of Pope Michael, are in some way posing that the Church is still visible:
  • in confessing the truth and doing the necessary acts for those who cannot access sacraments;
  • in sacraments being available in other countries (according to Dimond) than the US.

5:30 In so far as Dimond Brothers are concerned and for US usage : become a home aloner.

In so far as the late Pope Michael is concerned, last time he could express himself clearly, go and make your first confession to Fr. Francis Dominic, if he visits Canada or down in St. Helen Catholic Mission in Topeka, Kansas. After that assist his Mass and go to Communion.

6:29 "because there are no valid masses or valid priests anymore"

What page on Dimond brothers' website?

I'd like to know that before I see this accusation against their position again, and as already noted, I am anyway not sharing their position.

[follow up]

I am on one that has the title
"Where To Receive Sacraments" and the date "September 27, 2014"

The statement is:

"As this video explains, in the aftermath of the “canonization,” essentially everyone in full communion with the Vatican II sect is now, in reality, an idolater. As a consequence, in many cases the few validly ordained priests who acknowledge the antipope, who may previously have been options for receiving Communion, are becoming off-limits for Communion. As we’ve repeatedly mentioned, for some time the number of options for Communion has been quickly diminishing. At this point there are almost no options for receiving Communion."

Note, "almost"

Further down:

It seems you were maligning even the position of the Dimond Brothers, insatisfactory and false as it is.

8:48 "and the Sedevacantist position only leads to desolation"

It may be a bit hard even on the false position of Dimond Brothers, but isn't even close to true about Pope Michael.

9:49 It is not a lie to God to believe that at some point in time a lot of Catholics will have to make do without Holy Mass and without Confession.

It would be a lie to God to say these are gone and cannot be restored, not even the Dimond Brothers say that.

But it is not a lie to state "some people who used to have access to valid and licit sacraments no longer have so" .... and in the Catechism I read (for the conversion to the Vatican II Sect!) there were statements about what to do if you cannot access the sacraments, and so there are in St. Thomas Aquinas.

For the unlucky ones, getting forgiveness and a spiritual communion is a bit harder, since one needs perfect contrition and not just attrition to attain forgiveness outside the sacrament of Confession. But it is not impossible.

This piece of Catholic doctrine would ideally even be accessible in the infamous CCC (fortunately not what I was reading for "RCIA").

I did not find a paragraph in CCC by a quick search, but I did find an FSSP reference to Catechism of Trent:

// Following the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent(1), also known as the Roman Catechism, there are three ways in which one can receive Communion: (1) Sacramentally-only; (2) Sacramentally-and-Spiritually; and (3) Spiritually-only.

Those who receive Communion while knowing they are in a state of Mortal Sin are said to receive Sacramentally-only. This is because, while they truly receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, they do not receive any spiritual benefits. On the contrary, they incur an additional sin.

Those who receive Communion Sacramentally-and-Spiritually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine and do receive spiritual benefits.

Those who receive Communion Spiritually-only receive the spiritual benefits of Communion without receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.

The Catechism goes on to explain that those who receive Spiritually-only “are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity (Gal. 5:6), partake in, wish and desire of that celestial bread.” There are several things that should be noted from this passage. //

Search "The Missive" "Spiritual Communion and the Fruits of the Mass" "Fr. William Rock, FSSP"

10:11 The Great Apostasy, whether here or not, is prophecied.

It's upcoming if not here.

Being in it - the age of it - doesn't mean being lost sheep.

Only participating in it makes you a lost sheep.

The Apostasy cannot take away all of the visible Church either. But it can reduce it, and reduce many faithful to being home aloners.

The last Abbess of Vadstena* (founded by St. Bridget, celebrated on October 8!) died without sacraments because she refused Lutheran sacraments. Catholic sacraments were available in the world, but hundreds of kilometers further south.

Erasmus of Rotterdam died without the sacraments in Basel - because he, correctly considered the Reformed Communion as invalid. This shocked his friend Luther. Yes, Martin, formerly a disciple of his, like St. Thomas More.

* Either Katarina Olofsdotter or Katarina Benktsdotter Gylta. Or someone before Sigismund and Possevino came to Sweden.

Do check out the citations given in a follow up comment to the visible comment starting with time signature 6:29.

It seems you maligned the Dimond brothers, I am sure you do not want to do so, you perhaps relied on someone less accurate than you (Trent Horn?)

No comments: