This post is for anything related to the topic of sedevacantism: https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedevacantism
And then more specifically:
I think it was a year ago that the last known Pius XII era bishop died. In one sedevacantist interpretation, this means the episcopacy has gone vacant and that only a miracle could restore it (unlikely) or that the world is to end sometime soon. Others hold out hope some other person was consecrated and the lineage continues (I tend more towards this view, as some things don't seem all together yet for the world to end). If you have to be 35 to become a bishop, and Pius XII died in 1958 (it's been over 60 years), they'd have to be pushing 100 at this point if they were still alive. Which means that within the next few decades, some definitive answer seems to be forthcoming about sedevacantism and the status of Vatican 2.
The situation reminds me of the Babylonian Captivity which I thought lasted 70 years, a number we'll be soon approaching if sedevacantism were true: https://infogalactic.com/info/Babylonian_captivity
The Jews skipped honoring the Sabbath year for almost 500 years, so God allowed them to be exiled for 70 years, one year for each seventh year the Sabbath year wasn't observed (I'm not sure on the exact math or story, but it's something like this): https://infogalactic.com/info/Shmita
So too it seems Catholics have been deprived of an organized Church because of the increase of sins, or perhaps as a trial to test faith. Some have wavered in this trial and become orthodox in response, or atheist, etc.
And of course the Western Schism, which lasted 40 years, also comes to mind: https://infogalactic.com/info/Western_schism
That the Church is being pushed to an extreme does not surprise me given some of the open sin I see. Although personally I do not like the current culture of sports today as they sometimes promote irreligion or a worldly spirit, I witnessed or participated in many games that came down to scoring points right before the time ran out. So you couldn't expect to win or lose until there was no time left on the clock, even if you might be winning or losing by a lot of points the whole game. So likewise today I expect the Church will be pushed to a limit and look like it is "impossibly losing" and God will then aid it as it comes up to that limit. Possibly we are close to hitting that limit here within the next however many years, given some of the aforementioned constraints.
At some point with the Vatican, they will have to further cross the Rubicon and promote more open and direct heresy (rather than ambiguous heresies) to continue with the Vatican 2 project. One non-sedevacantist site notes Francis has already openly embraced the heresies of Lutheranism (they seem to correctly diagnose the problem without accepting the conclusion of sedevacantism that seems to follow): https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
> [Francis:] Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken
Luther believed man was justified by "faith alone", while Catholics believe that a man was justified by "faith and good works". Hence his statement is erroneous and supportive of the Lutheran heresy, from the Catholic view.
Apparently according to a recent (2017) poll, even many protestants seem to believe in this traditional Catholic view that faith and good works are necessary to salvation: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary
(As an aside, in practice, it seems certain Lutherans I've seen simply seem to conclude that those with "bad works" lack faith. So that actually faith and works go together anyway. So that the dispute is frequently more in the realm of philosophy and intellectual disagreement - not to trivialize the seriousness of the disagreement, though.)
The successor to Francis, and his successor, if these end up existing, will be interesting to see, and also people's reaction to the death of "Benedict XVI" (whom some people believe is "pope" still). Or the course will redirect to revert back to pre-Vatican 2 norms. Or a "breakaway" conclave might spring up from Pius XII era bishops, if they still somehow exist, which will give a true traditional pope. Probably God has in mind some interesting way to end this drama, although we can guess at what will happen because there are only so many likely possibilities of what can happen. But we can only either study to try to figure out if there is some human way to put an end to the Crisis (such as educating others about what has happened), or pray that God may intervene to end the Crisis.
What do you think will happen in the next few decades with what claims to be or is "Catholicism"?
And then more specifically:
I think it was a year ago that the last known Pius XII era bishop died. In one sedevacantist interpretation, this means the episcopacy has gone vacant and that only a miracle could restore it (unlikely) or that the world is to end sometime soon. Others hold out hope some other person was consecrated and the lineage continues (I tend more towards this view, as some things don't seem all together yet for the world to end). If you have to be 35 to become a bishop, and Pius XII died in 1958 (it's been over 60 years), they'd have to be pushing 100 at this point if they were still alive. Which means that within the next few decades, some definitive answer seems to be forthcoming about sedevacantism and the status of Vatican 2.
The situation reminds me of the Babylonian Captivity which I thought lasted 70 years, a number we'll be soon approaching if sedevacantism were true: https://infogalactic.com/info/Babylonian_captivity
The Jews skipped honoring the Sabbath year for almost 500 years, so God allowed them to be exiled for 70 years, one year for each seventh year the Sabbath year wasn't observed (I'm not sure on the exact math or story, but it's something like this): https://infogalactic.com/info/Shmita
So too it seems Catholics have been deprived of an organized Church because of the increase of sins, or perhaps as a trial to test faith. Some have wavered in this trial and become orthodox in response, or atheist, etc.
And of course the Western Schism, which lasted 40 years, also comes to mind: https://infogalactic.com/info/Western_schism
That the Church is being pushed to an extreme does not surprise me given some of the open sin I see. Although personally I do not like the current culture of sports today as they sometimes promote irreligion or a worldly spirit, I witnessed or participated in many games that came down to scoring points right before the time ran out. So you couldn't expect to win or lose until there was no time left on the clock, even if you might be winning or losing by a lot of points the whole game. So likewise today I expect the Church will be pushed to a limit and look like it is "impossibly losing" and God will then aid it as it comes up to that limit. Possibly we are close to hitting that limit here within the next however many years, given some of the aforementioned constraints.
At some point with the Vatican, they will have to further cross the Rubicon and promote more open and direct heresy (rather than ambiguous heresies) to continue with the Vatican 2 project. One non-sedevacantist site notes Francis has already openly embraced the heresies of Lutheranism (they seem to correctly diagnose the problem without accepting the conclusion of sedevacantism that seems to follow): https://onepeterfive.com/recant-lutheran-heresy-francis/
> [Francis:] Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken
Luther believed man was justified by "faith alone", while Catholics believe that a man was justified by "faith and good works". Hence his statement is erroneous and supportive of the Lutheran heresy, from the Catholic view.
Apparently according to a recent (2017) poll, even many protestants seem to believe in this traditional Catholic view that faith and good works are necessary to salvation: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary
(As an aside, in practice, it seems certain Lutherans I've seen simply seem to conclude that those with "bad works" lack faith. So that actually faith and works go together anyway. So that the dispute is frequently more in the realm of philosophy and intellectual disagreement - not to trivialize the seriousness of the disagreement, though.)
The successor to Francis, and his successor, if these end up existing, will be interesting to see, and also people's reaction to the death of "Benedict XVI" (whom some people believe is "pope" still). Or the course will redirect to revert back to pre-Vatican 2 norms. Or a "breakaway" conclave might spring up from Pius XII era bishops, if they still somehow exist, which will give a true traditional pope. Probably God has in mind some interesting way to end this drama, although we can guess at what will happen because there are only so many likely possibilities of what can happen. But we can only either study to try to figure out if there is some human way to put an end to the Crisis (such as educating others about what has happened), or pray that God may intervene to end the Crisis.
What do you think will happen in the next few decades with what claims to be or is "Catholicism"?
well, I guess I would distinguish by what is meant by "totalism". The vacancy of the Holy See, I would defend, and argue sedeprivationism is in error. An alleged vacancy of the episcopacy, sometimes called "ecclesia-vacantism", or a view that there are no more clergy, some have thought to be heretical and impossible. I don't know if it is impossible or heretical, but I guess I do believe there must be clergy somewhere: either "in the woods", hidden, like a "siri theory of the clergy", or some members of the Vatican 2 church must be Catholic clergy.
Sedprivationism was created as a response to Paul VI being a "pope who fell in to heresy", going from a formal to material pope in their view. And part of the reason is because it is an unresolved issue, how the Church is to handle the case of an heretical pope. But once he died, then sedeprivationism should have ended. Because then there were heretics trying to be elected as pope, and those elections would be invalid. Further, many sedevacantists / sedeprivationists then started to think John XXIII never became pope in the first place. This would also exclude any need for sedeprivationism.
Also, so the concern seems to be about how a pope could be elected in the future. Originally as I noted, sedeprivationism held a "material validity" of certain papal elections because Pius XII cardinals participated in the elections. But they have all died off, so this would be another case where sedeprivationism also should have ceased as a theory. However now it has also been made in to a second theory, that these "material popes" have created "material cardinals". I suppose the misunderstanding here may be in thinking that it is necessary for there to be cardinals to elect a pope. For about a millennium, there was no set method for electing a pope, the bishops and clergy (with some participation from the laity) just chose one and then the election was peacefully accepted: https://infogalactic.com/info/Papal_selection_before_1059
Other writers have noted that a pope could be elected by a general imperfect council of bishops if somehow all the cardinals died. So I don't see any need to argue for a "material papacy" of "material cardinals" in order to elect a pope and preserve the indefectibility of the Church as far as those go.
Then to me there's also the question of conclavism which has not been adequately addressed in my view by sedevacantists or sedeprivationists (sedevacantists elect a pope). Essentially how it's manifested is a kind of agnosticism or embrace of "ecclesia-vacantism" or a belief that there were no clergy available (laity only) or existing. So laymen elected a "pope", who can then make the various illicit but valid "traditionalist clergy" in to licit clergy. This would potentially solve the problem of "how to get a pope". But I object that this method has been doubtful with respect to preserving apostolicity, as it seems to presuppose "ecclesia-vacantism", which may be impossible or heretical to begin with. In other words, I think there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, and they can elect a pope or confirm an election. Hence this is my own objection I developed to conclavism.
So I guess I'm supportive of a "sedeprivationism of the clergy" view, possibly, and not "totalist" in that sense. Although this view has problems, since if they are truly Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church, then why shouldn't Catholics just follow them? So I find possibly that view to be inconsistent, and find the "bishops in the woods" view most favorable - there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, but possibly in hiding, or at a remote distance who may not know if there's a pope or who the pope is (so that they would not fall in to schism due to being at a distance).
Another problem I have with the sedeprivationist view or general view of some of these "trad chapels", is I've seen some sedeprivationists argue that abjurations of errors weren't required of converts to any of the traditionalist chapels, and that therefore this was a sign that sedeprivationism was true. Rather instead, this is a sign to me that these "trad chapels" are not Catholic, and abjurations of errors should have been required. Because even setting aside specific Vatican 2 errors, which might be new, pepole have been falling in to older errors which are already condemned. So to err on the side of caution, it would seem abjurations of errors would be encouraged.
That would be another reason why in practice I would tend towards a totalist view (or specifically "home alone" view), as in practice my experience has been "totalist". I would not recommend Catholics attend any of these trad chapels or any known church, due to wide variations in teaching and practice.
In short, many things should be put "on hold" and much work done to come to more of an authoritative consensus on how to proceed. From the taste I see of the pre-Vatican 2 way of life, it does not seem like a lot of traditionalists have been carrying that forward. Another random thing I think of is how a lot of communications are in English rather than latin, among these "traditionalist" writings (like the linked Cassiciacum thesis ... perhaps it is in latin, I forget, I did not click it as I have read it before, and the few links on this topic have not been in latin).
But I do concede I think more discussion is probably required, to definitively put the sedeprivationist thesis to rest, given that we still have no forthcoming "bishops from the woods" or rival papal election to challenge the Vatican 2 institution which still has such organization as to make it look like having some "material" claim to carrying on something of the Church.
ok I've looked in to this a little and maybe you've seen the same, interestingly I think there is Pius XII legislation that says even excommunicated cardinals can validly elect a new pope. So it's possible there's some kind of hidden lineage that was created. I don't think it's siri though, and I heard possibly ottaviana but they both have the same problems of having accepted Vatican 2. idk the significance of siri renouncing ecumenism in 1985, there would be weird legal problems with him having become possibly a "heretic pope" which would become like another sedeplenist or SSPX predicament. But he or someone could have been elected in the 1958 election, appointed some other people as cardinals and bishops, and have kept a hidden lineage going. But there are really only so many possibilities here, and this is as likely to some people as there being hidden bishops out there somewhere I guess.
But yeah anyway we have some idea of what move God makes next, either He brings some hidden person out in to the open or the trads or V2 "clergy" will have to be legitimized. We don't really have too many other options. And this seems like it will have to happen somewhat soon because time's running out.
I remember reading that St. Augustine's mother prayed for him for 18 years, for his conversion. Sometimes when you're in the middle of waiting it feels like forever. And some people have lost faith and become orthodox or atheist or whatever as a result. But if you've experienced something finally happening after a long wait, I guess this helps to boost faith. I am still waiting on a lot of things in my life but I am reminded of these stories of long waits like the 40 years of the Western Schism.
Either way, Catholics have all kinds of tradition to attend to and plenty of prayer and good to try to do as we wait on things that may be out of our control otherwise.