The Noble Loser: Sedevacantism

Don't get bored and go looking at neorxn.com because, despite a few quality posts here and there, when a conservative bombs, he or she bombs out in a way that is so very much more depressing than the latest bit of progressive nonsense. I think this is because, when you sense a person has traditional leanings, there's this sense of a person who should quite well be an ally, but then you find he is not. He is too invested in dying the death of a thousand cuts, on principle.

The Housewife (is she really thinking? I don't know) embedded this video from Fr. Anthony Cekada:


Now, in terms of canon law I have no doubt these are pretty solid arguments, but this is like watching conservatives in America making all these freaking arguments about the Constitution, when clearly if the Consitution worked, then we wouldn't have to be making all these stupid arguments. In other words, widespread subversion of the Constitution indicates the Constitution is weak, mostly obvious in the fact that there is no clear indication of where relief from unconstitutional crap will come from. All parts of government collude, especially in particular areas, to declare that which is not legal legal, and that which shouldn't be illegal (like the right to keep and bear arms without the government making freaking laws about it) legal. So we might as well not have the damn document, if the people have to go out and win their freedoms back from their own government.

So you can guess why I am angry at this nonsense. It is like herding cats. You'll have these secular guys basically set up a self-martyring operation.

I can't see where this is any different. Why would anyone, upon having problems the legitimacy of Vatican II, not find Vatican I also problematic? Did Vatican I not set the stage? What would be lost? Ridiculous ultramontane triumphalism? More to the point, the enemy would lose- the Vatican would have less power which is what everybody needs. What is needed is a real church, with one bishop, and enough priests (married or otherwise). Something functional, therapeutic in the pre-pyschology sense of that word- no peacocks, and who cares if there is another bishop right next door, shut up and tend your own flock.

None of this nonsense serves anyone. I am increasingly convinced the 'great man' version of history is likely true. Some dude finds himself with power, and has the will to use it, and he changes the world.

And we generally decide he had the mandate of heaven, unless he was a particularly bad dude.

But this guy will never change the world. He not only doesn't have power, he has happily chained himself up. He is his own pharisee.