I haven’t even listened to the episode yet, and I can tell this will be a great listen. Hall's articulation of difficult matters concerning the Faith is not only educational but inspiring!
Kennedy, I commend you (once again) for your charity, tact, and fairness in this matter of sedevacantism. You are one of the few who does not paint sedevacantists with a huge brush and acknowledges the large variations in this term. No one has any business complaining about your treatment of this issue, and to do so simply reflects a very shallow approach to this matter. If Catholics of all stripes were willing to be as honest, and at the same time, charitable as you, the vitriol that is often so evident would vanish. Keep leading the charge. "...So there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity."
For those of you who might be willing to at least take a look at the subject of sedevacantism in a little more detail, may I suggest visiting the link above, and going through playlists 1, 5, 10 and 18. Number 10 is lectures, conferences, and sermons by Bishop Donald Sanborn, who, some of you may know was at one time a very close associate of Archbishop Lefevbre. He is of the opinion, based on knowing the Archbishop, that His Excellency would be a sedevacantist if he were alive today. Number 5 will take you through all of the numerous heresies of Vatican 2, and the post-V2 popes. Number 18 is sermons by Father DeSaye, a former Novus Ordo priest.
Kennedy— I have nothing but respect for you. And because of that, I will suggest something. It would be very good for you to contact both Bishop Sanborn, and Bishop McGuire of St. Gertrude the Great in suburban Cincinnati. See if you can arrange a live stream with them, and ask the questions that your stream today tells me that you have. I would bet at least one of them would say yes, if a mutually agreed time could be arranged.
I have only in the last year or so come to the sede position, after much listening and research. With all of the different variations on the theme, I try to take the best out of each of the groups. I’m not a big fan of having multiple schools of thought as to why the sedevacantist position is the correct one.
I listened to this episode yesterday (whilst weeding my garden, LOL) and one thing struck me about your characterization of the Sede POV: it reminds me a lot of Fundamentalist Protestantism. (I was one for years, so I am well-versed.) Who has the “actual truth”, who’s “in”, who’s “out”, who’s “holy”, who’s “not”, who *actually* knows the mind of God, etc etc, seem to be the focal point of the movement group. It’s sectarianism, a caste system, and pride. This will step on some toes, I realize, but it’s not being said from a place of aggression or judgment. I think Sedes are really trying to make sense of the crisis in the Church and this is their best way to untangle that. I disagree with their position, but I sympathize with it. Thank you for the analysis. Great episode.
Let me first say that I very much admire your witty style and very informative substack. I enjoy your practical take on important issues near and dear to Catholics. Your guests (I especially enjoyed the Dominican Friar you recently interviewed) provide a welcome evening respite in front of my wood stove on a cold Canadian night.
I have been a Catholic of the sede persuasion since the early part of JPII’s pontificate and an attendee of the SSPX in Southern Ontario/New York/Michigan since Fr. Normandin (loosely associated with +Lefebvre) and the establishment of SSPX chapel in Toronto in the late 80s. I even attend Holy Mass at the same SSPX Church you used to attend until the Society established another Chapel further west in Southern Ontario. In my opinion, most run-of-the-mill sedevacantists are Catholics just like me, who want to get to heaven.
For the record, the CMRI whose ideas on the una-cum issue are not dogmatic represent the opinion of most Sedes unlike Bp. Sanborn et al.
Respectfully, I do not agree with your comments on the statement by Ven. Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Pius IX says “…he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.” An occult heretic -one who thinks heresies or errors in his heart - is still a member of the Church. I think you’re missing the distinction between formal public heretics which he [Pius IX] is describing in the first part of the sentence i.e. dare to express by words or writing vs. errors in one’s heart.
I haven’t even listened to the episode yet, and I can tell this will be a great listen. Hall's articulation of difficult matters concerning the Faith is not only educational but inspiring!
Thank you for teaching us.
Kennedy, I commend you (once again) for your charity, tact, and fairness in this matter of sedevacantism. You are one of the few who does not paint sedevacantists with a huge brush and acknowledges the large variations in this term. No one has any business complaining about your treatment of this issue, and to do so simply reflects a very shallow approach to this matter. If Catholics of all stripes were willing to be as honest, and at the same time, charitable as you, the vitriol that is often so evident would vanish. Keep leading the charge. "...So there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity."
That is very kind. Thank you
https://youtube.com/@thewizionary1?si=fBE-LLDPh0sTzT8R
For those of you who might be willing to at least take a look at the subject of sedevacantism in a little more detail, may I suggest visiting the link above, and going through playlists 1, 5, 10 and 18. Number 10 is lectures, conferences, and sermons by Bishop Donald Sanborn, who, some of you may know was at one time a very close associate of Archbishop Lefevbre. He is of the opinion, based on knowing the Archbishop, that His Excellency would be a sedevacantist if he were alive today. Number 5 will take you through all of the numerous heresies of Vatican 2, and the post-V2 popes. Number 18 is sermons by Father DeSaye, a former Novus Ordo priest.
Kennedy— I have nothing but respect for you. And because of that, I will suggest something. It would be very good for you to contact both Bishop Sanborn, and Bishop McGuire of St. Gertrude the Great in suburban Cincinnati. See if you can arrange a live stream with them, and ask the questions that your stream today tells me that you have. I would bet at least one of them would say yes, if a mutually agreed time could be arranged.
I have only in the last year or so come to the sede position, after much listening and research. With all of the different variations on the theme, I try to take the best out of each of the groups. I’m not a big fan of having multiple schools of thought as to why the sedevacantist position is the correct one.
I’m unsubscribing.
I listened to this episode yesterday (whilst weeding my garden, LOL) and one thing struck me about your characterization of the Sede POV: it reminds me a lot of Fundamentalist Protestantism. (I was one for years, so I am well-versed.) Who has the “actual truth”, who’s “in”, who’s “out”, who’s “holy”, who’s “not”, who *actually* knows the mind of God, etc etc, seem to be the focal point of the movement group. It’s sectarianism, a caste system, and pride. This will step on some toes, I realize, but it’s not being said from a place of aggression or judgment. I think Sedes are really trying to make sense of the crisis in the Church and this is their best way to untangle that. I disagree with their position, but I sympathize with it. Thank you for the analysis. Great episode.
Hi Kennedy,
Let me first say that I very much admire your witty style and very informative substack. I enjoy your practical take on important issues near and dear to Catholics. Your guests (I especially enjoyed the Dominican Friar you recently interviewed) provide a welcome evening respite in front of my wood stove on a cold Canadian night.
I have been a Catholic of the sede persuasion since the early part of JPII’s pontificate and an attendee of the SSPX in Southern Ontario/New York/Michigan since Fr. Normandin (loosely associated with +Lefebvre) and the establishment of SSPX chapel in Toronto in the late 80s. I even attend Holy Mass at the same SSPX Church you used to attend until the Society established another Chapel further west in Southern Ontario. In my opinion, most run-of-the-mill sedevacantists are Catholics just like me, who want to get to heaven.
For the record, the CMRI whose ideas on the una-cum issue are not dogmatic represent the opinion of most Sedes unlike Bp. Sanborn et al.
Respectfully, I do not agree with your comments on the statement by Ven. Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Pius IX says “…he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.” An occult heretic -one who thinks heresies or errors in his heart - is still a member of the Church. I think you’re missing the distinction between formal public heretics which he [Pius IX] is describing in the first part of the sentence i.e. dare to express by words or writing vs. errors in one’s heart.
A good summary of this distinction is given by WMReview at URL: https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/08/16/membership-of-the-church-part-iii-profession-of-faith/
Suffice it to say, I’ll be a lifelong member of your wonderful substack.
Peter