I think more than only the Pope should as open to dialogue with schismatics and sedevacantists as with Protestants and the Orthodox churches

[foolishmortal]

I think we should be as ecumenical with other Catholics in our thoughts. You hear on EWTN about something great a Protestant wrote or said, but nothing positive and educational said by an SSPX person. EWTN people should not let the Pope be the only one opening up dialogue with schismatics and sedevacantists. They should help us warm up o them as well. Yeah, the SSPX should know better, but they are like Orthodox Christians (at least the original one as I don’t know if the Russian, Coptic, etc. ones are as recognized as apostolic) in just being illicit, and the sedevacantists are in modern times, what Protestants were in the 1500s. Those Protestants thought they picked up a fallen torch as well from a perceived fallen church, though the sedevacantists and the modern schismatics, never saw themselves as outside the Church. At least the sedevacantists and schismatics haven’t killed anyone or spread their errors pandemically over their differences with those sticking with the Magisterium and they hold to Church teaching on more things than most Catholics. Reuniting with them would be like upping your GPA with an A- test (mistakes would be made in parts of charity, but the Masses done without innovations will repair much damage). We shouldn’t give Protestants the most favored outside group status over ones who are still Catholic.

 

[JimB]

Yes, we should talk. The problem in talking to sedevacantists is that they don’t want (at least publicly) to talk with the Church.

Think about it - if your position is that the Chair of Peter is empty, that all the popes since 1958 are hertics and the current rites of ordination (for priest and bishop) are invalid then from the sedevacantist position there is no one to talk to.

 

[Keepthefaith07]

Yes, we should talk. The problem in talking to sedevacantists is that they don’t want (at least publicly) to talk with the Church.

I believe he mentioned the SSPX as well. I'm sure you are well aware that the SSPX are not sedevacantists. Probably just an oversight on your part I take it.

 

[Sir_Anthony]

I sometimes wonder this too, I support dialogue extensively with the Orthodoxs because at least the theology is practically the same and actual unity is possible when pride is put aside. Protestants though they are so different in theology that I think we should focus less on these joint theological statements and stuff, and when we work with the Protestants it should be more for humanitarian and Christian solidiary purposes. Like sometimes I feel that the Church has lost the missonary zeal, the arugmental zeal, where are the St. Athanasius of today or the real St. Francis (you know challenging moslem clerics to trial by fire and stuff, not the Spirit of Assisi that is promoted today). Like I can understand giving bread crumbs to moslems and buddhists, and hindus as the Church tries at least to limit prevent the persecution that goes on in those countries. I just wonder what some of the Early Church Fathers would have thought about this current situation.

 

[foolishmortal]

I think protestants think the same as sedevacvantists, because they’re all sedevacantists. The Protestants just recognize he is the leader of the Catholic Church, but that’s about it. They may talk, but do they listen? A relative handful do, but more than a handful of Catholics leave or are the liberal version of the SSPX, the SOM “Society of Me”. The rad trads (non-Ecclesia Dei kind) and obedient kind know about language, borders, and culture. We should use M. Savage’s motto and take it to heart. Just be nice to those of other faiths as fellow children of God, maybe have one or two as friends if you are unwavering (though you may be tempted not to evangelize when you should) and that’s it. Why are Protestant works, deemed safe for us, promoted by EWTN shows and not schismatic works?

I think this whole business about ways of being saved outside the Church shot a hole in our mission to evangelize. Without Holy Confession, non-Catholics need perfect contrition, and that’s not a movement of the intellect. That is not addressed enough. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and those Protestants who try to convert us, thinking we are going to hell for what they perceive as false worship, have it right, regarding the drive to save souls (even though, for the latter, I thought it was belief in Jesus). From what I’ve heard, the Jehovah’s Witnesses may have the better attitude as a whole, but then, I’ve never had a theological conversation with one. I am no theologian, anyway.

 

[jim28]

I think this whole business about ways of being saved outside the Church shot a hole in our mission to evangelize.

This point here is the real issue behind it all.
Without a line like “If you are not Baptized with water and believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches or at least don’t disagree with Her teachings, you will go to Hell”, there is no deep down reason for becoming a Catholic.
Now days, the vatican ii “church” teaches you don’t even need to be Catholic to be saved. Why would I convert to your “church”.
They teach that jews, protestants, and orthodox need not be proselytized. They teach that muslims worship the same God that Catholics do and will be judged by this god on the Last Day. Catholics should know that Jesus will judge us.
They teach that hindus can achieve the highest form of illumination by staying in hinduism.
If one adds to this homosexual and pedophile “priests”, lax moral standards like NFP and pre-marital sex, etc… there is really no appeal to become part of the vatican ii sect.
Anybody who is being drawn by God to the Holy Catholic Church, they get to see this “church” who really doesn’t care, or even appears to care about souls and their salvation.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Show me where the appeal is.