REPLY TO A SEDEVACANTIST AND THOSE TOYING WITH THIS DANGEROUS ERROR I received a letter in a mass mailing to Karl Keating, Akin, Staples, and others, from one Matthew Haltom, who was parroting the false notions put out by Steven Speray, a sedevacantist (i.e., one -- ostensibly Catholic -- who believes there is no sitting pope). I was specifically mentioned, in hopes of provoking me to a reply: Included in the email is your friend, Dave Armstrong, who has written about radical traditionalists in his book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries. Is it because he also doesn’t have an answer that this subject is absent from Armstrong’s book? I replied: No. Its because Armstrong doesnt waste his time debating wrongheaded, legalistic, Pharisaical silliness, and this wasnt (technically) what my book was about. Rather, it dealt with the overall quasi-schismatic spirit involved in the radical Catholic reactionary movement. But I dont expect one out of a hundred radical Catholic reactionaries to grasp that fundamental point of my approach. No skin off my back. But Im not trying to persuade folks like you anyway. Im -- realistically -- trying (as in most of my apologetics efforts) to persuade folks on the fence who are being taken in by your errors and falsehoods. P. S. If you had made any attempt to even understand my reasoning in this book and related books and papers of mine, youd know that I no longer use the term radical traditionalist: precisely because its an insult to legitimate, mainstream traditionalists. You cite the older terminology as if I used it in my book, when in fact, it no longer appears there at all, except in explaining why I no longer use it. Thanks for the amusement, anyway . . . In Christ & His One True Church, Dave He replied (in quotation marks below), and I briefly counter-replied: 1. So you do have an answer, and although there are persuadable folks on the email list(s), you won’t give it. So you really don’t have an answer. There are always answers to errors; of course. But sometimes it is the case that one gets engaged in a stupid controversy that St. Paul urges us to avoid. I guard the stewardship of my time very closely, since the harvest is ripe and the laborers are few. I could go round and round all day long with fools, but what would be accomplished? 2. Which of the facts I listed, and the inescapable conclusion they point to, are you saying are false? As I said, I dont argue with fools; yet you forge right ahead; thus proving yet again that this is an absurd exchange. 3. You agree with the V2 popes teaching that the Church is made up of formal heretics and formal heresy; and you dissent against the First Vatican Council. See the previous comment. I dissent against no teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. May God help you, And you. God bless and be well. Another person on the mailing list then wrote to me: You said to Matt Haltom, Im -- realistically -- trying (as in most of my apologetics efforts) to persuade folks on the fence who are being taken in by your errors and falsehoods. What are Matt Haltoms errors and falsehoods? You havent once in these email conversations stated what they are. You just go on stating that he and people like him are fools etc. If he is a fool then why dont you try to help him in Christian Charity to understand where you are coming from? After all he is asking you questions cordially and you seem to be the one who is acting pharisaical and wrongheaded in your approach even going so far as to asking him along with a few others to be deleted from the conversation. Maybe Im one of those people on the fence that you are trying to persuade, but so far you have not persuaded me to believe what you are saying. Instead your language turns me off, although I will give you benefit of the doubt if you give some good solid answers to his questions and Steve Speray whom he quotes. I replied (to this person alone): I understand what you are saying. From where you sit it seems arrogant and insulting to refuse to answer the questions asked. Yet no one is under any obligation to answer any and all questions from everyone. Biblically speaking, there comes a time when one must refrain from interaction. St. Paul says that it is when a discussion becomes futile or senseless or stupid (depending on Bible translation). In my case, this is not some new thing. Ive been dealing off and on (mostly off) with radical Catholic reactionaries for 17 years online. One detects patterns and likelihoods after a while. If a person sees that the discussions are relentlessly futile and never achieve anything, then it is rational (and in some sense, required in terms of stewardship of time) to not interact with the ones who act in such a fashion. Ive found this to be true not just with those on the far right of the ecclesiastical spectrum, but also with anti-Catholic Protestants and Orthodox, radical feminists and Marxists, and the sort of atheist who is typified by anger and distortion of Christian teachings. The radical Catholic reactionary is characterized by the desire to engage in hyper-legalistic discussion, which I find highly akin to the pharisaical mindset in Scripture. In a nutshell, they miss the forest for the trees. I dont play that game; just as Jesus largely didnt play it with the Pharisees; He simply denounced them, because He knew there was almost no chance that He could persuade them out of their errors. Here are eight Bible passages that recommend ceasing discussion or involvement with divisive people: 1) 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (RSV, as are all) I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; [10] not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [11] But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you. 2) Romans 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 3) 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 20 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, [5] and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. . . . [20] O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, 4) 2 Timothy 2:14-17 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. [16] Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 5) 2 Timothy 3:2-9 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; [9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. 6) Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. [10] As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. 7) Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you. 8) Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Steven Speray is a sedevacantist, which is extremely serious error. That particular mindset is obstinate and not open to the reasonableness of opposing positions. Thus, I dont waste time trying to interact with it, not because I am a chicken or unable or uncharitable, but because there is virtually no hope of success. Its a complete waste of time. Those who are in this camp tend to drift further and further right, until they are scarcely Catholics or Christians at all anymore. Hence, Gerry Matatics, one of the most famous sedevacantists of our time, has now gone even beyond that position, to one where he thinks there are hardly any valid Masses being celebrated anywhere. Therefore, he no longer attends Mass / church on Sunday. This ought to be a big warning to anyone caught up in these errors. I offer a collection of seven papers that refute sedevacantism: socrates58.blogspot/2011/05/catholic-resources-for-refuting-grave.html If you want to consider both sides of that issue with an open mind, feel free. For my part, I have written two books about the errors of radical Catholic reactionaryism: socrates58.blogspot/2006/07/books-by-dave-armstrong-pensees-on.html socrates58.blogspot/2012/12/books-by-dave-armstrong-mass-movements.html I also have a large web page dealing with the same issues: socrates58.blogspot/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html I am not duty-bound to discuss the issues in depth with anyone and everyone who asks me about it. Ive already done this massive amount of work and have many other things to do and to defend. I hope this reply is more agreeable to you, and acceptable in an explanatory sense, (agree or disagree). God bless, Dave
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:21:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015