Denis Efimov
12600
"Sedemenefreghismo" in a document by nine anonymous authors.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

The Crisis of the Church. Here is the (Temporary) Solution: "Sedemenefreghismo"

The following text, written by "The Group of the Nine" (nine Italian lay Catholics), was published on Marco Tosatti's …
Ave Crux
@Live Mike Thank you for preserving the body of the article once it was removed.
I think/agree the framing of their position as "I couldn't care less...." was a poor characterization and wording. What the entire article does say, however, is that the decisive question of whether the heresy is material or not; whether it's inveterate or not; whether all the Popes since Vatican II were guilty of …More
@Live Mike Thank you for preserving the body of the article once it was removed.

I think/agree the framing of their position as "I couldn't care less...." was a poor characterization and wording. What the entire article does say, however, is that the decisive question of whether the heresy is material or not; whether it's inveterate or not; whether all the Popes since Vatican II were guilty of formal heresy or not, etc., requires a proper juridical proceeding and pronouncement upon the matter once God ends this crisis -- and He Will (see my comments below) -- and/because the answer to that highly-debated question is presently unknowable because of the Church's juridical nature -- the Church Herself needing to examine and pronounce upon it.

Nor does the actuality (whatever that may be right now) change what we must now do as Faithful Catholics: denounce and resist, preserve and cleave to the Traditions which have been passed down to us until God intervenes.

Just the fact that there are dozens of Catholic perspectives on the matter -- all of which the article says can be validly argued -- including Cardinals against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops (Our Lady of Akita's prophecy) means that the facts of the matter (internal vs external forum; material vs. obdurate heresy, etc.) are not clear even to those with both the authority and grace of state, as well as the extensive knowledge of canon law and doctrine.

Thus, only a future juridical inquiry and proceeding in the future Church by those with the authority to do so can settle the matter definitively.

It would be hubris and self-referential (i.e. Protestant) authority to claim that we as lay people can make such a definitive proclamation ourselves -- nor do we need to!....since it wouldn't change a thing....we simply continue to denounce and resist.

In fact, even in the temporal order, every criminal has a right to be tried and examined in a court of law before being definitively declared guilty of his crimes. How much more so the Vicar(s) of Christ when the outcome will have far-reaching and consequential impact on the Universal Church.

Our Lord Jesus Christ established his Catholic Church as a juridical institution, which means that there is a hierarchical order of legal review and appropriate penalties which cannot be decided by us as laypersons, although we may certainly have opinions and convictions in the matter.

Nevertheless our opinions mean nothing and accomplish nothing until the Church herself speaks. So why let it divide the Faithful as we discuss and sort it out, waiting upon God to make all things clear at the moment He chooses?

This is the essence of the article....

And thus the article wisely observes that we ought to resist and denounce all errors and all modernist confusion (hardly an apathetic response to the crisis) while patiently awaiting the time when God will set it straight with a future Papacy and the pronouncement of anathemas against all these errors.

It would not change one iota what we are to do now as faithful Catholics. Such resistance and preservation of Tradition in our homes, our families, and local parishes is a far cry from being indifferent as we denounce and resist. In fact, it will be a form of white martyrdom....something very pleasing to God.
SHJ-IHM
@Ave Crux I was about to post my thoughts when I read your comments. Well said! The "Temporary Solution" and your comments do demonstrate a Catholic viewpoint while we wait for authoritative pronouncements. I find it surprising when opinions on the crisis are expressed with absolute certainty - and hostility towards those who disagree. No matter how confident someone is about his opinion, is it …More
@Ave Crux I was about to post my thoughts when I read your comments. Well said! The "Temporary Solution" and your comments do demonstrate a Catholic viewpoint while we wait for authoritative pronouncements. I find it surprising when opinions on the crisis are expressed with absolute certainty - and hostility towards those who disagree. No matter how confident someone is about his opinion, is it really hard to understand why confusion abounds these days? @Live Mike thanks for resurrecting the lost document.
Ave Crux
@SHJ-IHM Yes I very much agree with you because none of us -- except those charged by God with the authority, the grace of state and the divine mandate to do so when the time comes -- can claim certitude regarding the current state of the Papacy, simply because it would require a canonical inquiry involving the internal forum to determine whether the heresy is formal and obdurate, and is held in a …More
@SHJ-IHM Yes I very much agree with you because none of us -- except those charged by God with the authority, the grace of state and the divine mandate to do so when the time comes -- can claim certitude regarding the current state of the Papacy, simply because it would require a canonical inquiry involving the internal forum to determine whether the heresy is formal and obdurate, and is held in a manner that is knowingly and defiantly contrary to Church doctrine.

For example, this past month Francis sternly rebuked some Germans who left the Synod apparently because it wasn't progressive enough for them, and he told them that they risk severing themselves from the Universal Church.

This was an apparent (and rare) fit of (seeming?) "sanity" in the midst of spreading doctrinal and moral confusion for years. But it's an example of why he would need to be cross-examined to see if his adherence to apparent heresy is formal and obdurate, or simply misguided (and scandalous) interpretations of how to apply Catholic doctrine to sinners, for which he must publicly repent and make reparation.

Such inquiries are reserved for in-depth examination and proper canonical proceedings, even more so because it involves a Pope -- or several. The consequences of which are unimaginably complex and far-reaching, and would touch upon all the legislative acts of his Office, his appointments, etc. So a canonical inquiry is needed.

That is not to say that we are not obliged to denounce error and remedy it according to our capacity to do so, and to educate ourselves and be fully informed on Catholic doctrine in order not to be led astray.

We must also continue our resistance in all appropriate forms, in order to preserve that which we have received from the Church of the Ages. No Pope can force us to abandon that, and we will not.

So, as the article says by way of summary: If the See of Peter is/is not vacant, it doesn't change a thing about what we must do right now: preserve Tradition, denounce and resist heresy, and hold fast the Faith which we have received....

And we must just keep on doing it as faithful Catholics!

God will certainly make everything clear in a manner which only His Omnipotence is capable of.... at the time He has chosen to do so.

Blessed Advent....!
SHJ-IHM
Looks like it has been removed Rorate-Caeli. Was it that good?
Denis Efimov
@SHJ-IHM
It's hard to say why this happened. Perhaps they suddenly discovered that the article did not comply with their editorial policy. Or maybe they just decided to redo the publication.
Ave Crux
@SHJ-IHM: @Live Mike has reproduced it directly below.
Live Mike
Marco Tosatti
Dear friends and enemies of stilum Curiae, we offer for your attention this document on the crisis of the Church. Enjoy reading and sharing.
§§§
"SEDEMENEFREGHIST" THESIS
Aware of the unparalleled crisis that has been wounding the Church for a long time now, and noting that among the good often quarrels, divisions and interminable diatribes have for their object the state of the …More
Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of stilum Curiae, we offer for your attention this document on the crisis of the Church. Enjoy reading and sharing.
§§§

"SEDEMENEFREGHIST" THESIS

Aware of the unparalleled crisis that has been wounding the Church for a long time now, and noting that among the good often quarrels, divisions and interminable diatribes have for their object the state of the Petrine See (and of the entire Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), as private doctors (clerics and laity, theologians, philosophers, canonists, jurists and historians), we have agreed upon the following:

That there is an unparalleled crisis within the Church, that said crisis sees the genuine Catholic Tradition overwhelmed by heterodox doctrines (modernism and neo-modernism), that said crisis is a doctrinal, liturgical and moral crisis, that said crisis involves the ecclesial body (learner and teacher) all the way to the Roman See is not something to be demonstrated but only to be ascertained;
That the crisis, which also has ancient roots, in the Second Vatican Council had its turning point with the prevalence of non-Catholic thinking in the Hierarchy, up to the Roman See itself, is not something to be demonstrated but only to be ascertained;
That the new liturgy imposed by Paul VI represents an artificial construction and an objective break with the unbroken Tradition of the Church and Catholic Dogma is not something to be demonstrated but only to be ascertained;
It is the duty of every baptized person to persevere in the baptismal profession of faith, that is, in the faith of all time, in the unchanging Doctrine received from the Apostles. It is the duty of every baptized person to live and pray in conformity with the holy will of God manifested in Divine Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition);
It is the duty of every baptized person to avoid whatever may be detrimental to his or her soul, whatever poses a danger to the integrity of the faith;
Given the magnitude and gravity of the crisis and until its resolution (condemnation and expulsion from the Church of every heterodox idea, integral return to Tradition in doctrine, liturgy and customs) it is the duty of prudence to mistrust Hierarchs dominated by non-Catholic thought, as well as ecclesiastical institutions that of non-Catholic thought make themselves the instruments;
It is prudent to abide by what is certain (lex credendi, lex orandi and lex vivendi as taught from time immemorial) while suspending assent to all that is doubtful;
The faithful, cleric or layperson, is not called to examine every single teaching, every single liturgical text, every single statement of the Hierarchy for its conformity or otherwise to the Deposit of Faith. Rather, a prudential and "prophylactic" criterion should be adopted: if a non-Catholic thought has infected the Hierarchy all the way to the Roman See, one should prudentially stick to what was taught before the crisis and should suspend assent to what was taught afterwards;
Suspending assent is not "free examination" but a duty of prudence for the preservation of the faith. Suspending assent defers judgment on doctrine (of faith and/or morals) and lex orandi to the Authority of the Church. When the crisis is overcome and the Hierarchy is again certain in the orthodoxy of the faith, it is the legitimate Authority that will judge;
The crisis can be considered overcome when the Hierarchy (Pope and moral unanimity of the Bishops) teaches the same Doctrine taught by the Church uninterruptedly until the Second Vatican Council and the lex orandi of Apostolic Tradition is re-established;
Because of the involvement of the Roman See itself in the crisis, it is legitimate to question about the status of the Papal See. It is legitimate opinion that of those who consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be true Pope albeit severely heterodox. It is legitimate opinion that of those who consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio as an illegitimate occupant of the See and/or as Anti-Pope. It is legitimate opinion that of those who consider the See vacant. It is legitimate opinion that of those who consider the See only materially occupied. It is legitimate opinion that of those who read the crisis of the Roman See with the figure of the heretical Pope. It is legitimate opinion that of those who read the crisis of the Roman See with the figure of the schismatic Pope. It is also a legitimate opinion that of those who consider the co-presence of "two churches" behind the appearances of a single Church (in the post-conciliar Church there would be both the true Church of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, and a Gnostic Neo-church) with the Pope at the summit of both so that the Pope would be the Vicar of Christ but also the Head of a new faith, a new cult, a new Church. It is a legitimate opinion of those who consider the post-conciliar popes to be true popes even if marked by non-Catholic thought.
As for point 11, they are mutually irreconcilable opinions therefore they cannot all be true, only one can be the true one. To judge which one is the true one can only be the Supreme Authority of the Church. Until the Supreme Authority of the Church, when the crisis is resolved, has judged, they all remain mere opinions, legitimate and disputable;
As mere opinions, none of them, while legitimately tenable, can be certain criteria for dealing with the crisis;
Inasmuch as only the Supreme Authority of the Church is entitled to judge the question concerning the See, developing/supporting one thesis or the other will inevitably be an exercise destined for non-solution. The question of the See is destined to remain open, unresolved until the end of the crisis, until a certain judgment by the Supreme Authority;
Diversity of opinion about the See can never be a cause for division since these are disputable opinions and not certain truths;
Whatever the opinion about the See, in view of the established crisis (also of the Roman See and of the entire Hierarchy) the prudential attitude must still be that of suspending assent, pending the end of the crisis.
Let this thesis of ours be given the name "sedemenefreghism" in the double meaning of:
"I don't give a damn" about the question of Sede as a question that is unsolvable by us and therefore unnecessary to pose;
"I don't give a damn" about what emanates from the See insofar as those who sit (legitimately or illegitimately, only materially or even formally, de facto or de jure is a disputed matter) on the See are dominated by non-Catholic thought and therefore prudentially not to be listened to.
- The Group of Nine
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Live Mike
I disagree with the apparent apathy, indifference, passiveness contained in the text.
Denis Efimov
@Live Mike
Yes, the title "I don't give a damn" (Italian: "me ne frego"), in my opinion, suggests indifference. It seems to me that the name (and the position itself) should not reflect a I-couldn't-care-less attitude.
Although the content of the article itself is interesting.
This article was published on Rorate Caeli by Peter Kwasniewski. And now the article has been deleted for some reason.
Ave Crux
THIS IS FANTASTIC..... It is exactly the position I have tried to share on occasion here in discussion; but lacking the giftedness of this writer, I have only explained in a very superficial way.
1) We recognize the very real and universal crisis in the Church
2) We repudiate, condemn and refute the errors, as well as those who profess them.
3) We hold fast to the Faith of the Ages and pass it on …More
THIS IS FANTASTIC..... It is exactly the position I have tried to share on occasion here in discussion; but lacking the giftedness of this writer, I have only explained in a very superficial way.

1) We recognize the very real and universal crisis in the Church

2) We repudiate, condemn and refute the errors, as well as those who profess them.

3) We hold fast to the Faith of the Ages and pass it on in every way possible

4) We absolutely ignore and dissent from all suppression of Holy Tradition, whether doctrinal or liturgical, and simply continue to believe and to worship as the Church always has, certain we cannot be mistaken in doing what the Church has always believed and done for 2,000 years

5) We AWAIT the intervention of God to finally bring a close to this crisis, at which time a duly seated Supreme Authority will declare all the crimes of this present crisis anathema and make clear the full scope, reach and timeline of the crisis.

6) and until this Divine intervention is manifest, we can never be certain what the true status of the Holy See is at this time (while any number of scenarios seem possible).....because only a future Supreme Authority within the Church will have the juridical power and authority to pronounce definitively upon it....

7) Thus, we simply cleave to all the riches of the inheritance which is ours from the Church of the Ages, holding fast in the boat while the storm rages all around us, with our dear Blessed Lord seemingly asleep....

But we can be assured He will one day arise and rebuke the storm saying "Peace, be still....!!!" And as He did with His disciples, he will ask us "Why are you fearful? Have you not yet faith...?"
Credo .
Excellent critique! - 😍