Author Topic: A Letter Regarding The SSPX's Troublesome Position (Read 2484 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:28:10 AM »

There are many sedevacantists on here who fit this description:

Sede: Do you eat animals?
Matthew: Well, some.
Sede: It's a yes or no question!
Matthew: Yes.
Sede: Ugh! How can you gulp down snakes, toads, worms...
Matthew: I didn't say I eat everything that moves! I eat meat from pigs, cows...
Sede: Oh, quit doing intellectual somersaults. Don't twist your mind with such mental gymnastics. Keep it simple. You admit you eat animals, and animals includes bald eagles, does it not?
Matthew: Yes...
Sede: So you are a lousy bald eagle eater! I can't believe it. Don't worry, I'm not going to call the cops today, but I'm giving you a friendly warning that you'd better stop.
Matthew: You're insane.
Sede: Ad-hominem! I understand that I'm tweaking your conscience, but I have to. For the good of all God's creatures, especially the endangered ones.

Sedevacantism (tm): Because distinguishing is just too hard!

SJB · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:39:30 AM »

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:43:24 AM »

He's presuming normal circuмstances; i.e. a pope not infected by the errors of Modernism.

Quote

one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope.

How about...other popes? Like, all of them? St. Pius X could never have DREAMED we'd be in a situation like today, where you have to PICK -- the last few popes, or all the popes and councils that came before them!

To be honest, I wasn't including you in the above Sede criticism, but nevertheless the quote doesn't apply, SJB.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:51:14 AM »

Is that the crux of the issue with you Sedes? You think one cannot disagree with the pope?

You think that if you DON'T DENY the Pope's office, then you must blindly follow everything he does, both good and bad? Things he is allowed to do as pope, as well as things not lawful?

You realize, of course, that a Pope could theoretically step outside his authority, by commanding you to do something damaging to your faith, for example. That would be a command without authority.

I know some of you would say, "How could a POPE be damaging to your Faith?" and I don't have the answer. This Crisis was not of my choosing -- it has come to us by God's permission.

The strange thing is, once the Sedes deny the pope, they are left just as clueless as the non-Sedes -- regarding "how does this mess get cleaned up", "what do we do", "how did this happen" -- which is why there are countless answers for each of those questions in the Sedevacantist as well as the non-Sedevacantist world.

Matthew

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:55:27 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

He's presuming normal circuмstances; i.e. a pope not infected by the errors of Modernism.

What you are saying is the pope infected with heresy. Modernism is a heresy as defined by this very pope!

Quote

To be honest, I wasn't including you in the above Sede criticism, but nevertheless the quote doesn't apply, SJB.

I didn't think you were. However, the quote does raise some serious questions for those who dogmatically hold these men to be true popes.

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:01:43 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

The strange thing is, once the Sedes deny the pope, they are left just as clueless as the non-Sedes -- regarding "how does this mess get cleaned up", "what do we do", "how did this happen" -- which is why there are countless answers for each of those questions in the Sedevacantist as well as the non-Sedevacantist world.

Ahhhh, so you admit you are clueless! :smile:

Nobody has all the answers and the solution. Agreed.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:05:43 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Is that the crux of the issue with you Sedes? You think one cannot disagree with the pope?

Aren't you doing here what you just accused others of doing? There are areas when one can disagree with the pope. There are areas where one cannot disagree with the pope. Knowing where those boundries lie is the question, isn't it?

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:08:46 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Matthew
The strange thing is, once the Sedes deny the pope, they are left just as clueless as the non-Sedes -- regarding "how does this mess get cleaned up", "what do we do", "how did this happen" -- which is why there are countless answers for each of those questions in the Sedevacantist as well as the non-Sedevacantist world.

Ahhhh, so you admit you are clueless! :smile:

Nobody has all the answers and the solution. Agreed.

But here's the good part: my saying that doesn't make me a hypocrite, nor does it contradict anything I've said on here or done in my personal life.

I, unlike CM and others like him, am not dogmatic regarding this crisis. There are no dogmas that came into being along with this crisis.

That's why I allow sedevacantists on here in the first place. I can step outside of myself long enough to see how someone could come to such a conclusion. I can be objective.

What I can't "excuse" is crass pride, rash judgment, etc.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:09:53 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Matthew
Is that the crux of the issue with you Sedes? You think one cannot disagree with the pope?

Aren't you doing here what you just accused others of doing? There are areas when one can disagree with the pope. There are areas where one cannot disagree with the pope. Knowing where those boundries lie is the question, isn't it?

Your point is not very clear. I seem to have missed it completely.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:54:09 AM »

Wondering/worrying about how the various wounds will be healed is, IMO, a bit of a distraction, getting ahead of ourselves, etc.

If I am sick, the most useful thing I can do is ascertain, to the best of my limited ability (with the help of an available, trustworthy physician), the exact nature of my illness.

There are those among us who seek to sow discord, rendering effective resistance morally impossible. IMO, such agents, whether conscious or otherwise, are present in ALL of the "camps" -- this is the tried and true MO of those who helped initiate this mess in the first place.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:00:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The strange thing is, once the Sedes deny the pope, they are left just as clueless as the non-Sedes -- regarding "how does this mess get cleaned up", "what do we do", "how did this happen"...

This is not "strange" at all. Saying the See of Peter is presently empty is a conclusion about where we stand at the moment -- not an attempt to figure out where we go from here.

Whether a man says, "BXVI is the Pope" or "BXVI is not the Pope", neither statement should be taken as an attempt to figure out how to resolve the larger mess, the (general) reality of which is NOT disputed.

IMO, those of us who reject/resist the NOM, etc., are agreed that the religion presently being pushed from Rome is NOT Catholicism. That is why we do what we do.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:05:33 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

If I am sick, the most useful thing I can do is ascertain, to the best of my limited ability (with the help of an available, trustworthy physician), the exact nature of my illness.

Ideally, the physician is of unquestionably good will and quite learned, experienced, etc. If such is the case, he can ascertain what is wrong, taking the necessary measures to bring me back to health. In such a scenario, I just have to accept his counsel, etc.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:30:08 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Matthew
Is that the crux of the issue with you Sedes? You think one cannot disagree with the pope?

Aren't you doing here what you just accused others of doing? There are areas when one can disagree with the pope. There are areas where one cannot disagree with the pope. Knowing where those boundries lie is the question, isn't it?

Your point is not very clear. I seem to have missed it completely.

That's because you're clueless. But let me try again. :smile:

Quote from: Matthew

There are many sedevacantists on here who fit this description:

Sede: Do you eat animals?
Matthew: Well, some.
Sede: It's a yes or no question!
Matthew: Yes.
Sede: Ugh! How can you gulp down snakes, toads, worms...
Matthew: I didn't say I eat everything that moves! I eat meat from pigs, cows...
Sede: Oh, quit doing intellectual somersaults. Don't twist your mind with such mental gymnastics. Keep it simple. You admit you eat animals, and animals includes bald eagles, does it not?
Matthew: Yes...
Sede: So you are a lousy bald eagle eater! I can't believe it. Don't worry, I'm not going to call the cops today, but I'm giving you a friendly warning that you'd better stop.
Matthew: You're insane.
Sede: Ad-hominem! I understand that I'm tweaking your conscience, but I have to. For the good of all God's creatures, especially the endangered ones.

Sedevacantism (tm): Because distinguishing is just too hard!

Maybe a distinction between the types of mistakes a pope can in fact make. The pope cannot err in faith and morals...so you mean the pope can't make any mistakes, right? That's what I mean...can you see it now?

Author Topic: A Letter Regarding The SSPX&#039;s Troublesome Position (Read 2484 times)

Author Topic: A Letter Regarding The SSPX's Troublesome Position (Read 2484 times)