Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 34480 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #245 on:** March 14, 2012, 08:37:36 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!

The Mass Media didn't really say a word about the SSPX either, until Bishop Williamson's remarks on the h0Ɩ0h0αx. And Fellay's attempts at a "reconciliation" with Rome is giving them attention from the media, because selling out to Rome would be the media's dream come true!

Busillis · « **Reply #246 on:** March 16, 2012, 07:46:51 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Busillis
Yep.

Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?

Well Busillis, I don't think a SV needs to elect a pope after coming to their conclusion. He only recognizes things as he see them, but needing to elect a pope is not part of the opinion or a requirement of submitting to it. Also, and I hope I'm not mistaken, the authority for SV is the same as that of those who reject the Modernists- it comes from supplied jurisdiction.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Busillis
Why haven't they elected a pope?

Laypeople cannot elect a Pope.

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Busillis
Quote from: s2srea
You see, I think a major issue with SVism is the depth of theology it dives into; or perhaps the issues is not with SVism, but most SVists failing to understand a few key points.

This type of theological conversation is not really proper, much less required, for Joe Catholic. To discuss Cannon law, Church history, and advanced theological teachings, which were never really meant for anyone, not even yourselves, but for theologians of the Church, never has been, is not now, and never will be the responsibility of the average laity; and this is where I think many SVists fail.

Yep.

Sedevacantists criticize the right things, but where's their authority? Why haven't they elected a pope?

Busillis, sedevacantists are not such a group as to refer to "them" as doing something all together at once. Yet, some will criticize that fact and say they have no "unity". It's just like my previous post about accusations of being too simple or being too complicated! The true Church down through the ages has always shown a non-substantial disagreement among Her theologians whenever there was a crisis. Paradoxically, this is always the Mystical Body sorting out the truth leading finally to a conclusion. Things don't just instantly happen like your microwave oven today!

Where is the "authority", you ask? Read the second to the last chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" and you will find out that reason, enlightened by faith is a true authority. The sedevacantists have that.

Why haven't they elected a pope? Some have tried to, which is expected in any terrible crisis. More than most are totally against such a thing because they know that only the people of the Roman province have the right to elect their Bishop. Yes, laymen are allowed to participate, but it always involves Roman clergy.

Thanks for the replies. I suppose my misgivings about sedevacantism partially arise from the feeling that it's too morbid. I'm already at the fringes of society in the way I think, but embracing the sedevacantist view would alienate me even further.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #247 on:** March 16, 2012, 09:22:29 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: katholikos
If the SSPX were sedevacantist, the New Church would seriously risk being exposed for the charlatan institution it is. More and more people could be converted to the True Faith

I'm not so sure. Sedevacantists are labeled as crazy by the NO church (as are all Trads for that matter). So I'm not sure the number of Trads would increase if the SSPX went sede. It would be much better than the state the Society is in now though (refering to Bishop Fellay's attempt at reconciliation).

It would be contingent on the Mass Media. They are the ones that suppress or give focus to a cause. Right now they are the ones really responsible for making the SSPX be the ones to "represent" traditional Catholicism, while they purposely keep the sedevacantist cause out of the public mind. We know WHY they do that! It is really testimony that the Freemasons know what cause REALLY exposes the global anti-christian agenda!

Katholikos is right about "risk" but not necessarily "serious risk", because the Mass Media has so much control. However, they don't have that much control of the Internet, and I think Katholikos may very well be exactly right because the Internet is unwieldy for the Freemasons of the Mass Media. They have created a monster they cannot control.

The Key issue in all of this is how best to preserve the Faith as handed down by Christ to the Apostles and guarded by the Holy Ghost since the First Pentecost Sunday.

I see a lot of back and forth about who is right and who is wrong about who is obedient and who isnt - about The Legitimacy of Vatican II Popes - or the question of how can there be a true Pope or then how can a sedevacantist group ever elect a true Pope to which the obvious simple answer is - with GOD all things are possible. My answer is simple - Who limits GOD? Do we not all claim to believe in GOD Almighty? So , does that sound altruistic or does that sound too simplistic? Am I bold enough to say for certain the "Thesis of Cassiciacuм" has more merit than the theological stance of sedevacantism or the ongoing argument regarding "Baptism of Desire" being invalid or am I to say the Dimonds are too rigid in their interpretation and insistance of its exclusion and everyone else is a "HERETIC" To me - the Traditional movement is its own worst enemy. Or as Dr Drolesky is fond of saying - Bishop Pivarunas is WRONG About this or that etc etc etc .

So in keeping with the subject matter of your post - the Masons can indeed and do indeed exploit these divisions to their advantage and rather than combat them by providing a united front - we instead spend our time divided and weak. Now , as for the Novus Ordo and their perception of the Traditional Movement - to me thats a non issue. I believe the lions share of the Conservative Novus Ordo hate the changes but feel they must obey. In a lot of ways that is commendable. So there is middle ground. We simple choose to ignore that middle ground. The left wing Novus Ordo is probably not Catholic anyway - so why worry about what they think.

What we lack as Catholics - is a common united front. Certainly in Tradition - from the time of Pope Pius the 12th back - we have the foundation for that United Front. Perhaps the answer lies in a new Marian Movement of Laity. If we form a Marian Society - free to all Traditional Catholics - regardless of whether or not they are SSPX or Sedevacantist or SSPV or Dimond or even Conservative Novus Ordo and we actually decide to practise what we all claim to believe in and dedicate the rest of our lives in solving the division through spiritual action - are we then to despair and say its impossible or are we going to take action and rid ourselves of the very thing used to exploit us - our self division.

A Common Ground can be found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For make no mistake - there is division not merely because of human activity - but the war is being fought in the spiritual realm as well. If we hope to win - we need to fight in both simultaneously.

Pax

Busillis · « **Reply #248 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:26:04 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Busillis
Thanks for the replies. I suppose my misgivings about sedevacantism partially arise from the feeling that it's too morbid. I'm already at the fringes of society in the way I think, but embracing the sedevacantist view would alienate me even further.

A real shame that you consider feelings to be such a misgiving as to trump truth. For truth we should give our very lives, never mind suffer the inconvenience of initial unpleasant feelings. The Holy Scriptures predicted the Antichrist would decieve most Catholics around the world. Those who resist the deception will undergo inconveniences and sufferings to save their souls.

I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.

katholikos · « **Reply #249 on:** March 17, 2012, 08:46:32 AM »

Quote from: Busillis

I didn't say I was convinced of the truth of sedevacantism. If I was I would have that viewpoint, whether it displeased me or not. I'm just entertaining the idea that it is the correct way to view the situation in the Church, and if it is that would be depressing. I want to feel I have finally arrived at the truth of things, and to realize I still may have stages to go is painful, since I've already experienced many trials.

Busillis, I encourage you to read the following transcribed talk by John Daly, given in 2002, entitled "The Impossible Crisis":

http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis

I have yet to see a single Novus Ordo or SSPX apologist even attempt to refute this argument-at-large.

The nice part about this type of argument is that it does not require anyone to detect, suspect, or judge anyone else of being a heretic. Not that that would be unreasonable, but since a lot of people seem "uncomfortable" with that, this argument presented here totally avoids that whole problem, and establishes sedevacantism while refuting the "recognize but resist" position, the Novus Ordo position, and also, in the same breaths, the errors of Feeneyism.

Another easy-to-follow essay is "Resistance and Indefectibility" by Fr. Donald Sanborn (1991):

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10

Here, then-Fr. Sanborn analyzes the 3 main positions that have been advanced to deal with the situation since 1958: indult, SSPX, and sedevacantism. Fantastic read, good summary, level-headed analysis.

Also, a good "reality check" for the "resisters" (indult & SSPX) is presented in "Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the 'Restoration of Tradition'":

http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm

It is a great read, an informative essay about Vatican II, the New Church, the SSPX, Catholic principles, the bogus "Restoration of Tradition" advanced by The Remnant, manifest heresy, and the real Benedict.

At the end of the day, we must face reality as it is. We cannot begin with a desired conclusion and then try to find a way to "reason" ourselves to this conclusion. In all this turmoil, let us never despair but trust and hope in God, who foreknew and allowed this entire "situation" from all eternity, and certainly knows how and when to end it. Let us be grateful that we have been chosen to be a part of it, to be allowed to suffer through this, for His Holy Church and in penance for our manifold sins.