Veritatis,
It appears that you are one of a group with a fairly large representation around here: the easily triggered, with chips on their shoulders and points to prove.
Since "cheerio" doesn't mean "goodbye" as I thought, I'll try to clear the air a bit with you.
Zapalena is an author with a quote that I wanted to use to make a point. Fr. Chazal happens to have written a book that I am reading from which I lifted the quote, and was mentioned by way of attribution of the quote, nothing more. Apparently, since the Zapalena quote refers to "visibility" of the Church, and Fr. Chazal is ant-Sedevacantist, you saw "Zapalena," "visibility" and "Fr. Chazal" and your Sedevacantist sensibilities suspected an anti-Sedevacantist polemic and you went into your default mode of argumentation and confrontation against anti-Sedevacantist sentiment. Perhaps I was wrong in sensing that, but your comparison of the "visibility" of the Catholic Church with the visibility of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan or a VFW - a VFW? - particularly in the context of my remarks about the "temple of God" and 2 Thessalonians I took to be purposely ridiculous, and hence my response.
I intended no negative commentary on Sedevacantism by the mere mention of Zapalena, visibility and Fr. Chazal. Indeed the occupation of the seat of Peter and the edifices of the Church by these interlopers arguably and reasonably supports Sede claims.
I take it you disagree with my point. That's fine. I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.
I say "cheerio" and mean it in this thread. Take the last shot.
DR
PS- I belive TKGS is Sedevacantist. I believe you are misreading him as well; perhaps not. Take care.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply.
For what it is or is not worth, I am not actually sedevacantist. I believe that the commonly-understood versions of both sedevacantism AND sedeplenism are overly-simplistic and utterly fail to adequately address/explain the current situation. What is more, I believe our understanding of the Divine promise to be with the Church all days is likely radically flawed. How? Well, the Master really and truly died -- something no one would've thought possible until it actually happened. Even then, those present apparently failed to process the magnitude of events -- the Blessed Virgin excepted. If the Church relives His life, as many learned and holy people have said over the millenia, then perhaps Her death is somehow not inconsistent with the Divine promise. Christ died, but His Divinity remained united to both His Body AND His Soul, despite the two being separated. Countless intelligent men of good-will have spoken of this time being Holy Church's passion, etc., but none seems to draw the logical conclusion -- that She will also die and will be, like Her Master and Spouse, resurrected by power which is unquestionably Divine.
I had no doubt about the background of Zapalena, but he is far from what anyone would style an authority. Not a big deal; just saying. My only issue was the concept of a necessarily universal visibility. What does that even mean? Is mere visibility not enough? Holy Church was truly visible from Pentecost onward, despite the fact that most of the world was clueless as to what was happening.
Misreading anyone via such a limited medium is all too easy, but I do not think TKGS' comment was anything other than a dig at the exchange between myself and Lad. I suppose we shall see, should clarification be forthcoming.
Thank you again for the thoughtful comment. Godspeed.
Topic: Did this priest commit an act of schism? (Read 3753 times)