Apparently no one informed him that all the canonized Saints, have spoken in favor of the Sedevacantist position. So yeah, they are totally insane and ridiculous for thinking the very same thing we are saying... Go figure, with that sort of twisted false dichotomy that he makes. Schismatics groups that are not in "full communion", now I am pretty surprised he chose to use that term! That term is no where to be found in pre-Vatican II magisterial teaching, there is no such thing as a partial Catholic. God knows when someone is cut off from the faith, now for some of us it might be hard to form a definitive judgment on some folks who might be Catholics or not. We always should err on the safe side, but my point is that he has fully bought into the whole Hermeneutic of continuity which thank God, even the Neo-SSPX rejects. That notion is absurd, heretical, and it is even more wicked than the sodomite approving doctrines of Bergoglio. The main reason why, is it contains so many half-truths and it is more likely to deceive the faithful.
Saints vs Voris: 1000-0
I love how he recognizes that it is precisely the simple of faith, who have the most serious doubts. I completely agree, for it is the only the most proud individuals that I know, who feign that Vatican II is in perfect continuity with the previous magisterium. It is also such an extreme darkened intellect that can think a nuclear explosion is nothing to fret about. It really proves how it is not to the wise that God gives wisdom, but to the little ones. Only with my first Holy communion catechism, I had come to the conclusion that these men are not Catholic and therefore had no authority. Absolutely no one, had to tell me anything. I dare any of you to teach word for word any approved Catechism, and then after show that child videos of Assisi. See what they might respond to you, I think you will be pleasantly surprised how many young sedevacantists you have... It took me several years of contradictory statements, taking out of context theologians etc... In order for me to come out of it, if it was not for the grace of God. I thank God every single day, for giving such clarity about these things. I personally think Bergoglio is the answer to our prayers, seriously. I see him as our cheerleader of our cause. I honestly don't need to do anything, he is our best witness.
Now in the future I don't have to worry about these things (if I wanted to), and focus more on how I can best preserve the gift of faith in the modern world. One thing I might do is to move to a better location in the future, where I can have a priest more accesible all the time etc... I emphasize this as a benefit of knowing the truth, once you know the truth you can be able to discern what to do next. However, when you are totally ignorant there is simply nothing you can do, until you get out of that false position. You are at the mercy of pure heretics, some of them are more pernicious than others, but nevertheless over time the faith completely corrodes. No false prophets/shepherds will ever deceive me again, because I am rooted in the Thomist positions which Holy Mother Church has given to us as our philosophical weapons in our age of rampant atheism/agnosticism. No need to waste my time in the indult, so many graces I have missed, because of not knowing the true posiiton. I would do everything so different, it really makes a big difference. No one can give you back the wasted time, but I know now where to concentrate my efforts. To those on the fence on these issues, it makes sense to settle these issues and sometimes it can take a while, but I would advice you that it is not good for the intellect to be stuck in an eternal state of skepticism on either side.
Bad theology leaves you more confused than you started. Which is why the more I asked, the more confused I was with the harder subjects. Good theology, helps you settle your intellect to an object of Divine and Catholic faith. This is why as a sedeplenist I simply could not answer many questions, and I had to leave them open-ended, because quite frankly there was and could not be an answer within that framework. I tried my very best to ask the most learned people I knew (the best priests in the SSPX), went online, read entire books cover to cover for years. Their answers were mostly dodging the main issues at hand, and the reason why it was important to me. Why should I have to seek my sacraments outside of the ordinary, if there is someone who is authentically Catholic within the Conciliar structure?
Anyone who has read my previous posts will know that the list is indeed larger than what I have given below, but these are a few conundrums that it was impossible to get a good answer.
1) Joint declarations with the Lutherans, Anglicans, Oriental orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and many other sects (another one that leaves you stumped)
2) Annulment issue (this is a killer)
3) Communicatio in sacris, in the new Code
4) Council of Trent, contra the Novus Ordo anathematizing those who hold that the approved Rites of the Church can be incentives of impiety, or that the vernacular is to be celebrated and a host of other canons that directly anathematize the New mass, some others are more implicit.
5) Canonizations, I never accepted the SSPX position on canonizations. Ever. None of the material they presented to me was theological, it was all based on the "changed" method of canonizing. Which doesn't make sense, because the modern rules for canonizing were not developed until the year circa 1000. So are we to cast doubt, to all the previous canonizations, because they did not have advocatus diabolus etc...
6) Lifting excommunications (I dont mean the SSPX, I mean the Orthoducks) of heretical schismatics, that neither made an abjuration of error or repented in the least. In fact they are even more bold in their heresies, now they demand that Catholics not ever proselytize.
7) The notion of State of Emergency, can only be properly understood if these men indeed had no authority. Without that fundamental premise, it is theologically impossible to defend the notion in theology. Just look at the other cases of Campos, the Redemptorists and all those men that went back with Rome, had to do precisely with this problem.
The SSPX is more concerned with how many chapels they make, and it seems like they just want to keep putting off the question forever. Its understandable when you are starting, but 50 years after the fact is a bit long... Its ultimately not about the profession of the true faith, but rather its simply about getting men in cassocks. If all we needed was just sacraments, we can just ordain left and right people of good moral character, single and those who promise celibacy. This is of course the main thing many modernists have been arguing for a long time, that there are not enough priest and in order to meet the demand. We should just expand the pool of candidates, but what the modernists never understood is that the amount of priests we have is not the important thing. Is whether those priest profess the true faith, for if they do not, then they are ravenous wolves and nothing is worse in this world than a bad priest/bishop. I think sometimes within our epikea framework, people simply focus WAY too much on chapels instead of the faith. Just get any traditional mass, and don't worry about anything else. Well if that was just the problem, why not just go with the Old Roman Catholics, they believe in all the Petrine dogmas, have a valid priesthood etc... If it was just a matter of the mass that is the issue, but its clearly not. What we fail to understand is that at some point in the future, probably decades imho, but it could be sooner (highly doubt it). Most folks in the world will not have a priest to give Sunday mass, or frequent confessions. So you better start getting your priorities straight as to what takes precedence. The faith or just the Latin mass... There are many pseudo-trads that give you your Latin mass, and schismatics that do that also. I say this because over the years, this has been the number one issue that has been raised within my conversations with fellow Catholics. The sacraments are extremely important, but you must first solve the issue whether the rites are valid or not. Secondly, even if the priest is a valid priest undoubtedly does he confess the true faith? Is he a liberal/modernist in the true sense of the term, is his religion the religion of conservatism, or is it the Catholic faith.
Without the full profession of the faith, many will simply just revert to the indult, and they indeed have. You can't simply remain an eternal skeptic, and the totally inconsistent position they hold (material schism) makes even the most hardcore SSPX believers waver over time. At some point even those with the will of iron, will give in to one master.
This is also the main problem for Mr. Michael Rodriguez (somewhat related to the Voris deception), no one directly pays attention to what he says. No matter how many times on the pulpit he would warn the faithful against the New Mass, they would still go and attend it. Why? Well since he is in full communion with the local ordinary, and ultimately that external profession of faith by his deeds is a much stronger testimony than whatever he says. That is why so many are so confused, you say this, but at the same time you are under full obedience with a known public manifest heresiarch in our local diocese. I say diocese, because El Paso was created before these modernists took power, and as such the see could in potentio be occupied given the right circumstances. The more likely see's that are still Catholic, would be in China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many other Eastern European countries. Anywhere where the persecution of the faith, leads to the faith of Catholics to be strenghtened and as a result they are less likely to believe in the heresies of the Vatican II sect.
I have said more than what I had initially intended, reason why I responded I wanted to give a bit of an extension to the topic I made from Voris. I think its definitely connected to the other video where he erroneously held that it is mortally sinful, to speak the truth. I certainly used to defend him, as can be seen evidently from any man that searches through my previous posts. I have no animosity towards him, but when he starts spewing liberalism and the most wicked doctrines. I simply can't defend him anymore, for years I rather decided to wait until he was more explicit about his personal position. Well now we have it, and it is truly sad to see someone who was starting to it seems to have had a glimmer of hope, heading in the right direction. It might have been faint, but sure enough I think others were waiting to see what would happen.
Okay, I think I have covered enough the topics I left unfinished. I will continue working on my other project. I will be giving updates, been a bit busy with an upcoming interview.