Author Topic: For all sedevacantists and conclavists (Read 6965 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 27, 2009, 09:44:35 PM »

Please explain your use of the word "accidentally" here Caminus:

"What happens accidentally is not the same as that which happens formally and intentionally. To adhere to tradition it happens accidentally that a separation occurs from the normal diocesan structure."

SSPX is thus "accidental" and sedevacantists are "intentional" according to your lights. SSPX was forced out, and sedevacantists forced THEMSELVES out. Is this correct?

Therefore between SSPX and Sedevacantism there is not a difference in kind but in degree. You are painting SSPX as pained and reluctant to break with the "Church," sensitive souls who are fully aware of the gravity of their choice, while we, the sedevacantists, have no restraint and just burn up the ground, leaving nothing behind us but skidmarks and the smell of petrol. You are tormented in a holy way by your position, because it means disobeying the Pope, while we rejoice in an unseemly way in our clean break with the same said "Pope."

For some reason I speak the language known as "Caminus" and this is what I'm picking up.

Well, all this is the usual refrain with the SSPX, "le même rengaine." Dear reader, whoever you might be, I point out to you the murky and tenebrous language used by the SSPX who try to make the untenable tenable.

*You would have me ( us ) believe that refusing to adopt a Catholic theological position is somehow necessary because it shows charity and temperance.

*We must linger longer in incoherence and contradiction, accepting a man as Pope but disobeying all his words and actions, so that we can say to ourselves "We don't want to be rebels, we don't want to disobey, we want to give them another chance" -- while, ironically, you disobey your "Pope" with every breath, thus implying that Popes can teach error and heresy and the Catholic Church can defect and fail.

*We should remain tenuously attached to the "normal diocesan structure" and wring our hands, sorrowing like Cassandra over the fall of Troy, but not taking any action. Like the clownish heroes of Beckett's Waiting for Godot we must wait an absurd eternity for the VII "Popes," who aren't even remotely Catholic, to realize the error of their ways and come back into the fold.

All this so that we can tell God on the day of Judgment that "we didn't rebel, we were good little Catholics." The SSPX philosophy is entirely fear-driven. It works on the fear of the laity to question their superiors. This is the same fear tactic used by the Vatican II sect, by the way. Those in SSPX want their traditional Catholicism but they don't want to call a spade a spade -- they don't want to say that the Pope isn't the Pope, just IN CASE he might be ( don't worry, he isn't. ) So they tie themselves up into mental knots. The contradictions become more glaringly obvious practically every day.

Do you think obeying wolves makes you a good Catholic? It is more likely to me that, on the Day of Judgment, God will say to those in SSPX "Why didn't you stand up? Why didn't you fight for the truth? Why didn't you do something?"

The problem is that ANY adherence to the "normal diocesan structure" which in our time is totally ABNORMAL -- and especially adherence to their "Popes" -- IS rebellion. Since Vatican II was a revolution and the last five Popes have all approved of it and were in varying degrees its author, those who approve of these Popes must likewise, in varying degrees, be revolutionaries or approve of revolution, formally or materially, explicitly or implicitly.

Also, if you have met any CMRI priests, or any of the laity, you would know how laughable is the accusation that sedevacantists are fanatics. These are the most mellow people you could find and are just good old-fashioned Catholics who reject the idea that we can reject a Pope's entire teaching and still consider him the Pope.

So yes, Elizabeth, to answer your question, I think only sedevacantists and -privationists and possibly Siri-ites are the true Church -- though of all these, sedevacantists are the most honest and pure, because they aren't shying away from the ugly reality of our time and say flat-out that we have no Pope to teach and to guide. This, whether Roscoe likes it or not, is our reality.

That doesn't mean I think everyone in SSPX or even VII is going to hell because there are various degrees of culpability for each individual and it takes certain people longer to get a proper overview of this mess.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #16 on:** June 28, 2009, 12:54:19 AM »

Well, try to keep Charity at all times in this crisis. The infighting amongst Catholics can not help matters.

:dancing: :dancing: :dancing:

Caminus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 28, 2009, 01:55:51 AM »

Raoul, why am I not surprised that you did not comprehend what I said. If I have time on Sunday, I will respond to the rest of your post, unlike you who ignore what is inconvenient and continue to repeat ad nauseum shallow criticism.

It is theologically impossible that the 'Church of the Sede Vacante' is the "true Church" because it has no authority; it possesses no jurisdiction, ergo, it can lay no claim to Apostolic Succession, a necessary mark of the true Church of Jesus Christ. You are, sir, a modern day schismatic.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #18 on:** June 28, 2009, 02:16:49 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

It is more likely to me that, on the Day of Judgment, God will say to those in SSPX "Why didn't you stand up? Why didn't you fight for the truth? Why didn't you do something?"

Raoul, surely you don't believe that the SSPX has never stood up, never fought for the truth, and never did anything?

Why do you think they are so hated by so many in the Novus Ordo?

CM · « **Reply #19 on:** June 28, 2009, 02:30:19 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Well, try to keep Charity at all times in this crisis. The infighting amongst Catholics can not help matters.

Charity is love of God, and it cannot exist when a person esteems, respects, tolerates or submits to false religions, including Varican II and any other heresy that people believe in. No. charity demands that we admonish those who believe themselves to be Catholic and who turn aside from the duty to believe all that God has revealed through the Magisterium.

Quote from: Caminus

It is theologically impossible that the 'Church of the Sede Vacante' is the "true Church" because it has no authority; it possesses no jurisdiction, ergo, it can lay no claim to Apostolic Succession, a necessary mark of the true Church of Jesus Christ. You are, sir, a modern day schismatic.

One (members professing the one same Lord, Faith and Baptism)
Holy (because Christ sanctifies the Church made up of said members)
Catholic (all inclusive; all are invited to join Her ranks)
Apostolic (not apostolic succession, but apostolic; believe the doctrine of the apostles as defined by the Magisterium)

The Body of Christ is made up of only sedevacantists, and even then only those who are Catholic, rejecting all heresies including the illogical BoD and BoB, and not recognizing any heretics as Catholics, such as heretical antipope Benedict XV.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #20 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:41:21 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

The Body of Christ is made up of only sedevacantists, and even then only those who are Catholic, rejecting all heresies including the illogical BoD and BoB, and not recognizing any heretics as Catholics, such as heretical antipope Benedict XV.

WOW! Your knowledge of things so difficult to discern is amazing! There was a prophet in the OT days who lamented that there were no other left who were faithful to God. God told him that he did not actually know what he was talking about, and that there were MANY others in Israel who still had not been unfaithful to the Lord. This SHOCKED the prophet, as, to all outward appearances, the contrary was true. IOW, you do not know what the hell you are talking about, and would profit immensely from remaining silent upon this issue until the dust has settled and Holy Church herself has pronounced something either way. God speed.

Caminus · « **Reply #21 on:** June 28, 2009, 10:03:55 AM »

Quote

Apostolic (not apostolic succession, but apostolic; believe the doctrine of the apostles as defined by the Magisterium)

The old saying is that schism is usually bound up with or leads to heresy. Well, ladies and gentlemen, here it is.

Caraffa · « **Reply #22 on:** June 28, 2009, 09:16:18 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

The Body of Christ is made up of only sedevacantists, and even then only those who are Catholic, rejecting all heresies including the illogical BoD and BoB, and not recognizing any heretics as Catholics, such as heretical antipope Benedict XV.

I can understand certain forms of sedevacantism after 1958, although I'm not one. But I've never heard this before. Do sedes have their own novelties? Just asking.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #23 on:** June 28, 2009, 09:54:56 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Charity is love of God, and it cannot exist when a person esteems, respects, tolerates or submits to false religions, including Varican II and any other heresy that people believe in. No. charity demands that we admonish those who believe themselves to be Catholic and who turn aside from the duty to believe all that God has revealed through the Magisterium.

The Body of Christ is made up of only sedevacantists, and even then only those who are Catholic, rejecting all heresies including the illogical BoD and BoB, and not recognizing any heretics as Catholics, such as heretical antipope Benedict XV.

:dancing-banana: I know a parish where you'll fit like a hand in glove :dancing-banana:

You can get called out from the pulpit, make sure your kids never get soiled being around non-SVs, there is high drama and intrigue! AND there are severe and lasting punishments for those who displease the clergy! :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** June 28, 2009, 10:54:49 PM »

Welcome to the Forum Caraffa although I am ??? re: your moniker.

For the record, there are a few of us here who believe Card Siri( Gregory XVII) was actually elected as the true Pope in 1958. We are not 'sedes' because we do not believe the chair of Peter to be vacant. It is true we do not know who the real Pope is at this time, but that doesn't mean there is not one.

Also there are those in this Forum whose historical conception has no inkling that there have been more than a few times in European history where Christians have had to go underground-- sometimes for long periods. Along with that, there was often confusion as to who was true Pope.

For whatever reeason, those who cling to the v2 anti-popes would have us believe that there is no precedent for what has happened since 1958. Additionally they either cannot or will not answer the query-- is there such a thing as an anti-pope?

CM is our resident crap shooter as he believes Pius XI & XII to be anti-popes, whereas I do not. However he comes up a winner with the idea that Ben 15 most likely is. Without even considering his doctrinal deficiencies and strange actions, the very election(???) of Della Chiesa is just about the most improbable thing I have ever heard of, moreso even than the abdication(?) of Celestine and the election(?) of the anti-pope Boniface.

CM · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2009, 12:05:21 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
Apostolic (not apostolic succession, but apostolic; believe the doctrine of the apostles as defined by the Magisterium)

The old saying is that schism is usually bound up with or leads to heresy. Well, ladies and gentlemen, here it is.

Please show me the dogmatic teachings that I have denied.

Or will you ignore the question because you cannot answer?

CM · « **Reply #26 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:19:12 AM »

Another question, bound up with this one: Do you believe that in the last days if there is only one priest of apostolic succession left, and four people who are laity, and they are brought before Antichrist, who kills the priest, that the four lay people are then no longer Catholic, since there exists in the world no more clergy of apostolic succession and hence no Apostolic Catholic Church?

Caraffa · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:29:53 PM »

Thank you Roscoe. On what grounds can you say that Benedict XV was an "anti-pope?" I've never come across any heresy in his encyclicals. Was he like Pius XI and XII a bit weak in curbing Modernism/Pluralism-yes, but he was no heretic.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:52:56 PM »

That's right Caraffa. Benedict XV is by no means an anti-Pope but Catholic Martyr is desperate to eliminate him because of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, compiled under Benny XV's watch, which says that catechumens must be given a Catholic burial. As a neo-Feeneyite, he cannot accept reality and so he has to throw out Popes and Doctors left and right ( he says that Bellarmine is a heretic too ).

Don't get drawn into this nonsense.

Welcome by the way -- whatever you are! Here is a rundown.

Catholic Martyr is the resident Feeneyite and sedevacantist. He has made a Feeneyite convert of the young DeMaistre. I am the converted pagan turned sedevacantist. Dawn and gladius_veritatis and trent13 and Uriel I believe are also sedevacantists. Parentsfortruth and Roscoe are sedevacantists in all but name, but they're afraid to say there's no Pope and so they go off into their imaginations and say that Siri was elected in 1958 ( or 1963 ) and that he has a successor out there even though they have no clue how this successor could have been elected or where he is ( so you see, they also are without a Pope. ) Prodinoscopus, Caminus and I believe elizabeth are SSPX, as is the board operator Matthew ( ChantCD ).

Raoul76 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:00:08 PM »

"However he comes up a winner with the idea that Ben 15 most likely is. Without even considering his doctrinal deficiencies and strange actions, the very election(???) of Della Chiesa is just about the most improbable thing I have ever heard of, moreso even than the abdication(?) of Celestine and the election(?) of the anti-pope Boniface."

Actually Boniface is not an anti-Pope because only the Church determines who is an anti-Pope ( not counting our time where the Church is in eclipse ).

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one. Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?