[MyrnaM]

You are a liar - I've never stated that.
So you don't believe the Roman Church can defect but that the current occupant has defected and is a phoney.
Strange that no Roman clergy has noticed this for how many decades now?

I believe the gates of hell will never prevail against the One, Holy, Catholic, Church and the proof of this is people all over the world still retain the Faith, in spite of so-called "pope" Francis.
Think of it this way:  Your neighbor has a beautiful large home and tells you he will be leaving for a duration of an extended vacation.   Soon after you notice someone else is living there and starts to change the landscape and such.  You wander over to see what is going on.  A stranger answers the door and is very friendly, in the course of conversation you find out that this person entered by force, but is very nice and good to everyone.  He is generous to the entire community BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE KEYS!

[MyrnaM]

(continued from above)


Almost everyone in the community liked this thief's changes and what he was doing with the landscape.  After all, he was keeping the property up to date, with a fresh coat of paint, things were looking bright and cheerful.  
The few that were concerned were shot down, and so they went back to their homes and waited for the original owner to return.  

As the years went by new people moved into the community and didn't have a clue nor did they care, except what they heard which went in one ear and out the other.  This guy (thief) was great he says everything the community wanted to hear.  

Yet, HE STILL NEVER GOT THE KEYS.

[Meg]

I can’t believe people let Meg run amok on here. If I wasn’t sitting in a Houston airport on my phone, I’d quote and break down a lot of flub bub in what she arrogantly and childlishly asserts in a demeaning way. It wouldn’t surprise me if she is one of those that only discovered the Latin Mass since Summorum Pontificuм and therein lies her personal issue with the sede position.

I’m no public proponent of the sede position, but I find it a credible position in this crisis and respect the clergy and Catholics that maintain that line.

Meg asserts that no sede will ever come close to the pope like the Archbishop did. Surely, she has a crystal ball that tells her this. This crisis can go any kind of way. Sede groups have even come under modernist Rome in the past. The Society of St. Ferrer comes to mind. (Of course they changed their position.)

The Archbishop never said that JP 2 was a heretic, according to Meg. I’m pretty sure he did and was very open to the sede vacantist position. If she would have educated herself to even know the position of others who don’t hold her own position, (like by watching the video I posted on Archbishop Lefebvre) she would see that clearly.

Separating oneself from devout and sincere Catholics and even attacking them with personal animosity (over issues like if Bergoglio, of all people, is a heretic OR NOT) is like a text book definition of schism.  

Just trying to be balanced and fair.

Because I strongly disagree with the sede thesis, then this means that I "run amok?" Yeah, right.



For your information, I did not discover the Latin Mass since Summorum Pontificuм. I converted through tradition (SSPX) before Summorum Pontificuм. I was baptized in the Old Rite. How about you?

What sede has ever met with the Pope in order to talk sense into him? None that I know if. They wouldn't ever get near him, lest they catch something from the unclean one.

Where did +ABL ever say that the conciliar popes were heretics? And if so, did he say material or formal?

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, in his last book, that he had never ceased to repeat that if anyone would separate themselves from the pope, it would not be him.

So you believe that if I separate myself from sedes, that this means that I am a schismatic? Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Most sedes are not balanced and fair. They (you) are extremists. Though there are a couple of sedes here who try to be reasonable, such as Canterella and Bellator Dei.

[Pax Vobis]

By the way, have you found proof yet for your accusations earlier up the thread that Fr Cekada and Bishop Sanborn call those with different positions (like Fr Chazal) "heretics"?  

Also, this thread is not about una cuм masses.  Why do you say these things about them and continually bring up una cuм?  Perhaps to sow more discord?

I brought up 'una cuм' masses because this is the means by which Fr Cekada (i'm not sure about +Sanborn) causes unnecessary division in tradition.  It is precisely because of his divisive and dogmatic stance that Fr Chazal started debating him and gave the talk that was recorded.

Fr Cekada makes no secret that to assist at an 'una cuм' mass is a direct, active, acceptance, and "communion with" the papal heresies of rome and is a grave sin.  He also says that one is then, "in communion with" the pope, who is a heretic.  He implies (but stops short of saying it directly) that one is in agreement with such heresies of rome.  The implication is there; those who attend an 'una cuм' mass condone the heresies of the pope.  I'll let him explain it directly  (by the way, He wrote all this in 2007.  It's no secret and it's not new):

A (catholic) who actively participates at a Mass in which the heretic Ratzinger (or Francis) is named in the Canon, therefore, acts against the ancient tradition of the Church and puts himself in communion with someone he knows is a heretic...Thus, even though he does not intend to deny the faith directly, by his actions the (catholic) denies it “indirectly and implicitly"...By actively assisting at an una cuм Mass, the (catholic) participates in this sin (of mentioning a heretic in the canon) — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar...

If therefore you actively participate in a Mass at which Ratzinger (or Francis) is named in the Canon, you are united to him as you participate in Sacrifice. It is as if the sly old heretic himself unexpectedly emerged from the sacristy in your local traditionalist chapel to offer Mass for you and to give you Holy Communion...(he goes on to say it is also a sin of scandal)...The consequences for the (catholic) who actively participates in una cuм Masses offered by priests of the “resistance” persuasion should therefore be clear enough: he not only recognizes a false pope, but he also implicitly consents to the notion that it is permissible to refuse submission to a true pope — the essence of the sin of schism. And for these reasons, a (catholic) should not assist at it.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUncuм.pdf

[MyrnaM]

Finally the end of my story:

As the years pass by, the original thief passed away also, but the property just passed on to his family of like mind.  However, he was unable to give the KEYS SINCE HE NEVER RECEIVED THEM.
The good neighbors had given up that the original True owner would return and they did not forget.  By this time the Internet was coming into the homes of just everyone, and this story even today told throughout;  more and more people who loved the Truth were getting together, their voices were heard louder, but just not loud enough as outnumbered as they are.  
Some decided just to continue waiting with hope; others figured the original owner was nearby watching for the perfect opportunity to take possession of what was his.  And then there are those who gave up and decided to stay home and just deal with it alone.  The saddest part is instead of uniting they all started to argue about what should be done about this violation, and how to solve the injustice.  

I don't know how the story ends, but it is said that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi had a vision if you care to think about it, see below:

After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. In the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will come back to the Church, and the face of the earth will be renewed. Russia, England, and China will come into the Church." (Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi [1769-1837 A.D.] who was Beatified by Benedict XV in 1920.)

[2Vermont]

I brought up 'una cuм' masses because this is the means by which Fr Cekada (i'm not sure about +Sanborn) causes unnecessary division in tradition.  It is precisely because of his divisive and dogmatic stance that Fr Chazal started debating him and gave the talk that was recorded.

Fr Cekada makes no secret that to assist at an 'una cuм' mass is a direct, active, acceptance, and "communion with" the papal heresies of rome and is a grave sin.  He also says that one is then, "in communion with" the pope, who is a heretic.  He implies (but stops short of saying it directly) that one is in agreement with such heresies of rome.  The implication is there; those who attend an 'una cuм' mass condone the heresies of the pope.  I'll let him explain it directly  (by the way, He wrote all this in 2007.  It's no secret and it's not new):

A (catholic) who actively participates at a Mass in which the heretic Ratzinger (or Francis) is named in the Canon, therefore, acts against the ancient tradition of the Church and puts himself in communion with someone he knows is a heretic...Thus, even though he does not intend to deny the faith directly, by his actions the (catholic) denies it “indirectly and implicitly"...By actively assisting at an una cuм Mass, the (catholic) participates in this sin (of mentioning a heretic in the canon) — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar...

If therefore you actively participate in a Mass at which Ratzinger (or Francis) is named in the Canon, you are united to him as you participate in Sacrifice. It is as if the sly old heretic himself unexpectedly emerged from the sacristy in your local traditionalist chapel to offer Mass for you and to give you Holy Communion...(he goes on to say it is also a sin of scandal)...The consequences for the (catholic) who actively participates in una cuм Masses offered by priests of the “resistance” persuasion should therefore be clear enough: he not only recognizes a false pope, but he also implicitly consents to the notion that it is permissible to refuse submission to a true pope — the essence of the sin of schism. And for these reasons, a (catholic) should not assist at it.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUncuм.pdf

Why have you replaced the word "sedevacantist" with the word "catholic" every single time that Fr Cekada uses the word "sedevacantist"?  Fr Cekada clearly uses the former word, not the latter.  You, sir, are disingenuous and I am now convinced that you are just one more anti-sede wishing to sow discord and division yourself while at the same time claiming it's those big, bad so-called "dogmatic" sedes that are the ones who are soooooo divisive.   

You and I have had this discussion before....the una cuм issue is directed at SEDEVACANTISTS.  If you are taking it as a divisive among all trads, then that is YOUR problem.  Father Cekada is not telling non-SEDES that they should not attend una cuм masses.  Why? because they believe that Francis etal is not a heretic and therefore a true pope.  

Oh and by the way, you  still haven't proven that he calls non-sedes heretics.   

[Pax Vobis]

I was not trying to be malicious or deceptive.  If I was trying to hide the word, I wouldn't have included the link to the original docuмent.

The reason I replaced the word is because his logic applies to all Catholics, not just sedes.  And his followers repeatedly use his logic to accuse everyone of heresy, which he does not correct or denounce, and their accusations are not secret but as public as his website.  So I can presume he agrees with calling 'una cuм' Catholics heretics, since his article implicitly argues for this conclusion.  

Secondly one's belief of the pope's status does not affect the fact of the pope's heresies, so his 'una cuм' argument applies to any catholic regardless.  

I just wish Fr Cekada would tone it down.  His divisions solve nothing.  One can love tradition and be doubtful about the pope.  

[Stubborn]

ANYTHING, but sedevacantism!  

No, only Catholicism. Your tag line should read: "Catholicism, not sedevacantism."

[Stubborn]

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre intended to make an agreement with John Paul II in 1978? I do not think this is a good example to follow. This is not far from what Fellay is doing now, actually. Fr. Guerard Des Lauries was vehemently opposed to such an action. He even wrote a letter to the Archbishop telling him that he was acting like a "Pontius Pilate" . If you interested, you may read it here:

www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm

What happened to you Cantarella?
Whatever shortcomings +ABL is guilty of, sedeism is not one of them. Meg is absolutely correct that using +ABL to promote sedeism in any capacity is deceitful - period.

[2Vermont]

No, only Catholicism. Your tag line should read: "Catholicism, not sedevacantism."

So you too are claiming that sedevacantism is not Catholic.  Another dogmatic anti-sede.

[2Vermont]

I was not trying to be malicious or deceptive.  If I was trying to hide the word, I wouldn't have included the link to the original docuмent.

The reason I replaced the word is because his logic applies to all Catholics, not just sedes.  And his followers repeatedly use his logic to accuse everyone of heresy, which he does not correct or denounce, and their accusations are not secret but as public as his website.  So I can presume he agrees with calling 'una cuм' Catholics heretics, since his article implicitly argues for this conclusion.  

Secondly one's belief of the pope's status does not affect the fact of the pope's heresies, so his 'una cuм' argument applies to any catholic regardless.  

I just wish Fr Cekada would tone it down.  His divisions solve nothing.  One can love tradition and be doubtful about the pope.  

No, it does not apply to all Catholics.  It applies to only sedes which is why he is only speaking to sedes.  Only those non-sedes who wish to be offended will continue to be offended.

[Pax Vobis]

Using your logic, if I'm supposed to ignore his indirect implications and the conclusions of his logic because he didn't 'say it directly' then we must also ignore the indirect implications of V2 and we must ignore the conclusions its texts lead to because it didn't 'say anything directly' contrary to the Faith. 

It's called "reading between the lines".  

Further, he says that the sspx masses and other independent masses commit sin because they are not in obedience to their local bishop.  (Pg 11 at the bottom)

He says they have no jurisdiction which is also another sin (top left, pg 12) and their masses "have no efficacy".  He says their masses are "gravely illicit".  

He also is in disagreement with the Cassiciacuм theory (bottom pg 15) and says the material/formal distinction doesn't change the 'una cuм' problems.  

Pg 16 - those who attend an 'una cuм' mass participates in a pernicious lie, in communion with heretics, in the profession of a false religion.

I could go on?  Have you read this docuмent ever?  Or in a while?  It's not ambiguous at all.  It's basically saying "outside sedevacantism there is no salvation!"   That's not an exaggeration.  It's all there in his 19 pg docuмent...

[Cantarella]

What happened to you Cantarella?
Whatever shortcomings +ABL is guilty of, sedeism is not one of them. Meg is absolutely correct that using +ABL to promote sedeism in any capacity is deceitful - period.

When I argued against Sedevacantism in the past, I did it from an Ecclesia Dei position; never from R&R Lefebvrist position because I realized that is unsustainable and as a Roman Catholic, a sign of great disloyalty towards the Holy Father. Ladislaus said:

Now, the only other alternative I see is just to fully accept the NO hierarchy, apply a hermeneutic of continuity to the V2 teachings, go to an Eastern or Tridentine liturgy due to personal preference, and argue against the abuses in the NOM.

That used to be me, a couple of years ago. However, despite my serious efforts, I cannot reconcile the Catholic Church as used to be, with the supranational humanist organization that it seems today. They seem like a completely different religions. Everything seems like emerging from two separate entities. The distinction is so vast, that it makes more sense to me that the underlying reason has been the absence of a true pope with true Authority as explained by Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers (instead of 2000 bishops defecting all at once).  

Having said that, regardless of the position on the current crisis, I do not consider other traditionalists heretics or schismatics over the issue of Papal jurisdiction. I realize that my conclusions may be wrong or if right, that they may be others out there who will come to it in later time. I am no longer divisive about the topic and as a matter of fact, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and many blessings in the year to come!

[TKGS]

Your story shows that you believe that the Holy Roman Church has defected.

You're not very bright, are you.  It's a shame that people routinely post on forums when they haven't the intellectual capacity to read the posts upon which they comment.

[TKGS]

Why have you [Pax Vobis] replaced the word "sedevacantist" with the word "catholic" every single time that Fr Cekada uses the word "sedevacantist"?

The una cuм issue is directed at SEDEVACANTISTS.  

In point of fact, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn frequently say on Restoration Radio that non-sedevacantists should attend Masses approved by their pope.  They are quite clear in this regard.  They are not ambiguous on the matter.