[Ladislaus]

Meg, you are one of the most divisive people on this forum.  Your constant quarreling leads to far more division than sedevacantism does. You are in no position to make such a complaint.

While I disagree with the SV understanding of the Crisis, I have no difficulty at all respecting the vast majority of them as well-intentioned people doing their best to make sense of a disturbing and confusing situation. Nothing in their views compels me to bitterly argue with them nor leads me to reject their status as my fellow Catholics.  I experience very little sense of separation from them.  On the contrary, I find myself liking and respecting many of the ones whom I encounter online.

Being quarrelsome and divisive comes from people's attitudes, not from their position on the Crisis.  It would be more useful to commit ourselves to prayer and to charitable conduct to each other than to putting our efforts into continual debates.

Well put.

[Ladislaus]

You would do well, Meg, to read the quotes from +Lefebvre where he was clearly sympathetic to sedevacantism and even leaned strongly that way himself.  He himself states that sedevacantism has a strong theological history among saints and other prominent theologians and is anything but absurd.

[Meg]

Yet another absurd emotional rant.  SSPX has also "caused division".  When groups are divided, it's hardly ever unilaterally the fault of one party.  If they can't agree on something, especially core principles, then division is just a fact of life.  In fact, Meg, the division we see not only among Trads but of Trads in general from Catholics who remain in the Novus Ordo is a good indicator that the "shepherd has been struck" ... otherwise Catholics would know the voice of their shepherd, and no Trad hears the voice of Our Lord in Bergoglio and his predecessors.  When the sheep are scattered, it's a good sign that the shepherd has gone down.  Read the full version of Pope Leo XIII's original prayer to St. Michael.

In fact, +Williamson has long held that the principle of unity in the SSPX had been an artificial ... the commanding persona and moral authority of +Lefebvre, and he predicted that the SSPX would fracture once he died.  For Catholics, the ONLY true real source of unit is the Papacy, and so long as we are effectively broken away from an undisputedly legitimate pope, there's simply GOING to be division.  So are the Resistance also a "cause of divison"?

Why pay any attention to what I write, if you believe that what I write are only emotional rants? I'll stop responding to you after this, if you insist on using that silly, weak, excuse. 

It's the Resistance that the sedewhatevers seem to be targeting at this time. It's the Resistance where they (you and others) are causing the most havoc, because a forum is an easy way to promote sedewhatever propaganda, in order to gain converts. 

I have to assume that sedewhatevers are not going to try to gain many converts through the SSPX anymore. Though I could be wrong. 

Bishop Faure said that the Resistance is attacked from both the right and the left - from the accordistas on the left, and the sedevacantists on the right. He gave examples of what the sedes have done to attack the Resistance. We can see here that attacking the Resistance is what they are aiming at here. 

I've never heard Bp. Williamson say that the principal unity in the SSPX was an artificial one. Where did he say that? You've probably taken it out of context, as sedewhatevers are prone to do.

Bishop Williamson has said that sedevacantists need to see everything in black-and-white. The problem is, is that the terrible situation that we find ourselves in during a crisis cannot, by its nature, be black-and-white. The modernists do not change any dogmas, and they do not generally define doctrines. They leave it ambiguous, and they empty doctrine of its meaning through ambiguity. 

[Meg]

You would do well, Meg, to read the quotes from +Lefebvre where he was clearly sympathetic to sedevacantism and even leaned strongly that way himself.  He himself states that sedevacantism has a strong theological history among saints and other prominent theologians and is anything but absurd.

+ABL was not a sedewhateverist.

[Jaynek]

+ABL was not a sedewhateverist.

Neither am I, but I would not hesitate to describe myself as sympathetic to them.  And that is the claim which Ladislaus made about +ABL.

[Meg]

Neither am I, but I would not hesitate to describe myself as sympathetic to them.  And that is claim which Ladislaus made about +ABL.

You can be sympathetic to them if you choose. Their agenda here, however, is insidious.

It is of course possible that Francis is not the pope. But....it is not up to us to decide.

Sedevacantism is an illness.

Archbishop Lefebvre, in the months before he died, warned of the errors of sedevacantism. would you like some examples? And it is a serious error, which is how +ABL described it. 

[Jaynek]

You can be sympathetic to them if you choose. Their agenda here, however, is insidious.

It is of course possible that Francis is not the pope. But....it is not up to us to decide.

Sedevacantism is an illness.

The Crisis itself is an illness of the Church.  Something is terribly wrong and all our attempts to understand and describe it are responses to this wrongness.

But I suggest that the spiritual illness you should be more concerned with, Meg, is your own contentiousness.  This is something that you might actually be able to do something about.

[Meg]

The Crisis itself is an illness of the Church.  Something is terribly wrong and all our attempts to understand and describe it are responses to this wrongness.

But I suggest that the spiritual illness you should be more concerned with, Meg, is your own contentiousness.  This is something that you might actually be able to do something about.

Such silliness.

Tell me, do you support the Resistance? 

[Ladislaus]

+ABL was not a sedewhateverist.

Uhm, apart from the fact that sedepleninism is among the sede-whatevers ...

As a matter of fact, he most certainly was.  Under normal circuмstances, Catholics must accept the legitimacy of the pope with the certainty of faith.  So, for instance, prominent theologians writing during the time of Pius XII asserted that it would have been heresy to doubt the legitimacy of Pius XII.  That's because papal legitimacy is a dogmatic fact.  Catholics can no sooner question the legitimacy of a true pope than they could question the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for instance.  So the fact that +Lefebvre entertained the possibility that the V2 papal claimants may not be legitimate ... pending resolution of this by the authority of the Church, this made him squarely a sededoubtist ... and NOT a sedeplenist as most of his blind dogmatic R&Rers would have it.

[Ladislaus]

Such silliness.

Tell me, do you support the Resistance?

Why, do you?  Talk about a group causing the "division" that you so vehemently denounce.

[Meg]

Why, do you?  Talk about a group causing the "division" that you so vehemently denounce.

Do you support the Resistance? Do you support the efforts of the four Resistance bishops?

[Ladislaus]

It's the Resistance that the sedewhatevers seem to be targeting at this time. It's the Resistance where they (you and others) are causing the most havoc, because a forum is an easy way to promote sedewhatever propaganda, in order to gain converts.

Is Father Chazal not part of said "Resistance"?  I'm actually promoting his position on the crisis as the most Catholic that I see out there.

[Meg]

Is Father Chazal not part of said "Resistance"?  I'm actually promoting his position on the crisis as the most Catholic that I see out there.

Do you support the efforts of the four Resistance bishops?

[Ladislaus]

I've never heard Bp. Williamson say that the principal unity in the SSPX was an artificial one. Where did he say that? You've probably taken it out of context, as sedewhatevers are prone to do.

Oh, I don't know ... I just listened to several hour-long talks every week given by +Williamson in the afternoons at the seminary.  And I went for many individual one-on-one walks with His Excellency where we discussed all matters theological.  Yes, even when he was squarely IN the SSPX, he spoke regularly about how the SSPX unity was artificial and that it would inevitably fragment after the death of +Lefebvre.  Besides, that's simply Catholic theology.  ONLY THE POPE can provide a real principle of unity ... all others apart from the papacy are "artificial".

[Stubborn]

You believe Francis is a heretic. Yes, I know that is just your opinion. The problem is that you consider him still a Catholic. You are admittedly subject to a heretic. This is not Catholic. Say what you want about me but you can't avoid this about you. You believe heretics are Catholic and that heretics can be your Pope. This is anti-Catholic.

As I said, as long as you presuppose the pope is not the pope, you will believe that you have a leg to stand on and those who do not presuppose he is not the pope have all the Church teachings and dogmas to rely upon.