[Ladislaus]

Do you support the efforts of the four Resistance bishops?

I don't know all of them, so I can't speak categorically.  I have always been a great supporter of Bishop Williamson, and I know him very well.  I also have made a point of promoting Father Chazal's theological position on the papacy as the most Catholic.  Apart from that, as +Williamson himself would tell you, the Resistance is not some kind of monolithic entity.  I was never on board, for instance, with Father Pfeiffer (and I know him very well also).  So I'll take my "support" of the Resistance on a case by case basis.

[Meg]

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".

So you DO support the four bishops of the Resistance? It's a yes or no question. Sedes like everything to be black-and-white, so it shouldn't be that difficult to answer.

[Ladislaus]

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. 

And where exactly have you seen me disagree with this?  Look back a couple pages on this thread and you'll see me criticizing some of the sedevacantists precisely for considering the status of the papacy to be binary ... and without complexity, nuance, and important distinctions to be made.

[Meg]

I don't know all of them, so I can't speak categorically.  I have always been a great supporter of Bishop Williamson, and I know him very well.  I also have made a point of promoting Father Chazal's theological position on the papacy as the most Catholic.  Apart from that, as +Williamson himself would tell you, the Resistance is not some kind of monolithic entity.  I was never on board, for instance, with Father Pfeiffer (and I know him very well also).  So I'll take my "support" of the Resistance on a case by case basis.

Deflection. But I thought that sedes are supposed to answer everything in black-and-white terms. Your answer isn't clear at all. 

[Jaynek]

Such silliness.

Tell me, do you support the Resistance?

I am sympathetic to almost all trad positions different from my own.  I do not have much to say about my understanding of the Crisis because I can see problems with all the possible responses to it.  These matters are beyond me and I prefer to focus on developing in the areas of prayer, Sacraments and doing the duties of my state of life.  There is enough room for improvement to keep me occupied for the rest of my life.

But Meg, are you unable to recognize how contentious you are? Perhaps it stands out to me because it is a fault that I have struggled much with myself.  I would be glad to share the benefit of my experience if you ever see a need to work on this.

[Meg]

And where exactly have you seen me disagree with this?  Look back a couple pages on this thread and you'll see me criticizing some of the sedevacantists precisely for considering the status of the papacy to be binary ... and without complexity, nuance, and important distinctions to be made.

You haven't made any distinctions that do not support your brand of sedevacantism. 

[Ladislaus]

So you DO support the four bishops of the Resistance? It's a yes or no question. Sedes like everything to be black-and-white, so it shouldn't be that difficult to answer.

No it is not.  Can you even read English?  There's no such thing as "The Resistance".  I support individuals within the Resistance.  I know very little about the bishops except for +Williamson, and I just stated that I am a big supporter of his.  And I am a big supporter of Father Chazal.  I never supported Father Pfeiffer.  I take my support on a case by case basis.

So you falsely accuse me of seeing everything as black and white and then attack me for not giving a binary yes or no answer to your question.  Your hypocrisy is shameless.

[Meg]

But Meg, are you unable to recognize how contentious you are? Perhaps it stands out to me because it is a fault that I have struggled much with myself.  I would be glad to share the benefit of my experience if you ever see a need to work on this.

Thanks, but that's okay Jayne. If my defense against sedevacantism distresses you, it may be better for you to avoid this thread. 

[Ladislaus]

You haven't made any distinctions that do not support your brand of sedevacantism.

So you're rejecting Father Chazal's position (which I have been advocating here).  You do not, therefore, by your own logic, support the Resistance.

[Meg]

No it is not.  Can you even read English?  There's no such thing as "The Resistance".  I support individuals within the Resistance.  I know very little about the bishops except for +Williamson, and I just stated that I am a big supporter of his.  And I am a big supporter of Father Chazal.  I never supported Father Pfeiffer.  I take my support on a case by case basis.

So you falsely accuse me of seeing everything as black and white and then attack me for not giving a binary yes or no answer to your question.  Your hypocrisy is shameless.

You always deflect. You support Fr. Chazal because you believe that he is a sede like you. No other reason. 

[Stubborn]

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.

It is disturbing to us all, but it need not be as confusing to them as they make it Jayne. They go out of their way, as they must, in order to help make it confusing - not only for them but for everyone - and all for absolutely, positively no reason whatsoever. Sedeism truly is iniquitous.

There certainly is no reason to be so concerned about it that they must go out of their way to reject *all* authoritative Church teachings in the matter and twist all the teachings so that they fit their own misguided presupposition that the pope is not the pope, then accuse those who actually have faith in the Perennial teachings of the Church of being heretics.

[Ladislaus]

Thanks, but that's okay Jayne. If my defense against sedevacantism distresses you, it may be better for you to avoid this thread.

Last I checked, Jaynek is not a sede-anything-ist.  She obviously just finds your abrasive arrogant divisive personality to be "distressing".

[Meg]

Last I checked, Jaynek is not a sede-anything-ist.  She obviously just finds your abrasive arrogant divisive personality to be "distressing".

And yet she doesn't mind when you call me a heretic for believing that Francis has jurisdiction.

[Ladislaus]

You always deflect. You support Fr. Chazal because you believe that he is a sede like you. No other reason.

You are simply not intellectually competent to discuss these matters, nor are you intellectually honest.

[Meg]

You are simply not intellectually competent to discuss these matters, nor are you intellectually honest.

What other reason could there be for you to support Fr. Chazal, other than believing that he is your brand of sede?