Author Topic: John Salza on Sedevacantism (Read 7507 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2011, 10:53:31 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

Actually it is proven that Vatican II is not Catholic and the reason is the 4 Marks of the Church are missing from Vatican II. These marks were put there so the world would recognize the True Church. Therefore if B16 is a Pope, he is a pope of a man made religion, not the Catholic church.

You all prove daily that Vatican II, is not Catholic, because none of you attend its service, none of you put your children in their schools. You don't support it, by giving alms to the support of the Church, one of the precepts of the Church. So, I ask you all tell me, who is B16 the pope of?

If you say he is the pope of Tradition, that is a laugh and a half.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2011, 01:55:29 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion...

If he did not believe it is a fact, why would he hold it at all?

It is my opinion that Obama is not president (although he is obviously acting like he is), as he is not eligible to hold the office. I believe this because I have seen evidence that makes me doubt/deny his eligibility. Thus it is an opinion that I hold based upon various facts. While it is true that the vast majority of men disagree with me, that alone does not make my thoughts on the matter ridiculous. It just means many have not seen the evidence I have, or, if they have seen it, they have not drawn the same conclusion I have drawn.

I actually agree that Obama is not President, because he was not born in this country. I was just saying that it's never been proven that sedevacantism is a fact. It's a matter of opinion. If it's your opinion that Benedict is an anti-pope, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's just wrong to say that it's a fact.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:01:44 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

Actually it is proven that Vatican II is not Catholic and the reason is the 4 Marks of the Church are missing from Vatican II. These marks were put there so the world would recognize the True Church. Therefore if B16 is a Pope, he is a pope of a man made religion, not the Catholic church.

You all prove daily that Vatican II, is not Catholic, because none of you attend its service, none of you put your children in their schools. You don't support it, by giving alms to the support of the Church, one of the precepts of the Church. So, I ask you all tell me, who is B16 the pope of?

If you say he is the pope of Tradition, that is a laugh and a half.

Yeah, it's been PROVEN that Vatican II isn't Catholic, but has it been proven that sedevacantism is a fact? No. Don't get me wrong, I respect the sede position. I'm not like the people on CAF who have no respect for it. I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:16:45 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I was just saying that it's never been proven that sedevacantism is a fact. It's a matter of opinion.

It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated to you, but that is not the same thing as its not being a fact. At the moment, I am not saying it IS, but pointing out that something can be a fact that isn't recognized by anyone as existing or true.

Quote

If it's your opinion that Benedict is an anti-pope, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's just wrong to say that it's a fact.

No, it is fine to say it is a fact if one holds it as such. No one would believe it at all unless they thought it was a fact that had been demonstrated to their satisfaction. Do you believe your opinion about BXVI is a fact, or just an opinion?

What you really object to is that some who take it as a fact claim that others must also believe it, even if they have not seen this or that bit of evidence or reached the same conclusions (and Holy Church has not definitively declared one way or another). There are those who think V2 has been a wonderful success. Does that mean it is WRONG for you to say it is a fact that it has been an unmitigated disaster? No.

Just to give you an example...Pretend there is a scientist who proves this or that through experimentation, observation, etc. Then, he shares his results with the world. Some agree with his findings, others do not. He claims his discovery is a fact, although there are some who disagree with him. That does not make it WRONG for him to call his findings factual.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:19:16 PM »

I don't believe my stance is a fact because only God knows for sure. But there is no proof to determine that either side is clearly right or wrong.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:21:11 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

This is a presumption we are in no position to make.

As for V2, the VAST majority of the world totally disagrees with you that anything negative has been proved about V2. Where does that leave us?

Darcy · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:30:16 PM »

Quote

Note that the pope must not only deny Catholic truth, but he must also do it knowingly and pertinaciously. In other words, he must be confronted about his heretical beliefs still persist in his error. This means that the pope must be a formal (not just a material) heretic.

_______

The conciliar church knows it has been confronted because they respond to sedevacantists and SSPX.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:30:48 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

Actually it is proven that Vatican II is not Catholic and the reason is the 4 Marks of the Church are missing from Vatican II. These marks were put there so the world would recognize the True Church. Therefore if B16 is a Pope, he is a pope of a man made religion, not the Catholic church.

You all prove daily that Vatican II, is not Catholic, because none of you attend its service, none of you put your children in their schools. You don't support it, by giving alms to the support of the Church, one of the precepts of the Church. So, I ask you all tell me, who is B16 the pope of?

If you say he is the pope of Tradition, that is a laugh and a half.

Yeah, it's been PROVEN that Vatican II isn't Catholic, but has it been proven that sedevacantism is a fact? No. Don't get me wrong, I respect the sede position. I'm not like the people on CAF who have no respect for it. I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

So then please tell me, what is B16 the pope of?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2011, 08:13:52 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

This is a presumption we are in no position to make.

As for V2, the VAST majority of the world totally disagrees with you that anything negative has been proved about V2. Where does that leave us?

Those people are naive. The truth is in front of them but they deny it.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2011, 08:15:01 PM »

Waiting! :geezer:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #25 on:** April 06, 2011, 08:18:43 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

Actually it is proven that Vatican II is not Catholic and the reason is the 4 Marks of the Church are missing from Vatican II. These marks were put there so the world would recognize the True Church. Therefore if B16 is a Pope, he is a pope of a man made religion, not the Catholic church.

You all prove daily that Vatican II, is not Catholic, because none of you attend its service, none of you put your children in their schools. You don't support it, by giving alms to the support of the Church, one of the precepts of the Church. So, I ask you all tell me, who is B16 the pope of?

If you say he is the pope of Tradition, that is a laugh and a half.

Yeah, it's been PROVEN that Vatican II isn't Catholic, but has it been proven that sedevacantism is a fact? No. Don't get me wrong, I respect the sede position. I'm not like the people on CAF who have no respect for it. I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

So then please tell me, what is B16 the pope of?

Well, there's two churches. There's the Church of Tradition, and the church of modernism. Benedict tries to lead both and merge them together. The fact is, they can't be merged. His policy is "Let's try to please everybody". But it should be "Let's try to please God".

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:21:45 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Well, there's two churches. There's the Church of Tradition, and the church of modernism. Benedict tries to lead both and merge them together.

Two bodies, one head? FWIW, not even sci-fi movies have given us such a monster.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:26:09 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Those people are naive. The truth is in front of them but they deny it.

Agreed. Yet, JP2 goes to the jungles of Africa to pray with VooDoo-ists, but all excuse it. BXVI goes to ѕуηαgσgυєs, but all excuse it. The only man "excommunicated" in this era is one of the few defenders of the Faith, while the swarm of flaming heretics are protected and encouraged. When do the blind see?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:50:08 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Raoul, Matthew and I have already shown you that it has NEVER been proven that we do not currently have a Pope. To belieive it is a fact is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be a sedevacantist, but it's a matter of opinion. As of right now, I think that if God really prefered people to take the sede stance He would reveal it in some way. In the mean time, as long as you are a Traditional Catholic whose number one goal in life is to obtain Heaven, it hardly makes a difference whether or not you think Benedict is Pope.

Actually it is proven that Vatican II is not Catholic and the reason is the 4 Marks of the Church are missing from Vatican II. These marks were put there so the world would recognize the True Church. Therefore if B16 is a Pope, he is a pope of a man made religion, not the Catholic church.

You all prove daily that Vatican II, is not Catholic, because none of you attend its service, none of you put your children in their schools. You don't support it, by giving alms to the support of the Church, one of the precepts of the Church. So, I ask you all tell me, who is B16 the pope of?

If you say he is the pope of Tradition, that is a laugh and a half.

Yeah, it's been PROVEN that Vatican II isn't Catholic, but has it been proven that sedevacantism is a fact? No. Don't get me wrong, I respect the sede position. I'm not like the people on CAF who have no respect for it. I'm only saying that if it were a fact, God would specifically reveal it in some way.

So then please tell me, what is B16 the pope of?

Well, there's two churches. There's the Church of Tradition, and the church of modernism. Benedict tries to lead both and merge them together. The fact is, they can't be merged. His policy is "Let's try to please everybody". But it should be "Let's try to please God".

I give you an "E" for Effort, and at least you agree the "vicar" of Christ can not please God. But..... he is still the pope???

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:03:35 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Those people are naive. The truth is in front of them but they deny it.

Agreed. Yet, JP2 goes to the jungles of Africa to pray with VooDoo-ists, but all excuse it. BXVI goes to ѕуηαgσgυєs, but all excuse it. The only man "excommunicated" in this era is one of the few defenders of the Faith, while the swarm of flaming heretics are protected and encouraged. When do the blind see?

I don't excuse it. Archbishop LeFebvre didn't excuse it either. The Pope has no excuse to do such a thing. But Our Lady did say that even the elite would be deceived. That doesn't give JPII or Benedict XVI any excuses, but it shows how foolish they are to go along with it.