Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Goose

The fruits of SV are scandal after scandal after scandal; from the queer beginnings of the CMRI to the absurd behavior of Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn, to the many ridiculous wanna be popes, the Huttons of the movement, the endless conspiracy theories.. ad nauseum. Truly sedevacantism is the flip side of the same coin of the novus ordo.

Hey Goose, do I think you are outside the Church, I don't know are you?  

Your note above and anybody reading it might feel you think the sede's are outside the Church.  But, thats okay, right!

I never said or implied that sede's are outside the Church - I've argued against that mentality on other forums. I just happen to think SVism is  implausible, completely disagree with it, and think it's very likely to induce people to despair and spiritual starvation.  Just what this guy  :devil2: wants.

Myrna said:
Not to worry, most sede's that I know are very happy and as far as spiritual starvation, not unless they are staying away from the sacraments of the Church, for reasons only God knows.  

 :cheers:

GV shouldn't cuss at you, but calling him a dunce won't help things much.

For the record, this emoticon is not wearing a dunce cap, but a tin foil hat --->  :tinfoil:

It was not intentional. I only had time to skim the thread, it had grown so large. I happened to spot this and thought I'd correct it in passing.

What city has seven "mountains," or hills, Stevus?  Do you dare deny this refers to Rome?  I didn't think so, let's continue:

Quote

..."Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time."

Hm, here we have a city that is clearly Rome, and it has five kings who are fallen.  What kind of king does Rome have?  

I will explain this passage to the best of my limited ability in another thread, maybe, but for now I just want to show Stevus that a series of anti-Popes is more than plausible and is in fact here recorded in Holy Scripture.  Unless he has another explanation for five fallen kings in Rome.

The seven heads of the beast are seven emperors. Five of them the Seer says are fallen. They are Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The year of Nero's death is A.D. 68. The Seer goes on to say "One is", namely Vespasian, A.D. 70-79. He is the sixth emperor. The seventh, we are told by the Seer, "is not yet come. But when he comes his reign will be short". Titus is meant, who reigned but two years (79-81). The eighth emperor is Domitian (81-96). Of him the Seer has something very peculiar to say. He is identified with the beast. He is described as the one that "was and is not and shall come up out of the bottomless pit" (17:8). In verse 11 it is added: "And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction".

All this sounds like oracular language. But the clue to its solution is furnished by a popular belief largely spread at the time. The death of Nero had been witnessed by few. Chiefly in the East a notion had taken hold of the mind of the people that Nero was still alive. Gentiles, Jews, and Christians were under the illusion that he was hiding himself, and as was commonly thought, he had gone over to the Parthians, the most troublesome foes of the empire. From there they expected him to return at the head of a mighty army to avenge himself on his enemies. The existence of this fanciful belief is a well-attested historic fact. Tacitus speaks of it: "Achaia atque Asia falso exterrit velut Nero adventaret, vario super ejus exitu rumore eoque pluribus vivere eum fingentibus credentibusque" (Hist., II, 8). So also Dio Chrysostomus: kai nyn (about A.D. 100) eti pantes epithymousi zen oi de pleistoi kai oiontai (Orat., 21, 10; cf. Suetonius, "Vit. Caes."; s.v. NERO and the SIBYLINE ORACLES). Thus the contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized it for his own purpose.

Nero had made a name for himself by his cruelty and licentiousness. The Christians in particular had reason to dread him. Under him the first persecution took place. The second occurred under Domitian. But unlike the previous one, it was not confined to Italy, but spread throughout the provinces. Many Christians were put to death, many were banished (Eusebius, Church History III.17-19). In this way the Seer was led to regard Domitian as a second Nero, "Nero redivivus". Hence he described him as "the one that was, that is not, and that is to return". Hence also he counts him as the eighth and at the same time makes him one of the preceding seven, viz. the fifth, Nero. The identification of the two emperors suggested itself all the more readily since even pagan authors called Domitian a second Nero (calvus Nero, Juvenal. IV, 38). The popular belief concerning Nero's death and return seems to be referred to also in the passage (13:3): "And I saw one of its heads as it were slain to death: and its death's wound was healed"...

Note well, Stevus, the fight of St. Bernard against Anacletus II.  Anacletus was elected by a majority of Cardinals.  He was accepted by almost everyone as Pope, except for a fringe.  St. Bernard had a problem with him simply because he was Jєωιѕн.  St. Bernard won, and Anacletus II is now considered an anti-Pope.

The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favour of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine (Op. cxxvi). They may not be canonically cogent; but they satisfied his contemporaries. "The life and character of our Pope Innocent are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other's are not safe even from his friends= In the second place, if you compare the elections, that of our candidate at once has the advantage over the other as being purer in motive, more regular in form, and earlier in time. The last point is out of all doubt; the other two are proved by the merit and the dignity of the electors. You will find, if I mistake not, that this election was made by the more discreet part of those to whom the election of the Supreme Pontiff belongs. There were cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons, in sufficient number, according to the decrees of the Fathers, to make a valid election. The consecration was performed by the Bishop of Ostia, to whom that function specially belongs."

This shows you three things:

( 1 ) There is nowhere near as much evidence against Anacletus II as there is against the heretical frauds that run Vatican II

When Anacletus died, the preference of the Romans for Innocent was so pronounced that the antipope, Victor IV, whom the party chose as his successor, soon came as a penitent to St. Bernard and by him was led to the feet of the Pope. Thus ended, after eight years of duration, a schism which threatened serious disaster to the Church.

( 2 ) St. Bernard did not accept a man as Pope just because the majority believed he was.

( 3 ) No one calls St. Bernard a schismatic or heretic

What you are saying is pseudo-pious, you are playing on a kind of papolatry with one hand -- HOW DARE THEY JUDGE THE POPE -- while with the other you insult the papacy itself ( reducing infallibiity to nothing ).

The reality is that you in the SSPX "judge the Pope" more than sedes do, since you decide to ignore virtually everything he says.

In our case, no judgment is involved, we simply acknowledge he isn't Pope at all, and that what he says is about as relevant ( or irrelevant ) as what Mikael Gorbachev or Michael Savage would say, since he is not guided by the Holy Ghost.

But what is YOUR excuse for ignoring him?  After all, he's YOUR Pope...