Once again, the crux of the matter is how one understands the nature of the magisterium. He gets it wrong and thus sees only one possibility, just like the Catholic who believes he must accept VII in toto.
No he doesn't. His letter is crystal clear in theology and logic. He even uses the Vatican II "Popes" and theologians to back his assertions. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
I have great respect for the SSPX and use them to get the sacraments. But the one thing that's always puzzled me is why they can't see the obvious. I used to like and hold their position because it was more "comforting". But the more I read and the more I observed I realized the position is untenable.
John XXIIII was most assuredly a freemason. Masons themselves as well as Turkish guards testify to this. He refused to publish the Third Secret just as all of his successors have followed. Cardinal Siri was elected Pope. Even Malichi Martin attests to this in Keys of His Blood. These assertions are 95% probable and accurate from numerous sources. The apostacy of the last 50 years also point to these assertions being true. Even Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the possibility and said so on numerous occasions but for whatever reasosns could not make a definitive statement. It becomes more obvious, to me anyway, by the day that the last Vicar of Christ was His Holiness Pope Pius XII.
Whether there is a secret successor of Siri floating around under ground or not will be found out in God's good time. In the mean time I hope for the day when Peter and Paul will come down from heaven, preach in the whole world and the light will shine on the cardinal who is to become the Roman Pontiff. If indeed those prophecies are true? Of course this is after the horrible wars and revolutions where, "half the world, deep drenched in blood, will die." And as Our Lady said, "The living will envy the dead."
Yes, he does. He misunderstands the nature of the universal ordinary magisterium. His article may be internally coherent and logical, but since he labors under a false definition, and therefor puts forth a false dichotomy, he comes to a false conclusion. But considering what kind of "evidence" compels your intellect to assent to any given proposition, e.g. John XXIII was a freemason, I'm not sure your opinion holds much water.
No water? I think there's a hole in your bucket.
chew on this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17922How anyone can have access to the information available today and still think Roncalli, Montini etc... are valid popes is beyond my comprehension.
The maxim, "a DOUBTFUL Pope IS NO Pope." should lay these puppies to rest.
I think this mid April deadline will be very interesting. It may finally force some or even all in the SSPX to come to a decision and face reality. You can't not make a decision forever. Either they're Popes and you follow them, since that's what he asks of you, or you proclaim the truth to the world. The Catholic structures have been infiltrated and usurped by a coup 54 years ago.
Catholics can not have differences in doctrine. But according to the SSPX and Vatican that's exactly the case. So we have a strange predicament here. They both can't be Catholic. Either the SSPX is in schism or Rome has been usurped.
There's no middle ground. As much as the SSPX wants their "Wonderland".
Topic: MHT Seminary Newsletter (February 2012) (Read 10577 times)