Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7

Author Topic: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P  (Read 11076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« on: June 04, 2025, 07:25:57 AM »
The SSPX has never put forward sedevacantism as its official policy.

That said, the SSPX long-tolerated sedevacantism as a private opinion. Even its criticism of the so-called "Nine" or then-Fr. Guerard des Lauriers was not an attack on sedevacantism in se, rather it was a criticism that their presentations of the sedevacantist and sedeprivationist theories was imprudent and premature. Even Msgr. Lefebvre never excluded the possibility of a long vacancy, he merely believed that in his time such a judgment would be too soon. Further, not all the Nine were sedevacantist in the 1980s although most had embraced that position by 2000.

Now however, like so many Trad Inc. R&R types, the SSPX is openly attacking sedevacantism:

https://youtu.be/tktlEwHFQAk?feature=shared

WHY???
Logged

Offline Mr G

Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2025, 07:38:47 AM »
Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on June 04, 2025, 07:25:57 AM

Now however, like so many Trad Inc. R&R types, the SSPX is openly attacking sedevacantism:

https://youtu.be/tktlEwHFQAk?feature=shared

WHY???
Because of Pope Francis, there is more reasons to believe he was not the Pope, 1.) heresy before and after election 2.) substantial error in the resignation 3.) error in his concept of what a Pope is 4.) illegal campaigning 5.) CIA manipulation. Thus, more people are likely to accept he was not the Pope and neither is Leo, thus the R&R group must try harder to keep people (and their money) from leaving. 
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2025, 08:12:25 AM »
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short,  elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday.  
 
Logged

Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2025, 08:56:20 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on June 04, 2025, 08:12:25 AM
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short,  elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday. 
 
Had you read the title of this thread to the end uou would have seen thd word "poorly" to describe this.

Dogmatic sedevacantism is as annoying as R&R. Nuanced sedevacantism and sedeprivationism are legitimate, logical opinions.
Logged

Offline WorldsAway

Re: Not the SSPX of 40 Years Ago: Neo-SSPX Is Directly Attacking Sedevacantism ... P
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2025, 09:01:48 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on June 04, 2025, 08:12:25 AM
Funny how you say this sermon is attacking sedeism, seemed almost more like a nothing burger to me. All he did was give a short,  elementary talk about what sedeism amounts to. At my SSPX chapel we had a much better sermon on sedeism this past Sunday. 
 
Anyone else hear one? Wonder if there was a memo sent out :confused:
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
« previous next »