Author Topic: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope. (Read 9919 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #225 on:** March 30, 2019, 11:50:52 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 29, 2019, 09:16:52 PM

He would exercise the material/govt jurisdiction but not the spiritual aspect, until consecrated.

That's my feeling as well. Much of the papal authority, including teaching authority, is tied to his role as a Bishop.

And my slant on sedeprivationism is that even a heretic pope could exercise material aspects or jurisdiction, such as making appointments to episcopal sees, and those bishops would in fact thereby have ordinary jurisdiction (provided they themselves are not incapable of holding office by some impediment). This addresses the "ecclesia-vacantist" problem with straight sedevacantism.

Caraffa · « **Reply #226 on:** March 30, 2019, 06:05:31 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 27, 2019, 03:10:38 AM

I'm not "R&R" (which means Recognize and Resist, for those whom this is new - coined by Fr. Cekada). If you want a convenient acronym to describe the True Traditionalist position, it would be something like, "RSWR" (i.e. Recognize, Submit, Work for Restoration).

Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #227 on:** March 30, 2019, 06:11:58 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa on March 30, 2019, 06:05:31 PM

Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it.

Yeah, LOL, he came up with R&S, Recognize and Submit. That last part about working is just silly and not central to characterizing the position.

So, then, Xavier, go ahead and "SUBMIT". Submit to the New Mass, to Vatican II, to everything.

That's just stupid. In fact, the entire Traditional movement is defined by RESISTING (rather than conforming to and submitting to) the Modernist teaching and discipline coming out of Rome.

I recall sitting at table with Father Peter Scott, then SSPX US District Superior, at Regina Caeli House, alongside a couple of priests. During the discussion, a couple of the priests claimed that the SSPX were not being disobedient. I said, "Of course we're disobedient." We all looked to Father Scott to chime in. He paused for a moment, thought, and said, "Yes, yes were are." and then began laughing (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion, a very distinctive laugh). It's some kind of bizarre delusion that some in the SSPX have that they are in fact "submitting" to Rome and being "obedient". It's an almost Clinton-esque, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

forlorn · « **Reply #228 on:** March 30, 2019, 06:34:10 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 30, 2019, 06:11:58 PM

Yeah, LOL, he came up with R&S, Recognize and Submit. That last part about working is just silly and not central to characterizing the position.

So, then, Xavier, go ahead and "SUBMIT". Submit to the New Mass, to Vatican II, to everything.

That's just stupid. In fact, the entire Traditional movement is defined by RESISTING (rather than conforming to and submitting to) the Modernist teaching and discipline coming out of Rome.

I recall sitting at table with Father Peter Scott, then SSPX US District Superior, at Regina Caeli House, alongside a couple of priests. During the discussion, a couple of the priests claimed that the SSPX were not being disobedient. I said, "Of course we're disobedient." We all looked to Father Scott to chime in. He paused for a moment, thought, and said, "Yes, yes were are." and then began laughing (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion, a very distinctive laugh). It's some kind of bizarre delusion that some in the SSPX have that they are in fact "submitting" to Rome and being "obedient". It's an almost Clinton-esque, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Yep. He "submits" to Rome by rejecting their Mass, calling it a lesser Mass, and attending the masses of a society with no canonical status. And apparently +ABL was submitting when he knowingly put himself under pain of excommunication to consecrate his Bishops. And the SSPX as a whole submitted by saying a mass priests were barred from saying, and letting priests with no ministry in the Church say masses.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #229 on:** March 30, 2019, 09:05:17 PM »

I recall sitting at table with Father Peter Scott, then SSPX US District Superior, at Regina Caeli House, alongside a couple of priests. During the discussion, a couple of the priests claimed that the SSPX were not being disobedient. I said, "Of course we're disobedient." We all looked to Father Scott to chime in. He paused for a moment, thought, and said, "Yes, yes were are." and then began laughing (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion, a very distinctive laugh). It's some kind of bizarre delusion that some in the SSPX have that they are in fact "submitting" to Rome and being "obedient". It's an almost Clinton-esque, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

What if you said you'd submit to all lawful (ie. not contradicting God's law) commands?

Did the Apostles submit to the (pagan) Roman government when they preached the gospel under persecution?

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #230 on:** March 30, 2019, 10:54:49 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Amazing, you just took the view that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong and you didn't even notice it.

Archbishop Lefebvre never coined the term "R&R", it was Fr. Cekada who did that. And Fr. Cekada, as I have shown, held wrong opinions on the validity of the new rite (and still defends them now even after they have been falsified; Fr. Marie has said, the passage of 40 odd years (now 50+) since that rite was introduced already shows that it could not have been invalid, otherwise there would be no residential Bishops in the Roman Church, which is contrary to Her indefectibility), and tried to lead the SSPX itself into a practical sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre, in hindsight, said he had given too much power to the SVists, and they used it to steal his chapels, take him to a court case, and do various other foolish things like that, but above all, they corrupted the theology of the Society, from its original intent when it was founded as a canonically regular society. The right purpose of the SSPX from the beginning was to preserve and continue Catholic Tradition in communion with Rome. You look at the letter of the 9 and Archbishop Lefebvre's response to them and this becomes clear:

"In any case, I thank all of you here for remaining faithful to us, and we will remain faithful to you. We will carry on with what you have always seen in the Society. I gave Confirmation today just as I have given it in Oyster Bay Cove, in Armada, and elsewhere, in all the centers. I have changed nothing. So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out. Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

Fr. Cekada has said he used to enjoy pitting some of Archbishop Lefebvre's statements with other statements, as if they were in opposition to each other, even when he was in the SSPX. What Fr. C fails to realize is that sometimes upon deeper reflection it becomes clear that some alternatives are ruled out. Svism and "no valid sacraments at all" is ruled out now, clearly, that we are 60+ years into the alleged vacancy, and 50+ years after the introduction of a new rite. It is not possible that there are no residential Bishops in the universal Church. It is not possible that the Roman Church as a particular local Church, being "the mother of the Churches", is without a valid episcopal lineage. These two theological points are absolutely certain. If you also see it, great. If not, fine, do as you like. The SSPX knows the right path and has chosen it.

forlorn · « **Reply #231 on:** March 31, 2019, 11:00:24 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 30, 2019, 10:54:49 PM

Archbishop Lefebvre, in hindsight, said he had given too much power to the SVists, and they used it to steal his chapels, take him to a court case, and do various other foolish things like that, but above all, they corrupted the theology of the Society, from its original intent when it was founded as a canonically regular society.

A canonically regular society which still, to this day, has no canonical status.

Author Topic: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope. (Read 9919 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Caraffa

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Ladislaus

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

forlorn

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

ByzCat3000

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

Nishant Xavier

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.

forlorn

Re: Robert Siscoe Article in 1 Pet 5: the one doctrine that proves Francis is Pope.