Author Topic: Sedevacantism discussion (Read 14328 times)

soulguard · « **Reply #30 on:** November 27, 2013, 03:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: soulguard

Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.

Really? So, is that the reason you have not answered any of the theological inquiries posted to you on this page?

Maybe what you mean to say is that sedevacantists will only respond to theological inquiry posted by other sedevacantists, and that if they expand their horizons a little beyond that, it comes with a tone of ___ fill in the blank ___.

In my continuing experience, sedes are wont to exile themselves into a dark corner where they will only associate with others who share their opinion, and it's not limited to their opinion as to the validity of the pope.

.

You are an indomitable fool neil obstat. I told you a while ago that you were now on ignore so I would not be able to see your posts. By chance I happened to undo that and now I read more of your garbage. The questions you post are first of all, from you, and I don't read your posts, but second of all, you just posted them like an hour ago or something and I was doing something so was not on Cathinfo to read them. I'm not answering your questions. That does not prove your point, because I answer everyone whether sede or not, and if I don't, it is not because of their view on the SV opinion. Btw, the thread you link to as an example of how I don't answer inquiry was actually begun by me and has replies from me. I don't set myself up as an authority, but you seem to, hence you think that I ought to account for my complete doctrine to everyone, even though I mostly just ask questions and make small talk.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** November 27, 2013, 03:11:14 PM »

Quote from: St Magnus

I'm not a sedevacantist but how any orthodox Catholic can't understand why a sedevacantist comes to the conclusion the seat is empty is beyond my understanding.

The conciliar hierarchy for the most part is an absolute joke.

And that's the key. In mutual charity, can't we at least SEE how or why it is that those with whom we disagree have come to their conclusions? In so doing perhaps we could be less bitter towards them.

If we happen to be right and they wrong, it is not our doing but only God's Mercy. I tend to lean sedevacantist myself, but have zero hard feelings for SSPX, SSFP, Indult, and even those trying to find their way in the murky waters of the Novus Ordo. If anything, we are to pity them for not receiving the same graces we have received. We are to pray for them. If I am an SSPXer and think that the sedevacantists are wrong, I pray for them. And vice versa. If I am Bishop Kelly who believes that the Thuc bishops are invalid, I pity them and offer to conditionally ordain their priests and consecrate their bishops ... rather than almost relish the fact that they might be deprived of valid Sacraments. If we are resistance, can't we at least have some pity for Bishop Fellay? Is he also not someone's son or brother? Did Our Lord not die for him also? If I am Bishop Fellay, can't I have some pity for and understanding of the resistance, rather than withholding Sacraments from them and expelling them?

Sadly, Francis Bergoglio shows more outward signs of charity than so many Traditional Catholics. In having received so much more grace through the Traditional Sacraments, why is is that we are so much more proud and angry and bitter and self-righteous than so many in the Novus Ordo?

We are nothing without the Mercy of God.

2Vermont · « **Reply #32 on:** November 27, 2013, 03:48:28 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: soulguard

Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.

Really? So, is that the reason you have not answered any of the theological inquiries posted to you on this page?

Maybe what you mean to say is that sedevacantists will only respond to theological inquiry posted by other sedevacantists, and that if they expand their horizons a little beyond that, it comes with a tone of ___ fill in the blank ___.

In my continuing experience, sedes are wont to exile themselves into a dark corner where they will only associate with others who share their opinion, and it's not limited to their opinion as to the validity of the pope.

.

Neil, when you and your ilk, start to recognize that posters don't respond to you all because of your collective inability to see their side of things and your collective judgment on their motivations and intentions, and you do something to actually rectify that, that's when you might start to get those answers you so demand. Until then expect more and more folks to ignore you.

Matto · « **Reply #33 on:** November 27, 2013, 03:55:45 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Does LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?

He thinks that Sedevacantists are schismatics so he should believe that they should be denied communion and absolution because those sacraments would not benefit them because they are obstinate in sin and if they were to receicve those sacraments it would be a sacrilege (If LH is right that they are in schism).

soulguard · « **Reply #34 on:** November 27, 2013, 03:59:12 PM »

How can SVitsts be in schism for holding to the eternal unchanging doctrine of the church?

It is not the case that the church began in 1965.