Author Topic: Sedevacantists Reject Fatima? (Read 5345 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »

Quote from: Michael Wilson

She was instructed to hand over the secret to her bishop and he was free to open the secret up and read it as well as promulgate it immediately; but not latter than 1960. It was solely his decision.

I don't buy this. Our Lady would not give a secret so important to the very life of souls and then leave it to the Bishop to reveal it or not. I firmly believe that She commanded that it be revealed and no later than 1960.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2014, 03:25:59 PM »

Sean, one thing you have to remember is that this is one of the big differences between sedes and R&R'ers going back at least 25 years. Leading sedes in general have always given more weight to traditional theologians than to private revelation in their explanation of what happened over the past 50 years.

Whereas the R&R have always tended towards a less theological explanation, while giving much more weight to private revelations and and alleged cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2014, 03:39:20 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Sean, one thing you have to remember is that this is one of the big differences between sedes and R&R'ers going back at least 25 years. Leading sedes in general have always given more weight to traditional theologians than to private revelation in their explanation of what happened over the past 50 years.

Whereas the R&R have always tended towards a less theological explanation, while giving much more weight to private revelations and and alleged cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:13:00 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Sean, one thing you have to remember is that this is one of the big differences between sedes and R&R'ers going back at least 25 years. Leading sedes in general have always given more weight to traditional theologians than to private revelation in their explanation of what happened over the past 50 years.

Whereas the R&R have always tended towards a less theological explanation, while giving much more weight to private revelations and and alleged cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

I have read it when SSPX first published it 15 years ago and have reread it recently. I keep telling you that it is a non sequitur.

There is never a case of necessity to reject the universal disciplinary laws of the Church. There is never a case of necessity to reject the Pope's ordinary magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject a canonization of a saint. There is never a case of necessity to reject a sacramental rite approved by the Pope.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:18:16 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Pete Vere
Sean, one thing you have to remember is that this is one of the big differences between sedes and R&R'ers going back at least 25 years. Leading sedes in general have always given more weight to traditional theologians than to private revelation in their explanation of what happened over the past 50 years.

Whereas the R&R have always tended towards a less theological explanation, while giving much more weight to private revelations and and alleged cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

And yet you can't get them to read a theological study on the doctrine of necessity (yourself included), much less offer a refutation of it.

They know what happens to their theory once they expose their minds to it, and they wont allow that to happen.

I have read it when SSPX first published it 15 years ago and have reread it recently. I keep telling you that it is a non sequitur.

There is never a case of necessity to reject the universal disciplinary laws of the Church. There is never a case of necessity to reject the Pope's ordinary magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. There is never a case of necessity to reject a canonization of a saint. There is never a case of necessity to reject a sacramental rite approved by the Pope.

Perhaps you need to read it again, since all the approved theologians whose teachings comprise that study say exactly the opposite in the article you claim to have read.