I just want to say that I totally respect and understand why people take the Sedevacantist position.I commend you on your sensible approach to the crisis, Roger. Would that we all agreed!
In fact a CMRI priest who takes the Sedevacantist position comes to our home once a month, says Mass and offers the Sacraments - and we keep the peace by not arguing about it.
And so I want to share here a 1 page PDF on how me and my family understand the Sedevacantist position.
Please Click this Link: https://mothermary.website/sedevacantism.pdf (https://mothermary.website/sedevacantism.pdf)
Thanks and Kind Regards in +J M J,
Roger
I read your docuмent. Why are you judging the First See by refusing his doctrines, his commands, and the sacraments according to the liturgy he commands and accepting sacraments from priests who are absolutely refuse communion with him?You are trying to make a case that Roger is contradicting himself. He is not. It requires a Catholic to understand what the Magisterium is and when it is infallible. It requires a Catholic to understand the difference between true and false obedience. Happily, most traditionalists do. Sedevacantists do exactly the same thing - judge the utterances and actions of the Pope. The only difference is, when they hear or see something against the Faith or Tradition, they believe they may judge him in his office and declare him deposed. There is no practical difference in your idea of judging the First See, other than one deposes and stops praying for the Pope, the other does not. Catholics may not turn off their reason when they are given a command, no matter who it is commanding.
It requires an Old Catholic to understand what the Magisterium is and when it is infallible. It requires an Old Catholic to understand the difference between true and false obedience. Happily, most traditionalists do.
Drats! I was really hoping, Roger, that your testimony might open the eyes of Ladislaus. Looks like you have failed like the rest of us... Hope springs eternal!
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
we have the right to oppose the authorities, publicly, when they proclaim and profess errors. [Plenus Venter of CathInfo]
Sedevacantists like to take the Archbishop out of context and make him appear a closet Sedevacantist. It's laughable if not dishonest.
Sedevacantists like to take the Archbishop out of context and make him appear a closet Sedevacantist.
The Archbishop waffled... That's the TRUTH. To not recognize that is dishonest. Everyone just quotes what they want from him. It's not out of context. Some of you just can't handle the truth.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5JYR_13As&t=1s)(118) You Can't Handle The Truth - A Few Good Men (Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson #movie #shorts) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvypKtPhRU0&t=7s)
I just want to say that I totally respect and understand why people take the Sedevacantist position.Does the CMRI priest know your position?
In fact a CMRI priest who takes the Sedevacantist position comes to our home once a month, says Mass and offers the Sacraments - and we keep the peace by not arguing about it.
And so I want to share here a 1 page PDF on how me and my family understand the Sedevacantist position.
Please Click this Link: https://mothermary.website/sedevacantism.pdf (https://mothermary.website/sedevacantism.pdf)
Thanks and Kind Regards in +J M J,
Roger
The Archbishop waffled...
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)and from the video/audio above:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
Popes don't proclaim and profess errors, you poor souls!
-The Vatican Council
(not some made-up sh*t by idiots on CathInfo)
Apart from the Father Cekada's video, where he's clearly trolling R&R by entitling the video, "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist", I've never known a sedevacantist who claimed that +Lefebvre was a "closet Sedevacantist". Most SVs recognize the objective truth, which some of the obsessive/dogmatic R&R like Plenus deny.
1) Apart from a period in the early 1980s, +Lefebvre was not particularly hostile to SVism.
2) There were times, 1976, 1986, 1988 where he flirted with it and appeared to come close to embracing it.
3) Unlike many of his later R&R followers, +Lefebvre did not deny that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost and prevented from destroy the Church to the degree that the V2 popes did, thereby upholding the MAJOR premise of sedevacantism, but simple felt that the MINOR (the explanation for how this happened) was uncertain, deferring it to the Church's future judgment.
That is the objective reality that some / many of his followers refuse to admit, because they're intellectually dishonest.
See, here's the thing. SVs can be objective because they don't uphold +Lefebvre as some kind of substitute rule of faith for the Magisterium. "+Lefebvre did not embrace sedevacantism 100%. So what? He was wrong." Meanwhile, many R&R have replaced the actual Catholic / papal Magisterium with the teaching of +Lefebvre (which changed at different times, so that their "Magisterium" is changeable, like that of the Modernist, ironically). This is the full the vacuum of the Magisterium that they discard.
Father Cekada astutely points out that at different points in SSPX history, the so-called "hard-liners" were on the outs, and at other times the "soft-liners", but at all times the +Lefebvre-liners, the sycophants who didn't think but just believed as dogmatic truth whatever the Archbishop said on any given morning, thrived and were promoted into positions of authority, even if it means holding the opposite opinion from one day to the next.
Back to the Archbishop, he was not "dishonest" or "two-faced" or a "flip-flopper". Archbishop Lefebvre was truly conflicted by the contradiction posed by the Conciliar Church, almost tormented by it. This is a conflict that many modern R&R, like Plenus here, don't have, because they've discarded the one pole of that conflict, namely, Archbishop Lefebvre's conviction that the Papacy and the Church are protected and guided by the Holy Ghost and prevented from destroying the Church. He couldn't resolve that principle with the reality of a Montini or Wojtyla. So that's why he termed it a "mystery" and left it there, unable to definitively resolve the conflict in his mind. But modern R&R have disposed of the one point or the one pole in the conflict, namely, the protection of the papacy and the Magisterium by the Holy Ghost.
Archbishop Lefebvre ... was confronted with the terrible reality of Montini and Wojtyla. That's why he ultimately called it a "mystery", since he could not resolve the conflict in his mind.
He himself was unable to "answer" this question definitively, and so he left it as a "mystery" and something that would "one day" have to be answered by the Church.
I would avoid the term "waffled," which makes him sound weak-minded or even somewhat dishonest. He was in fact truly and deeply conflicted. Archbishop Lefebvre never abandoned the notion, the principle, that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost, and prevented from destroying the Church the way that the Conciliar papal claimants did. But then he was confronted with the terrible reality of Montini and Wojtyla. That's why he ultimately called it a "mystery", since he could not resolve the conflict in his mind.
and from the video/audio above:
He himself was unable to "answer" this question definitively, and so he left it as a "mystery" and something that would "one day" have to be answered by the Church. See also the video I posted above, where he called it a mystery, reaffirmed this same principle, that the Papacy is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost, then examines various possible explanations, from drugged pope to prisoner pope to insane pope, most of which he dismisses as "ridiculous", and finally to sedevacantism, which he says is a possible explanation ... but he's just not sure enough about it to commit to sedevacantism.
Because it IS a mystery! There IS a conflict between truth and authority. The problem is, sedevacantism doesn't resolve that conflict AT ALL. It merely gives you a NEW conflict that is equally mysterious; a new crisis of conflicting Catholic dogmas.
This is how sedevacantists resolve this conflict, by holding that these men did not in fact have the authority, which then permits the principle that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit and is the unfailing rock upon which the Church has been founded.
Just for starters, 99% of sedevacantists are of the non-Conclavist variety, which makes them a joke. So they're basically saying "we don't need no pope!" like the Orthodox. I mean, no Pope for 65 years, and there have been no effort(s) to elect one? I'd have to conclude, quite honestly and correctly, that their position is "we don't need no pope" at least PRACTICALLY speaking.No, your conclusion is not "correct".
How does that preserve the full package of the Catholic Faith in the hearts of the Faithful "better" than the R&R position? How does that make sedevacantism a better "lifeboat" during this Crisis? I firmly believe it DOES NOT.
The only sedevacantist worthy of my respect is the Conclavist variety. At least they are consistent, and putting their "sede" belief to some good use. If you're not Conclavist, you are living like a non-Sedevacantist, regular Trad Catholic practically speaking. Or to put it another way, like the dreaded "R&R" they malign so much. Let's face it, SSPV, CMRI, SSPX all resist the Pope, they all promote and live Traditional Catholicism, all are aloof from the Conciliar Church, and none of them are working to elect a new Pope.
(Now the SSPX has lately become the neo-SSPX, but I digress. Let's just say "Resistance" or "non-sedevacantists" in place of SSPX, if you must...)
The reason why most SV bishops/clergy do not elect a pope is because they do not believe they have the authority to do so, not because they believe we don't need a pope.
I don't care what their excuse(s) is/are. In practice, practically speaking, it leaves ZERO difference between THEIR vision of Trad Catholic and that of other non-Sede groups. That was my point.So, that would also mean that the non-sedes are practically speaking ....sedevacantist.
My point is that they are CONTENT to go on for decades with a "mystery", a bad pope (or no pope) that we can't solve. No practical difference why I should be with CMRI or SSPV instead of some non-Sede group which is equally Trad Catholic and aloof from the Conciliar Church.
Which sounds good, the part you typed. But you failed to type out why Sedevacantism isn't the perfect, or even better, solution.
There's the small matter of the Church having Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail over it, that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
An interregnum is one thing. A 65-year-long interregnum is a FAILURE, pure and simple.
We're back to my thesis, that the Crisis in the Church, including the Pope question, is a mystery. All WE have to do is keep the Catholic Faith until God Himself steps in and solves it. It's outside of our control at this point.
Just for starters, 99% of sedevacantists are of the non-Conclavist variety, which makes them a joke. So they're basically saying "we don't need no pope!" like the Orthodox. I mean, no Pope for 65 years, and there have been no effort(s) to elect one? I'd have to conclude, quite honestly and correctly, that their position is "we don't need no pope" at least PRACTICALLY speaking.
As I've said a thousand times, Sedevacantism doesn't solve anything, which is probably why +ABL never "went there" and certainly why I haven't gone there myself.
So, that would also mean that the non-sedes are practically speaking ....sedevacantist.
Yes, and VIRTUALLY ALL sedevacantists (any who are not "conclavist") are practically speaking non-sedevacantist. Since they make zero effort to fill the "empty Chair".Except sedes don't preach that they believe that the man sitting in the Chair is a true pope and refuse to submit to him. Which group is it that doesn't need a pope?
Now you're getting it.
That was my point: zero practical difference. No benefit. All "mainstream" (the non-conclavist variety) sedevacantism has given to the world: more artificial division in the Trad world, more home-alone families, and a lot of arguments.
Except sedes don't preach that they believe that the man sitting in the Chair is a true pope and refuse to submit to him. Which group is it that doesn't need a pope?
I see you added more after I quoted. As for the bitter zeal and anger, I've seen quite a bit of that on the dogmatic anti-sede side as well.
Someone has to DECLARE that elected Pope to be deposed. Someone has to formally condemn him, depose him. What layman can do that with any authority? That's my problem with sedevacantism. It goes JUST A BIT too far. But that little bit of excess can make a whole lot of difference practically speaking. It can lead to needless division, bitter zeal, etc.
Someone has to DECLARE that elected Pope to be deposed. Someone has to formally condemn him, depose him. What layman can do that with any authority? That's my problem with sedevacantism. It goes JUST A BIT too far. But that little bit of excess can make a whole lot of difference practically speaking. It can lead to needless division, bitter zeal, etc.
Well I can't speak for "dogmatic anti-sedes" any more than I speak for sedevacantists. I'm not part of either of those groups.It is good to consider adhering to the Archbishop's position, but also consider, to "[keep] such a good balance" and not be "extreme", we must look at all that he said, such as "So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope". And, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope." (Talk about a "balancing" act!)
I'm adhering to +Lefebvre's position, because no one was more blessed by God or providential than him, in the Crisis in the Church era in which we live. If I'm looking for answers from God as to "what do we do?" in this Crisis, you're not going to find more clear sign of where Catholicism is best preserved than by reading the life of Archbishop Lefebvre. His whole life seems arranged by Providence, and he kept such a good balance, avoiding all the pitfalls and extremes, and was a hero for Tradition and the Catholic Faith. His life and his many virtues impress me to this day.
OK, so please explain what we "needed" Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio for. What good did they provide for the Church?The solution is for everyone to be a sede-impoundist (i.e. Fr Chazal) or sede-privationist. This is what St Pius X and Pius XII were envisioning when they changed the conclave laws to allow excommunicated Cardinals to elect/be elected. They both knew that new-rome was filled with heretics. To keep the papacy intact, if not spiritually, then at least materially/govt, was to keep the visible church intact.
They need to go all the way, like Fr Chazal, and say "the V2 popes have no spiritual authority" but they retain temporal/govt authority.
Because it IS a mystery! There IS a conflict between truth and authority. The problem is, sedevacantism doesn't resolve that conflict AT ALL. It merely gives you a NEW conflict that is equally mysterious; a new crisis of conflicting Catholic dogmas.
Does the CMRI priest know your position?This is a curious question. What difference would it make whether or not he informed the priest of his opinion on a non-dogmatic issue?
This is a curious question. What difference would it make whether or not he informed the priest of his opinion on a non-dogmatic issue?Because it would be wrong if I had a Resistance priest come to my house every month to offer mass and not tell him I was a sedevacantist. Don't you think he would have the right to know?
The solution is for everyone to be a sede-impoundist (i.e. Fr Chazal) or sede-privationist.
Because it would be wrong if I had a Resistance priest come to my house every month to offer mass and not tell him I was a sedevacantist. Don't you think he would have the right to know?No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.
CalathumpianThanks for teaching me a new term, Nadir. :laugh1:
Yeah, I have no idea how R&R can look at this dogmatic teaching from Vatican I. Another translation I've seen is that the See of Peter remains unBLEMISHED by any error.This link doesn't seem to work.
If the R&R view of Vatican II does not entail the See of Peter being blemished/impaired by error, then there's no such thing. There's no way that R&R does not contradict this teaching. We've also posted walls of other papal teaching reaffirming over and over again that the papal Magisterium can never be tainted or stained by any error. I think that they just filter these teaching out and ignore them ... unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, who accepted this teaching, but was unable to definitively resolve the apparent contradiction, leaving it in the realm of a mystery that would one day have to be answered by the Church, but not ruling out sedevacantism, considering it "possible" (except for a few years in the early 1980s).
Here's a link to the substantial body of papal teaching that also affirms that the Magisterium cannot be stained or blemished by any error:
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-magisterium/
If one accepts the position held by modern R&R, there's no coming back from this for the Papacy. We've gone from Catholics being required to giving internal assent to the Magisterium to, "Hey, there's Pope Francis with another garbage recyclical. Let's start ripping it to shreds while it's still hot off the presses."
No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.Ha. ha. Yes, my father was very fond of that term. Perhaps it is indicative of our geographical location and vintage, Nadir? But I agree, and I don't think any Resistance priest would have an issue with this, unless there were to be an appearance from such an arrangement that the Resistance priest was now a sedevacantist. SSPX and Resistance priests as a whole are happy to give the sacraments to sedevacantists in my experience, but not the other way around, at least with Bishop Sanborn's priests. Is that the case with all the sedevacantists?
So, this shows the transmission:Not so, Ladislaus.
+Lefebvre: Papacy is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost against the type of destruction we've seen from the V2 papal claimants. This is a problem that must one day be resolved.
Modern R&R: Papacy destroying the Church? Not a problem.
Ha. ha. Yes, my father was very fond of that term. Perhaps it is indicative of our geographical location and vintage, Nadir? But I agree, and I don't think any Resistance priest would have an issue with this, unless there were to be an appearance from such an arrangement that the Resistance priest was now a sedevacantist. SSPX and Resistance priests as a whole are happy to give the sacraments to sedevacantists in my experience, but not the other way around, at least with Bishop Sanborn's priests. Is that the case with all the sedevacantists?In my experience CMRI priests don't deny the sacraments, at least in the US and Mexico. They even take care of faithful that have been "rejected" by other groups due to disagreements. They acknowledge the confusion.
No. What is the need for him to know? Now if you were an Anglican or a Calathumpian he should be informed, but as you and the resistance priest are both practicing Catholics, there is no need whatsoever. Any more is cultish and sectarian.I still think honesty is always the best policy. I would make it clear that I was a sedevacantist in the event he had an issue with it. The priest would be going out of his way to provide sacraments at my home. This is different than my going to him for mass or confession (I have gone to a SSPX chapel for confession and mass before and did not inform the priest then).
Got it. So basically you've become an Old Catholic. Does the CMRI priest know your position or do you deceive him?It said the post V2 popes “materially and illegitimately” hold the office but not “formally and legitimately”. That just seems like Sedeprivationism to me (albeit maybe not worded super precisely)
If "your family" is not the Magisterium why would we care what "your family" thinks?Fair go, Mark, none of us here has Magisterial authority. We all do our best to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. Recounting our experiences and what we stand for gives encouragement to others and can help them to understand the crisis and stand firm in the Faith.
Oh goodness, I didn't see that comment before. Brian, you should have noticed that this was a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, not Plenus Venter of Cathinfo. I agree that our opinions are worth little. That is why I follow a good shephered that the Good Lord gave us. Some seem to think it is a cult of personality which I absolutely repudiate. It is rather St Paul's admonition "be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ".
-The Vatican Council
(not some made-up sh*t by idiots on CathInfo)
If the church can last three years without a pope, who is to say that the interregnum cannot last ten, twenty, or even seventy years. There is not some magical formula, "Well three years we can do, seventy years we cannot do."I agree with everything you say here OAB.
And my question is, why does John Paul II get dethroned from the papacy for supporting the New Mass and ecuмenism, but Siri does not? Once again, Card. Siri did nothing to blast the NO, nothing to defend his "papacy," and what evidence is there to the contrary?
I often wonder what would have happened if Pius XII put a statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle, what would have the Catholics said? Because he would have been a validly elected pontiff, who, committing a sacrilegious action, would have given grave scandal to the Church. This is the case of JPII at Assisi. And once again, a good number of the cardinals who elected JPII were valid cardinals even by sedevacantist standards.
And I am not so sure that a pope loses his pontificate because he has a positive desire to destroy the Church. The head of any other entity, the family, a business - any entity that comes to mind- can have a desire to destroy that entity, while still remaining its head.
As does everyone here (except Meg and Songbird). The variety of rational (not Meg, not Songbird) opinions testifies that families have conflicting positions "to understand the crisis and stand firm in the Faith."
Fair go, Mark, none of us here has Magisterial authority. We all do our best to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. Recounting our experiences and what we stand for gives encouragement to others and can help them to understand the crisis and stand firm in the Faith.
1. I still think honesty is always the best policy.1. There is no sign that the OP was dishonest. He seems on the contrary to be an open person.
2. I would make it clear that I was a sedevacantist in the event he had an issue with it.
3. The priest would be going out of his way to provide sacraments at my home. This is different than my going to him for mass or confession (I have gone to a SSPX chapel for confession and mass before and did not inform the priest then).
In any event another poster PMed me to let me know that the priest does in fact know the OP's position on sedevacantism.
1. There is no sign that the OP was dishonest. He seems on the contrary to be an open person.I never said the OP was dishonest. However, the OP did sound like he chose to keep his position a secret from the priest (again, I later found out from another poster via PM that the priest does know).
2. If the priest had an issue with it, he could ask and you would give an honest aswer. BUT the priest has no right to withhold the sacraments on the account of a your answer.
3. whether the priest travelled to you or vice versa is irrelevant.
The priest cannot put unreasonable demands on the conscience of the communicant, as has been my personal experience. It is not for the priest to to divide the Church, on non-dogmatic principles.
I never said the OP was dishonest. However, the OP did sound like he chose to keep his position a secret from the priest (again, I later found out from another poster via PM that the priest does know).It is, of course, the decision of the priest to visit their home. (I would assume that the family has no other option for Mass and the Sacraments - which is the situation in which I find myself).
I disagree that the fact that the priest is going out of his way, possibly states away, to come to my home on a monthly basis is irrelevant. It absolutely is relevant. He doesn't HAVE to come to my house. Therefore, I will be upfront.
Even if I don't HAVE to tell him, that's just how I roll.
I agree. This should satisfy most of the concerns/debates out there. This position "works" on so many levels, and I was hoping that Father Chazal's position could help bridge the gap between the various factions ... but I was wrong.I missed this debate. Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap? I probably shouldn't ask, but I am really getting tired of the "I am more Catholic than you" fighting.
I missed this debate. Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap? I probably shouldn't ask, but I am really getting tired of the "I am more Catholic than you" fighting.The reason it's confusing is because too many people listen to too many voices saying too many different things.
It shouldn't be this hard. If you are in a Pope Francis approved group (like ICK, FSSP, or diocesan) then you border on showing disobedience to the Pope, (I saw this a lot and it confused me). If you are not in a Pope Francis approved groups (like the SSPX (debatable), neo-SSPX, CMRI, etc.) then in normal times you would be considered Schismatic, Heretical, etc. We have a mystery here and instead of fighting we should be using our resources to become the best and strongest Catholics we can become. Regardless, the laity can't make this happen, only the clergy can. I know I am probably beating a dead horse :fryingpan:, but I am just so frustrated, and I know there are so many other frustrated Catholics out there.
The reason it's confusing is because too many people listen to too many voices saying too many different things.That still doesn't answer "Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap?" and if you are trying to be a Catholic in good standing then what? Are we saying that when it comes to this confusion do what you feel, even if you might be mortally sinning based on what others are saying? Within two hours of my house I can go to an independent Una cuм Mass, I can go to an SSPV, I can go to an Independent non-una cuм, I can go to the SSPX, I could go to an RCI, I can go to an FSSP, and many indults. Yet some will say I am mortally sinning if I attend others. If I just determine that I am not and go where I want, then I become my own boss and that is not good for my soul either. I do what my husband wants, which is fine with me. But I want all the rest to make sense. I know "Crisis in the Church" be patient. Again it is just so frustrating. They are all trying to be Catholic and do what Catholics did before VII, but they have no bridges between any of them. On top of that I have to raise Catholic children and tell them don't worry about all the in-fighting hopefully that will work itself out eventually. :facepalm::confused:
St. Paul tells us that if he himself were to preach error, or if you were to hear error preached from an angel from heaven, you must maintain the true faith and do not listen to either of them. Seems simple enough to me. To help unconfuse matters in this mess, simply do not listen to popes who preach all manner or heresy and error, and don't add additional confusion into the mix by being concerned about whether or not popes are popes.
That still doesn't answer "Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap?"Well, Gray, you've answered your own question. If all these Trad groups have different beliefs and one is accusing the other of mortal sin etc, how do you think the situation can be resolved? The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered! We need to pray for a good Catholic Pope who alone can unite us all again.
Well, Gray, you've answered your own question. If all these Trad groups have different beliefs and one is accusing the other of mortal sin etc, how do you think the situation can be resolved? The shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered! We need to pray for a good Catholic Pope who alone can unite us all again.To be honest I am not sure that is helpful anymore, to just follow +ABL. He has been gone for 32 years (RIP) and we have no idea how he would react in this current situation. He might of left with the "Resistance". He might have agreed with Fr. Chazal. He might have become a sedevacanist or a sedeprivationist.
In the meantime, I could say to you - no, don't just do what you feel, follow the great leader that Divine Providence gave us as a beacon of light and truth in this crisis... Archbishop Lefebvre. You will be safe doing that. Don't worry too much about 'is he pope or isn't he', because I really don't think your salvation depends too much upon that. The Pope is destroying faith and morals, so avoid him and adhere to Tradition! Ensure you have valid priests and sacraments. Stay away from novelties!
To be honest I am not sure that is helpful anymore, to just follow +ABL. He has been gone for 32 years (RIP) and we have no idea how he would react in this current situation. He might of left with the "Resistance". He might have agreed with Fr. Chazal. He might have become a sedevacanist or a sedeprivationist.There you have it. We all have to inform ourselves and follow the men of the Church we believe are best fulfilling their sacred duty of handing on to us that which they received - the Faith and valid sacraments - while waiting and praying for an end to the crisis. For me, that means following ABL and his faithful successors, yet not isolating myself from sacraments just because there is no valiant Resistance priest at hand if there are still good SSPX priests that I can attend. As regards Archbishop Thuc - for me that is the Church upside down - priests deciding they have to save the Church and running off to a bishop to have themselves consecrated - like Fr Pfeiffer in his turn. Furthermore, all the videos I have watched on this forum only confirm my doubts regarding AB Thuc's consecrations - good man as he was.
I will be safe if I follow my husband. Who will my husband be safe following? Who will my sons be safe following, when they leave my home?
and what do you mean by novelties. I frankly don't see why +ABL did a great thing and +Thuc did not. VII was a mess, people made choices based on their vantage point.
There you have it. We all have to inform ourselves and follow the men of the Church we believe are best fulfilling their sacred duty of handing on to us that which they received - the Faith and valid sacraments - while waiting and praying for an end to the crisis. For me, that means following ABL and his faithful successors, yet not isolating myself from sacraments just because there is no valiant Resistance priest at hand if there are still good SSPX priests that I can attend. As regards Archbishop Thuc - for me that is the Church upside down - priests deciding they have to save the Church and running off to a bishop to have themselves consecrated - like Fr Pfeiffer in his turn. Furthermore, all the videos I have watched on this forum only confirm my doubts regarding AB Thuc's consecrations - good man as he was.
Utter hogwash. I'm pretty sure that +Williamson has consecrated as many bishops in his 10 years post-SSPX than +Thuc did the entire time he was active, and there's zero doubt about the main +Thuc lines (the ones that can be traced by to +Thuc vs. some those resting upon dubious claims). You've made it quite clear that you do little more than emote. Pfeiffer, lest you forget, is a fruit of the Resistance, and only sought a bishop from the +Thuc line because he could find no one else to consecrate him ... as he's ranted repeatedly against both sedevacantism and Feeneyism (and Bishop Webster was both SV and Feeneyite).Glad I caught your attention, Lad! I will admit I'm not totally without emotions, but I do my best to reason on Cathinfo. Your comment about Bishop Williamson and Fr P missed my point (my reasoning).
That still doesn't answer "Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap?" and if you are trying to be a Catholic in good standing then what? Are we saying that when it comes to this confusion do what you feel, even if you might be mortally sinning based on what others are saying? Within two hours of my house I can go to an independent Una cuм Mass, I can go to an SSPV, I can go to an Independent non-una cuм, I can go to the SSPX, I could go to an RCI, I can go to an FSSP, and many indults. Yet some will say I am mortally sinning if I attend others. If I just determine that I am not and go where I want, then I become my own boss and that is not good for my soul either. I do what my husband wants, which is fine with me. But I want all the rest to make sense. I know "Crisis in the Church" be patient. Again it is just so frustrating. They are all trying to be Catholic and do what Catholics did before VII, but they have no bridges between any of them. On top of that I have to raise Catholic children and tell them don't worry about all the in-fighting hopefully that will work itself out eventually. :facepalm::confused:Plenus answered about the gap. I would add that the gap is actually disunity caused by, among other things, a lack of authentic Catholic teaching. The authentic Catholic teaching has been largely inundated and adulterated with opinions - from all over.
Glad I caught your attention, Lad! I will admit I'm not totally without emotions, but I do my best to reason on Cathinfo. Your comment about Bishop Williamson and Fr P missed my point (my reasoning).
That still doesn't answer "Why don't the various factions want to bridge the gap?" and if you are trying to be a Catholic in good standing then what? Are we saying that when it comes to this confusion do what you feel, even if you might be mortally sinning based on what others are saying? Within two hours of my house I can go to an independent Una cuм Mass, I can go to an SSPV, I can go to an Independent non-una cuм, I can go to the SSPX, I could go to an RCI, I can go to an FSSP, and many indults. Yet some will say I am mortally sinning if I attend others. If I just determine that I am not and go where I want, then I become my own boss and that is not good for my soul either. I do what my husband wants, which is fine with me. But I want all the rest to make sense. I know "Crisis in the Church" be patient. Again it is just so frustrating. They are all trying to be Catholic and do what Catholics did before VII, but they have no bridges between any of them. On top of that I have to raise Catholic children and tell them don't worry about all the in-fighting hopefully that will work itself out eventually. :facepalm::confused:Gray....just as those of us here cannot "bridge the gap" with each other, neither can the clergy. You would like to think that they could, but just like us, they have very strong opinions on what is the correct position and what is the right way to go forward. As long as there is no pope to unite us, we will remain divided. So, bottom line, you're not going to get a good answer to your question from any of us here.
"for Lefebvre to have become a sedevacantist would have been tantamount to abandoning the souls under his care"
that the "+Thuc line [consists] of priests running around trying to get consecrated"Yeah, this shows PV's lack of understanding of +Thuc's history and actions.
Yeah, this shows PV's lack of understanding of +Thuc's history and actions.
Don't be the male version of Meg, PV. Just because someone disagreed with +ABL, doesn't mean they are wrong. +ABL was not infallible and he didn't build Tradition single-handedly.
Tradition would not be where it is today, had God not inspired many, many diocesan priests to leave their diocese and become independents. They bridged the gap in the 70s/80s until the sspx and sede movements we know today could grow. +Thuc was part of this independent movement. It was necessary part of this time of history. The sspx didn't really get going until the early 1990s (consecration of the 4 bishops was in 1988). 1969-1989 - that's 20 years. Who do you think kept Tradition going for that time period? A LOT of priests who weren't part of the sspx.
All of this is distractions. We need to focus on our goal to live with God in Heaven.Yes but it's impossible to get to Heaven without the sacraments. We need priests and bishops for that.
We need to Read our Bible and pray the Rosary. We need to repent and believe.
And regarding Archbishop Thục, PV mentioned that priests were running off to a bishop to have themselves consecrated by him. Is that not the case? Did Archbishop Thục seek out those men he consecrated, or did they seek him to get themselves consecrated?
[This is meant as a simple question, not to get into whether said consecrations were justified, good, etc. Those are other topics already beaten to death on other threads.]
He never said +ABL was "infallible" & "built Tradition single-handedly." He did not discount or diminish the work that good individual priests did to keep Tradition.He has implied such in other posts. Many times.
He has implied such in other posts. Many times.
Gray....just as those of us here cannot "bridge the gap" with each other, neither can the clergy. You would like to think that they could, but just like us, they have very strong opinions on what is the correct position and what is the right way to go forward. As long as there is no pope to unite us, we will remain divided. So, bottom line, you're not going to get a good answer to your question from any of us here.I do get what you are saying, but I think God won't give us a Pope until we are willing to work with each other. In the mean time, souls are falling into a spirit of rebellion or a spirit of despair. Souls are being lost. Families are falling apart. And we just say, oh it was predicted in a prophecy, so I have to ride it out. The thing is people do have to become better at their Faith. I am not looking for someone to help me. I am looking for the +Priests and +Bishops to practice more humility. I am looking for men to practice more humility. Because face it a woman who is doing everything "right" is just a long for the ride, but crying her eyes out when nobody is looking.
However, I do think that there are/have been groups that try to work with each other out there. For example, I'm pretty sure that the CMRI and the SGG are on good terms/have worked with each other.
That was also the case between SGG and Bishop Sanborn's group when Fr Cekada was alive and teaching at Bishop Sanborn's seminary (MHTS). Unfortunately, after Father died, there was a tragic falling out between Bishop Dolan and Bishop Sanborn over the Cassiciacuм Theory. I hope that they can get past that eventually now that Bishop Dolan has passed away.
I didn't take Plenus Venter to be saying what you seem to be making him say here. Plenus Venter said “for me” - i.e. in his opinion, for himself, he finds +ABL & his faithful successors to be the best at fulfilling their sacred duty of handing on to us that which they received. This is a discussion forum, and people share their opinions. He stated very clearly, “For me, that means following…” He said, “We all have to inform ourselves and follow the men of the Church we believe are best fulfilling…” and for him, that is +ABL & his faithful successors.Since the priests and bishops after V2 see that Rome doesn't appear to be Catholic, then they will perform Catholic sacraments in an "emergency state". This means the Faithful, who can't find a "true priest" will ask to be provided one to perform all needed Sacraments in a state of emergency without jurisdiction. If they need a priest, they have to ask a bishop to help get them one, because a "true Bishop" can only make "true priests". This is what we base our ideas on to justify being outside of Rome. I know I don't have the most perfect words to explain this, but the Faithful are required to ask for the Sacraments and the Priests should provide them, regardless of what the "true theological position is", because we do not have an authority to tell us which of us are right and which of us are wrong.
If you disagree that’s the best, you can say so, but don’t put words in his mouth that he didn’t say, such as +ABL was the “only” one, there was no one else, etc. He never said +ABL was "infallible" & "built Tradition single-handedly." He did not discount or diminish the work that good individual priests did to keep Tradition. He didn’t say there is nothing of value from these other good priests.
And regarding Archbishop Thục, PV mentioned that priests were running off to a bishop to have themselves consecrated by him. Is that not the case? Did Archbishop Thục seek out those men he consecrated, or did they seek him to get themselves consecrated?
[This is meant as a simple question, not to get into whether said consecrations were justified, good, etc. Those are other topics already beaten to death on other threads.]
I do get what you are saying, but I think God won't give us a Pope until we are willing to work with each other. In the mean time, souls are falling into a spirit of rebellion or a spirit of despair. Souls are being lost. Families are falling apart. And we just say, oh it was predicted in a prophecy, so I have to ride it out. The thing is people do have to become better at their Faith. I am not looking for someone to help me. I am looking for the +Priests and +Bishops to practice more humility. I am looking for men to practice more humility. Because face it a woman who is doing everything "right" is just a long for the ride, but crying her eyes out when nobody is looking.
Yes but it's impossible to get to Heaven without the sacraments. We need priests and bishops for that.One absolutely requires the Sacrament of Baptism to get into Heaven.
"Repent and believe" is protestant.
But we actually have to be charitable and humble and realize we don't know the answers. The point is we are all operating outside of Rome and it takes great humility to admit we do not know how God is going to fix this. In the mean time, we need to get the Sacraments to the people. We still can discuss the issues but there shouldnt be "oh you are not my ilk, so i can't help you." I know some on here dont even think that +Sanborn and +Privanus are bishops, which mean their priests arent priests. We need to stop this and fight modernism not each other.
I for one would be happy to fight modernism and not each other.
But what can I do when the sedevacantists believe that I do not have the right to believe that I cannot follow a heretical Pope? They believe that I cannot be allowed to believe that a heretical pope can be a Pope. How do you propose to deal with that?
Oh, so you finally admit it! You finally admit you follow Bergoglio! I’m curious however, in what way do you follow him? :laugh1:
Tradition would not be where it is today, had God not inspired many, many diocesan priests to leave their diocese and become independents.Of course, Pax, my first priest in Tradition was one of these valiant warriors when my family came from the NO in 1980, before the SSPX was in Australia.
Since the priests and bishops after V2 see that Rome doesn't appear to be Catholic, then they will perform Catholic sacraments in an "emergency state". This means the Faithful, who can't find a "true priest" will ask to be provided one to perform all needed Sacraments in a state of emergency without jurisdiction. If they need a priest, they have to ask a bishop to help get them one, because a "true Bishop" can only make "true priests". This is what we base our ideas on to justify being outside of Rome. I know I don't have the most perfect words to explain this, but the Faithful are required to ask for the Sacraments and the Priests should provide them, regardless of what the "true theological position is", because we do not have an authority to tell us which of us are right and which of us are wrong.You said you need help, Gray, but clearly you have your opinion all worked out, along with the husband you said you must follow.
Period end of story.
All of the groups outside of Rome are continuing the Catholic Church in this way, but they spend more time fighting over "unapproved theological positions" and less time making sure all of the Faithful are getting the sacraments they need. It shouldn't be that I have access to 5 priests (all with different positions) and some have no priests. And the Faithful should accept all "true priests" regardless of differences in these "unapproved theological positions" because the "True Sacraments" bring down graces that we need for the spiritual battle we are currently fighting.
Lack of logic on your part prevents any logical dialogue. Obviously, you will not allow anyone to disagree with you. That's how it is with dogmatic sedes and sedeprivationists. It's a type of sedevacantist supremacy which believes that it must dominate all others.
That's the difference between sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists. When one believes that the most important thing that he or she can do is to get everyone to be a sedevacantist, then there's going to be a problemAmen, Meg! I've been told I'm outside the Church, on the road to Hell... by people who espoused the same position as I for decades... evidently they didn't have the Faith until they became sedevacantist.
Fine, but please enlighten this forum on how you follow Bergoglio?Well, Pax, I would say Meg clearly means follow him in the sense of acknowledgement of the office that he holds, and the prayers which that obliges us to say for him. We pray for him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and our own private prayers according to our duty of justice and charity, and we fervently pray that he will convert "and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren" and finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
I for one would be happy to fight modernism and not each other.I actually think that we shouldnt focus on that argument, because the main argument is inside Rome vs outside Rome. Most of us here are outside Rome. We need not worry about what others think or if we think the same. We should encourage each other to do what we know to be true and Catholic. Go to valid Masses, keep ourselves in a state of Grace, pray the Rosary, beg God to fix this with prayer and penances. We have so much real practical stuff we can do that we shouldn't keep fighting each other. The sceme of the devil is to keep this going, because he knows his days are numbered if we stop fighting each other.
But what can I do when the sedevacantists believe that I do not have the right to believe that I cannot follow a heretical Pope? They believe that I cannot be allowed to believe that a heretical pope can be a Pope. How do you propose to deal with that?
You said you need help, Gray, but clearly you have your opinion all worked out, along with the husband you said you must follow.I have been watching this fight for 20 years. I see good people on all sides just trying to get by. Starting a fight is what keeps this going. I would attend any valid Mass, so stop judging what you dont know. It is easy to just hide and make posts.
However, it is abundantly clear that you are here as an apologist for the sedevacantist position. Why pretend otherwise?
Fine, but please enlighten this forum on how you follow Bergoglio?Meg is just trying to figure things out like the rest of us. This type of reply just puts people on the defensive and then ends conversations.
I have been watching this fight for 20 years. I see good people on all sides just trying to get by. Starting a fight is what keeps this going. I would attend any valid Mass, so stop judging what you dont know. It is easy to just hide and make posts.Exactly, you are a sedevacantist apologist, why did you appear on here feigning desire for advice when in fact you just want to give it?
Exactly, you are a sedevacantist apologist, why did you appear on here feigning desire for advice when in fact you just want to give it?Proof? I never preached one side or the other. I want men to stand up and stop continuing the arguments they cant solve. I am tired of sitting on the sideline and watching it happen. You seem to be so wrapped up in attacking people. Why?
Meg is just trying to figure things out like the rest of us. This type of reply just puts people on the defensive and then ends conversations.
Exactly, you are a sedevacantist apologist, why did you appear on here feigning desire for advice when in fact you just want to give it?Really? That's not how she has come across to me.
I want men to stand up and stop continuing the arguments they cant solve. I am tired of sitting on the sideline and watching it happen.(https://i.imgur.com/PtxELuW.png)
I think she is just frustrated with the mean things, sedevacantists keep saying to her. I don't know. I don't know her personally.
You’re new here. I tried that approach several times with her, to no avail. She is an unreasonable, illogical, irrational, dogmatic anti-sedevacantist. If you take an hour and read through he anti sedevacantist rants you will see that I’m on the mark.
I think she is just frustrated with the mean things, sedevacantists keep saying to her. I don't know. I don't know her personally.
Honestly Grey, she’s usually the first one to attack. Look through her old posts. I’m fed up with her nonsensical attacks.If that is the case, then should we ignore it, than to attack back.
(https://i.imgur.com/PtxELuW.png)Am I suppose to laugh or attack? Please explain Nadir.
If that is the case, then should we ignore it, than to attack back.
"Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times." Matthew 18:21-22
That is true and I thank you, but we must also correct error and admonish those who spread falsehoods. Sometimes sarcasm can be used to demonstrate the point, if I over used sarcasm or was overly uncharitable, I apologize.It really isn't me you should apologize to. I guess we just need to use prudence and I was feeling that Meg was being called out too much.
Am I suppose to laugh or attack? Please explain Nadir.I hope that you don’t attack. When I read your posts about the failures of men and your weeping on the sidelines, I imagined a melodrama. That image was the closest I could find to illustrate. I suppose I might be a bit weird. I think that if knowing Church History there should be no surprises. You know, nothing new under the sun.
Aren't you tired of all this fighting?
I hope that you don’t attack. When I read your posts about the failures of men and your weeping on the sidelines, I imagined a melodrama. That image was the closest I could find to illustrate. I suppose I might be a bit weird. I think that if knowing Church History there should be no surprises. You know, nothing new under the sun.No attack. I am melancholic, so I love a good melodrama. I guess I feel free to speak here. I know I am hard on men. I just know that they can do better.
As for the fighting, No, I just take it with a pinch of salt. Mostly I ignore it unless something jumps out at me which I can’t ignore, like blatantly false teaching.
It really isn't me you should apologize to. I guess we just need to use prudence and I was feeling that Meg was being called out too much.
I think she is just frustrated with the mean things, sedevacantists keep saying to her. I don't know. I don't know her personally.:facepalm:
I do understand where you are coming from. But i think what you see as dishing back, she sees as meaness. But again i am just guessing.
I wasn’t directing that part to you and I will still call her out as needed. Let me add this, I don’t feel any hatred toward her and I hold no grudges.
By the way, have you taken the time to look at her old posts?
I do understand where you are coming from. But i think what you see as dishing back, she sees as meaness. But again i am just guessing.
:facepalm:It has been pointed out several times by long term members who see the signs that this person is a troll. She needs to be banned for the good of the forum because she has ill will towards the members and hasn't posted a single useful thing. It's clear that she isn't a traditional Catholic in the manner she claims. She hasn't made a single reference to her supposed 5 children...does she have any? She doesn't post in the Women's forum on the feminine topics of homemaking, child rearing, cooking, etc. She hates her husband and all men in general, especially the clergy. She worships the witchcraft practicing feminist Taylor Swift and believes all marriage problems are caused by men not listening to womens "feelings". Anyone who calls out her hypocrisy is immediately attacked as a "hater" and lacking "humility". Common marxist accusations.
This is why I suggested awhile back that you should sit back on the forum before posting as much as you do.
Although I don't agree with PV that you are a "sedevacantist apologist", I am beginning to wonder why you are here. Something is off, but I'm not yet able to put my fingers on it nor put it into words.
Why *did* you join the forum?
Thank you Gray. They know that it is not I who attack first. Honesty is not what they practice. Evidently, the ends justify any means necessary to convert everyone to SVism.You are correct Meg. But the solution isn't to "put aside differences" and come together under the Big Tent as suggested. The answer is to learn, believe, and PRACTICE the Catholic Faith as it is handed down.
I defend my right to not be a sedevacantist, which is offensive to some here. I've said many times that I don't have a problem with anyone holding the sedevacantist position, but when they try to force it on others, I see that as a problem.
You are correct to say that we should stop all this fighting. But when one side believes it has to force its views on everyone else, that's a problem. Not all sedevacantists do this of course.
Aren’t you?
Aren't you tired of all this fighting?
Aren’t you?
Gray, it seems like you came onto this forum with finger pointed and an ax to grind. On one hand you say you are sad and sensitive to the strife in the trad community, yet after reading your posts over the past week they seem to have a rather bossy and aggressive tone. Am I understanding this wrong?
Several good men have offered you an explanation about the strife and what it will take to fix it, which is a good pope. The fact is, the disagreements and infighting is sadly a part of the cross we must bear. You don’t seem to want to accept this answer. Your tears and mourning are only meritorious as far as your resignation and trust in God’s care for you and others goes. Maybe I have/am overstepping my bounds but I think you have let this topic overcome you. It is not in your control and the more you strive to make it so the more miserable you will become. I think you have internalized this too much. I know you are melancholic. I think melancholic need to be extra careful about this.
Do I get frustrated at the bickering and mud slinging that goes on from time to time here? Yes. But we are all called to look at our own interior actions and disposition. I’m not sure yours is any healthier than those who you accuse of being rash and unkind.
Please, I mean this in the best way possible. I’m not trying to attack you. Just stating my observations. God bless you!
Thank you Gray. They know that it is not I who attack first. Honesty is not what they practice. Evidently, the ends justify any means necessary to convert everyone to SVism.Meg, I know in charity I defended you, but I also see that you say some very harsh things. I don't think people are trying to make you a sedevacantist. Aren't you trying to force your beliefs on others?
I defend my right to not be a sedevacantist, which is offensive to some here. I've said many times that I don't have a problem with anyone holding the sedevacantist position, but when they try to force it on others, I see that as a problem.
You are correct to say that we should stop all this fighting. But when one side believes it has to force its views on everyone else, that's a problem. Not all sedevacantists do this of course.
Aren’t you?Well said. I think you may have helped put into words what I couldn't. I think the bolded is the main issue.
Gray, it seems like you came onto this forum with finger pointed and an ax to grind. On one hand you say you are sad and sensitive to the strife in the trad community, yet after reading your posts over the past week they seem to have a rather bossy and aggressive tone. Am I understanding this wrong?
Several good men have offered you an explanation about the strife and what it will take to fix it, which is a good pope. The fact is, the disagreements and infighting is sadly a part of the cross we must bare. You don’t seem to want to accept this answer. Your tears and mourning are only meritorious as far as your resignation and trust in God’s care for you and others goes. Maybe I have/am overstepping my bounds but I think you have let this topic overcome you. It is not in your control and the more you strive to make it so the more miserable you will become. I think you have internalized this too much. I know you are melancholic. I think melancholic need to be extra careful about this.
Do I get frustrated at the bickering and mud slinging that goes on from time to time here? Yes. But we are all called to look at our own interior actions and disposition. I’m not sure yours is any healthier than those who you accuse of being rash and unkind.
Please, I mean this in the best way possible. I’m not trying to attack you. Just stating my observations. God bless you!
Aren’t you?Yes Jen. I am tired of the fighting. I am also tired of being quiet. This forum allows me to be loud. I see that from all of the church's history men keep trying to change things for their own agenda (Protestants like Henry VIII, Martin Luther, The Westley Brothers and now Catholism is being split apart.) It is really up to men to start doing a different thing.
Gray, it seems like you came onto this forum with finger pointed and an ax to grind. On one hand you say you are sad and sensitive to the strife in the trad community, yet after reading your posts over the past week they seem to have a rather bossy and aggressive tone. Am I understanding this wrong?
Several good men have offered you an explanation about the strife and what it will take to fix it, which is a good pope. The fact is, the disagreements and infighting is sadly a part of the cross we must bare. You don’t seem to want to accept this answer. Your tears and mourning are only meritorious as far as your resignation and trust in God’s care for you and others goes. Maybe I have/am overstepping my bounds but I think you have let this topic overcome you. It is not in your control and the more you strive to make it so the more miserable you will become. I think you have internalized this too much. I know you are melancholic. I think melancholic need to be extra careful about this.
Do I get frustrated at the bickering and mud slinging that goes on from time to time here? Yes. But we are all called to look at our own interior actions and disposition. I’m not sure yours is any healthier than those who you accuse of being rash and unkind.
Please, I mean this in the best way possible. I’m not trying to attack you. Just stating my observations. God bless you!
Yes Jen. I am tired of the fighting. I am also tired of being quiet. This forum allows me to be loud.I beg you turn from being loud. It is not the answer. You will do more harm than good to your soul and the souls of your children, especially daughters. As mothers, let’s model to our children love and trust in Our Lord, and imitate his blessed mother. In her we see humble obedience and silent suffering. She is our model. She shows us how it is done. Why would we as women give up our unique and powerful opportunity to be the salve of this world be being loud and obstinate? You won’t help by being loud, you will only succeed in driving a greater wedge between men and women. The world has had its fill of loud women.
It has been pointed out several times by long term members who see the signs that this person is a troll. (I think only you and SeanJohnson have said that. Who were the others? She needs to be banned for the good of the forum because she has ill will towards the members and hasn't posted a single useful thing. (I do not have ill will toward anyone) It's clear that she isn't a traditional Catholic in the manner she claims. (How is this clear?) She hasn't made a single reference to her supposed 5 children...does she have any? (Yes 5 boys, (7, 11, 13, 16, 18) and I have referenced the one who is trying to find a Seminary) She doesn't post in the Women's forum on the feminine topics of homemaking, child rearing, cooking, etc. (These things don't interest me much and I have no girls to teach.) She hates her husband and all men in general, especially the clergy. (I don't hate anyone. I just think men keep passing the buck and no one is calling them out on it) She worships the witchcraft practicing feminist Taylor Swift (That is silly, I just don't like people making serious accusations without proof and media isn't good proof because it is good at manipulating people to feel certain things) and believes all marriage problems are caused by men not listening to womens "feelings". (It takes two to break up a marriage) Anyone who calls out her hypocrisy is immediately attacked as a "hater" and lacking "humility". (A lot of people do lack humility, people infer why I made a post, usually the post is to get a conversation started, to get a feel for the room per se. Many times people think that i am looking for personal answers for myself. I am not. I have just seen too many bad things happen to good Catholic families) Common marxist accusations.Wow! When I read your posts to people who know me, they laugh because you have me pegged all wrong. What do you want me to say to you to prove that I am not a troll?
Someone claims to know her in real life. And what of it? Who is that individual? Many of us have been here for a decade or more and don't know either of you. I have blocked them so I don't have to be bothered with their feminist claptrap. (I do apologize for making you so mad. I tried sending you some private apology messages.)
We should all be wary of new members who carpet bomb the threads with non-Catholic ideas and sow seeds of chaos and discontent. I wonder if FBI infiltraitors are on the forum. We know they are grooming the SSPX chapels in Virginia.
I beg you turn from being loud. It is not the answer. You will do more harm than good to your soul and the souls of your children, especially daughters. As mothers, let’s model to our children love and trust in Our Lord, and imitate his blessed mother. In her we see humble obedience and silent suffering. She is our model. She shows us how it is done. Why would we as women give up our unique and powerful opportunity to be the salve of this world be being loud and obstinate? You won’t help by being loud, you will only succeed in driving a greater wedge between men and women. The world has had its fill of loud women.Jen I do understand what you are saying. I am that in real life. Here I want to plant seeds to look at the problems at hand differently.
Having said that, this is the last I will say on this subject. I invite you to the women’s sub forum to talk about child rearing, recipes, homemaking, gardening and all of the stuff that is within our realm. It is a great place to visit and find encouragement!Not all women are the same. I love to have deep conversations. I live with all men and I was a Daddy's girl. Men used to seek counsel from wise women. I am sure that the disciples looked to Mary for counsel. I just don't think men tend to do that anymore. I might be wrong. It doesn't mean that they have to do what she says. It just means that they are trying to see the problems from different points of view. Men and women definitely look at things differently.
Thank you Gray. They know that it is not I who attack first.
:laugh2::jester::laugh2: