CathInfo.com

Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?

Just curious!

I did not even read the post because the title itself was so repulsive.  More and more since bergolio people are trying to convince themselves, kind of like DePauw in the 60's.  

He's just gotta be Pope.  He's just gotta.  

That good Priest did not have our hindsight and Fenton found himself in the same dilemma.  "This will not be put through in the council".  "Oops, it was put through."  "Well it must be true some how or at least not false."  This is based on the assumption that Paul sick was Pope.  A reasonable assumption in the 60's.  Father Fenton stopped public writing after the council and soon died of a heart attack.  In his diary he was sure certain things proposed would get approved to go in the Council, but it did.

Over 50 years later we do not have the same excuse.  I believe Father Fenton would have realized that the apostates are prevented by Divine Law from legitimately holding ecclesiastical office and I believe he would have acted accordingly if he had lived much longer.

I believe there are several clergy in the R and R (and even in the NO) who do know better and do not act accordingly.  God knows for sure.

 Effeminate men will disagree.  But, that's their problem, not mine.

 

You made some sense until the above effeminate statements.

There are two issues in my camp that are unresolved in my opinion.  And, they are, do the V2 bishops have ordinary jurisdiction as the material heretics that they are.  And, how exactly(the key word being exactly) do we determine what new priests and bishop are validly ordained/consecrated.  Because, I have traveled down the road of placing doubt on all new ordinations/consecrations, and in my opinion, it is a dark road.

You simply have to ask them if they were ordained in the pre-1968 rite by a bishop consecrated in the pre-1968 rite.  If they don't respond don't go to them or support them.

Quote from: PG

Matto - I never crossed the line.  I have always sought to find the balance in tradition.  But, you cannot find the balance if you do not know the bounds.  So, I searched.  And, while searching I was a doubtist.  I took a liking to and decided to hijack :wink: the privationist title perhaps because of the prestige of +de lauriers, and the ability to do so.  So, I labeled myself a privationist.  Labels do come in handy.   I saw it as a tip of the hat to the man.  But, most probably would disagree.  

Anyway, privation was relatively short lived.  That is probably what gave you the idea, and leads to why I don't use it anymore.   I didn't like the perceived company, and don't want to mislead any.  By company I mean dogmatic sedes who either invalidate all but their own or who are filled with hatred towards R&R.  I was non dogmatically non una cuм for the longest time, and I still am half non una cuм.  I doubt the local bishops, as can be seen from my last post.  

There is plenty of mystery to the office of the papacy, so much so that I personally found room to shelter under the privation/doubt camp.  But, I always made it clear that if I leaned to any side of the debate, it was that I always leaned towards the pope as being the pope.  I never crossed that line, and I still don't believe I did.  However, we are not goats.  And, I would rather serve in heaven, than reign in hell.  So, in things permissible(that is the key word), I submit.  That is the real beauty of authority.  Because, there are many mansions in our fathers house.  Thank God for +Lefebvre, and thank God for the vatican council 1 dogma.  

So, for about the last year now I have been R&R.  And, I see more and more wisdom in the position of +Lefebvre.  I even see +Williamson as doing the right thing.  And, he has taken quite a bit of heat for it, even from me.  Remember, we all have a role and a duty to fulfill.  +Williamson is not perfect.  +Lefebvre was not perfect.  But, when I think of them, I see the good.  And, that is what matters.  I cannot say that about dogmatic sedes.  

I too see wisdom in the position of Lefebvre

“We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope.”[1] (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986)

He said this before Assisi thinking that line might need to be crossed if jp2 went through with it.  That time has long passed.  But we don't want to break the wounder reed or scandalize the weak who can't take the idea that an apostate cannot be pope.  No?