Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25926 times)

Meg · « **Reply #125 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:22:28 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!

Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #126 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:27:48 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!

Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.

Good Catholics can be wrong? Hello. A virtuous man can lack knowledge or expertise in one or more areas.

Did you read the article? If not you do not care about truth. Emotion dictates you conclusion. You have already decided that you are not open to the position.

Did you read the article?

Did you read the article?

The answer would be:

1. Yes

2. No

Meg · « **Reply #127 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:38:13 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Lover of Truth

The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!

Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.

Good Catholics can be wrong? Hello. A virtuous man can lack knowledge or expertise in one or more areas.

Did you read the article? If not you do not care about truth. Emotion dictates you conclusion. You have already decided that you are not open to the position.

Did you read the article?

Did you read the article?

The answer would be:

1. Yes

2. No

I read some of it. You seemed to be trying to convince me that ABL was open to svism. But I already knew that he was open to it. I thought that everyone pretty much knew that. He thought it was a possibility (as do I). Do you believe that it comes as a surprise to any of us that ABL was open to it? So why do I need to read the entirety of something that is trying to convince me of what I already know?

Edited to add:
Lover of Truth, please try to not get so upset about this issue. I don't care what you say about me personally, but try to remember that's it's just a debate.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #128 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:51:47 PM »

Quote

I read some of it. You seemed to be trying to convince me that ABL was open to svism. But I already knew that he was open to it. I thought that everyone pretty much knew that. He thought it was a possibility (as do I). Do you believe that it comes as a surprise to any of us that ABL was open to it? So why do I need to read the entirety of something that is trying to convince me of what I already know?

Edited to add:
Lover of Truth, please try to not get so upset about this issue. I don't care what you say about me personally, but try to remember that's it's just a debate.

That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?

REALLY?

No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.

Let me know if you want to deal with the theology supporting the SV finding. Or if you conclude things only by the impression you have of the men that hold the position.

I knew a lady really well in the NO. She thought some priests were good and some were bad.

Her criteria? If the Priest smiled and waved at her when he passed he was a good Priest. If he did not he was a bad Priest.

No this person was not a retard but rather intelligent. But led by emotion again. Objective truth? Perhaps when it suited her or was convenient.

Again, if you want truth deal with the theology.

Meg · « **Reply #129 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:05:13 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?

REALLY?

No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.

I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.