Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25916 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #130 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:10:55 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

The dogma does not say we must submit blindly to the Roman Pontiff.
The dogma is quite specific, it decrees “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

If you held a position of authority and wanted your subjects to sin numerous times over the course of many years and some refused, you could unjustly, yet arguably truthfully, accuse those subjects of disobedience for refusing to obey your wishes to offend God, you could even say they were bad subjects on account of their disobedience to your wishes, but that's about it. While you would be busy being angry that they were being disobedient to you, they would be busy as usual doing what is needed for them to keep the faith in spite of your sinful wishes.

But what you are doing is saying that the Church teaches that we must blindly submit to the pope even when he wants us to sin.

Fr. Wathen put it best in TGS when he said: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another - even an errant pope for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person - even the pope - to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same."

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #131 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:16:34 PM »

Quote from: Meg

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.

Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.

AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:

Quote

He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").

Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.

You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.

ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:

Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.

Meg · « **Reply #132 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Meg
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.

Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.

AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:

Quote
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").

Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.

You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.

ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:

Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.

It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?

Meg · « **Reply #133 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:23:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

The dogma does not say we must submit blindly to the Roman Pontiff.
The dogma is quite specific, it decrees “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

If you held a position of authority and wanted your subjects to sin numerous times over the course of many years and some refused, you could unjustly, yet arguably truthfully, accuse those subjects of disobedience for refusing to obey your wishes to offend God, you could even say they were bad subjects on account of their disobedience to your wishes, but that's about it. While you would be busy being angry that they were being disobedient to you, they would be busy as usual doing what is needed for them to keep the faith in spite of your sinful wishes.

But what you are doing is saying that the Church teaches that we must blindly submit to the pope even when he wants us to sin.

Fr. Wathen put it best in TGS when he said: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another - even an errant pope for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person - even the pope - to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same."

Well said.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #134 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:23:16 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Meg
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.

Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.

AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:

Quote
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").

Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.

You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.

ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:

Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.

It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?

Because I stated that point on around 5 different posts THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED.

Anything else?