Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25917 times)

Meg · « **Reply #135 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:26:20 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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?

I asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. Did you somehow miss that I was asking you for this? That's not what you gave me. I never asked for proof that ABL was "open to it." So why did you provide that?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #136 on:** July 14, 2016, 02:31:07 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth
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?

I asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. Did you somehow miss that I was asking you for this? That's not what you gave me.

I said he was open to it. You said prove he held the position. I again said he was open to it. We repeated this about 5 or 6 times.

ABL was a nice mean therefore SV is incorrect. I get it.

You want the last word so you can try to save face. I want to find a serious minded R & R who can discuss the position theologically. You are not that person. This is very clear.

Bye Bye Gracie.

Croixalist · « **Reply #137 on:** July 14, 2016, 04:46:07 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Croixalist
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?

For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.

In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.

It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.

Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.

One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.

The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!

Oh, Myrna. I know he's dead! No, I'm talking about his legacy and honestly, that anyone has a problem distancing themselves from this beast of a man makes me think CMRI is even more of a cult.

Speaking of Popes, what is Schuckardt doing here?

St Ignatius · « **Reply #138 on:** July 14, 2016, 07:28:26 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Meg
Lover of Truth,

You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?

Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.

Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?

He was open to the idea.

He was open to the idea.

He was open to the idea.

Do you get it?

Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.

Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?

If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?

St Ignatius · « **Reply #139 on:** July 14, 2016, 07:39:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I want to find a serious minded R & R who can discuss the position theologically. You are not that person. This is very clear.

What kind of person would that be? A person who doesn't have a life and can keep up with all your posts every five minutes throughout the day?