Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25884 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #155 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:22:20 AM »

One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #156 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:31:29 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.

Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".

OHCA · « **Reply #157 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Clemens Maria
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.

Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".

R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #158 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:43:27 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Clemens Maria
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.

Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".

R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.

Spot-on man! Very well stated. :applause: :cheers:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #159 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:54:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Clemens Maria
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.

Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".

R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.

Spot-on man! Very well stated. :applause: :cheers:

ALL ADDS UP TO SEDEVACANTISM SUPERIOR TO SSPX