Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 13668 times)

St Ignatius · « **Reply #180 on:** July 20, 2016, 01:14:58 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Lover of Truth
ABL:

Quote
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

[/b]
I second that...

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #181 on:** July 20, 2016, 01:59:51 PM »

ABL:

Quote

4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

St Ignatius · « **Reply #182 on:** July 20, 2016, 06:15:59 PM »

To you "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" from a faithful and attentive son of the great Archbishop...

Quoted from "Eleison Comments" #357

Quote

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic. (emphasis mine)

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

Link to letter: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/churchx2019sinfallibilityx2013iii/

This is what my opinion, in general, has been for a long time about the Archbishop's position.

I have read long ago, what some are posting now as evidence to support their sedevacantist (dogmatic) positions, and found them to be what Bp Williamson expresses here.

I believe for one to even begin to understand the Archbishop's position, one can't just take these excerpts out of context of his life's work.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #183 on:** July 21, 2016, 05:08:07 AM »

ABL:

Quote

5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #184 on:** July 25, 2016, 07:38:40 AM »

ABL:

Quote

1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #185 on:** July 27, 2016, 12:47:36 PM »

ABL:

Quote

2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #186 on:** July 28, 2016, 05:14:04 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

ABL:

Quote
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

God did allow it so why did they not come out then and state the obvious?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #187 on:** July 28, 2016, 09:56:32 AM »

I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.

What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?

My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?

The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.

To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.

Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.

TKGS · « **Reply #188 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:20:02 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?

As far as I understand, this is Matthew's definition as well. If there are any dogmatic sedevacantists on CathInfo, they must either hide their dogmatic belief on the subject or they will be banned posthaste.

There are, however, quite a number of outspoken dogmatic anti-sedevacantists that post their vile schismatic dogmas on the forum with abandon. They are usually the people who frequently condemn all the "dogmatic sedevacantists" because, in their evil, they simply assume that anyone who provides logical arguments on sedevacantism that they cannot answer and that bother their consciences must be dogmatic on the issue since they realize in their very core how untenable their beliefs really are.

Stubborn · « **Reply #189 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:39:12 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.

What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?

My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?

The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.

To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.

Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.

The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example, all speak as if it is an indisputable fact that the conciliar popes have not been popes. Dogmatic sedevacantists could never admit there there is even the most remote or even the slightest possibility that Francis is indeed the Vicar of Christ. IOW, dogmatic sedevacantists believe the pope simply cannot be pope as if the opinion itself is dogmatic or based on dogma.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #190 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:16:02 AM »

Dogmatic feeneyites could never admit there there is even the most remote or even the slightest possibility that there is salvation apart from water. IOW, dogmatic sedevacantists believe No Salvation Apart From Wateras if the opinion itself is dogmatic or based on dogma.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #191 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:20:07 AM »

I'm not sure if "Dogmatic SV" is a theological term. What the inventor of that term might wish to convey is that this is one who claims one cannot be saved unless he is a SV.

Now it Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.

And it is Dogma that we must submit to a valid Pope.

If believing either of those two things is being a Dogmatic SV then I am guilty as charged. And quite willingly so.

TKGS · « **Reply #192 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:25:53 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.

What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?

My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?

The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.

To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.

Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.

The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example...

I refer to my post above. Stubborn is probably the most ardent and disgusting dogmatic anti-sedevacantist and dogmatic Feeneyite on the forum. His lack of charity has very few rivals.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #193 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:32:35 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.

What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?

My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?

The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.

To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.

Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.

The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example...

I refer to my post above. Stubborn is probably the most ardent and disgusting dogmatic anti-sedevacantist and dogmatic Feeneyite on the forum. His lack of charity has very few rivals.

I could not possibly agree more.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #194 on:** July 28, 2016, 02:17:35 PM »

ABL:

Quote

3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)