Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25864 times)

Matto · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2016, 09:40:08 PM »

I don't really consider the resistance or the sedevacantists to be superior and inferior. I consider both groups to be Catholic with a difference of opinion on the matter of whether or not we have a Pope. I would gladly go to either group for Mass and confession if I had the option and they allowed me. I should point out that I am not a sedevacantist or an R&R. I consider both positions and I don't know which one is right so I just say I do not know if we have a true Pope or not.

PG · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2016, 10:07:17 PM »

This is the philosophy that I have embraced. Stay close enough in terms permissible to the pope so that you do not end up too far away. But, stay far enough away in terms permissible so that you do not end up too close. And, make sure there is a bishop leading the way. That places me in the R&R camp. And, I am satisfied. You cannot go wrong with +Lefebvre. And, I must say, +Williamson has gotten the job done. And, what more could a man ask for? Effeminate men will disagree. But, that's their problem, not mine.

In theory, I see other groups as possibly in this safe zone. But, reality can be different. Because, the reality is that not all are saints. And, that tends to make all the difference.

There are two issues in my camp that are unresolved in my opinion. And, they are, do the V2 bishops have ordinary jurisdiction as the material heretics that they are. And, how exactly(the key word being exactly) do we determine what new priests and bishop are validly ordained/consecrated. Because, I have traveled down the road of placing doubt on all new ordinations/consecrations, and in my opinion, it is a dark road.

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2016, 10:09:19 PM »

Quote from: PG

That places me in the R&R camp. And, I am satisfied.

You are R&R? I thought you were a sedevacantist. Did you used to be a sedevacantist or am I mistaken?

PG · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2016, 10:56:41 PM »

Matto - I never crossed the line. I have always sought to find the balance in tradition. But, you cannot find the balance if you do not know the bounds. So, I searched. And, while searching I was a doubtist. I took a liking to and decided to hijack :wink: the privationist title perhaps because of the prestige of +de lauriers, and the ability to do so. So, I labeled myself a privationist. Labels do come in handy. I saw it as a tip of the hat to the man. But, most probably would disagree.

Anyway, privation was relatively short lived. That is probably what gave you the idea, and leads to why I don't use it anymore. I didn't like the perceived company, and don't want to mislead any. By company I mean dogmatic sedes who either invalidate all but their own or who are filled with hatred towards R&R. I was non dogmatically non una cuм for the longest time, and I still am half non una cuм. I doubt the local bishops, as can be seen from my last post.

There is plenty of mystery to the office of the papacy, so much so that I personally found room to shelter under the privation/doubt camp. But, I always made it clear that if I leaned to any side of the debate, it was that I always leaned towards the pope as being the pope. I never crossed that line, and I still don't believe I did. However, we are not goats. And, I would rather serve in heaven, than reign in hell. So, in things permissible(that is the key word), I submit. That is the real beauty of authority. Because, there are many mansions in our fathers house. Thank God for +Lefebvre, and thank God for the vatican council 1 dogma.

So, for about the last year now I have been R&R. And, I see more and more wisdom in the position of +Lefebvre. I even see +Williamson as doing the right thing. And, he has taken quite a bit of heat for it, even from me. Remember, we all have a role and a duty to fulfill. +Williamson is not perfect. +Lefebvre was not perfect. But, when I think of them, I see the good. And, that is what matters. I cannot say that about dogmatic sedes.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2016, 11:39:31 PM »

Quote from: PG

Matto - I never crossed the line. I have always sought to find the balance in tradition. But, you cannot find the balance if you do not know the bounds. So, I searched. And, while searching I was a doubtist. I took a liking to and decided to hijack :wink: the privationist title perhaps because of the prestige of +de lauriers, and the ability to do so. So, I labeled myself a privationist. Labels do come in handy. I saw it as a tip of the hat to the man. But, most probably would disagree.

Anyway, privation was relatively short lived. That is probably what gave you the idea, and leads to why I don't use it anymore. I didn't like the perceived company, and don't want to mislead any. By company I mean dogmatic sedes who either invalidate all but their own or who are filled with hatred towards R&R. I was non dogmatically non una cuм for the longest time, and I still am half non una cuм. I doubt the local bishops, as can be seen from my last post.

There is plenty of mystery to the office of the papacy, so much so that I personally found room to shelter under the privation/doubt camp. But, I always made it clear that if I leaned to any side of the debate, it was that I always leaned towards the pope as being the pope. I never crossed that line, and I still don't believe I did. However, we are not goats. And, I would rather serve in heaven, than reign in hell. So, in things permissible(that is the key word), I submit. That is the real beauty of authority. Because, there are many mansions in our fathers house. Thank God for +Lefebvre, and thank God for the vatican council 1 dogma.

So, for about the last year now I have been R&R. And, I see more and more wisdom in the position of +Lefebvre. I even see +Williamson as doing the right thing. And, he has taken quite a bit of heat for it, even from me. Remember, we all have a role and a duty to fulfill. +Williamson is not perfect. +Lefebvre was not perfect. But, when I think of them, I see the good. And, that is what matters. I cannot say that about dogmatic sedes.

I too see wisdom in the position of Lefebvre

“We are faced with a serious dilemma which, I believe, has never existed in the Church: the one seated on the chair of Peter takes part in the worship of false gods. What conclusions will we have to draw, perhaps in a few months’ time, faced with these repeated acts of taking part in the worship of false religions, I do not know. But I do wonder. It is possible that we might be forced to believe that the pope is not the pope.”[1] (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Easter, 1986)