Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 26212 times)

OHCA · « **Reply #55 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:40:16 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I consider myself sede but for a smidgen of doubt. I attend an independent non-sede chapel. I would fulfill my Sunday obligation via a true Mass offered by a validly ordained priest whether sede or not, whether una cuм or not. Just because a priest may be mistaken about sede or una cuм does not make him a heretic, invalidate his orders or his Masses, etc. Now I would be wary of attending an indult though even with an old validly ordained priest due to the sermons. I have never had a bad sermon at an SSPX chapel. I have never even been to a sede chapel but would have no hesitation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #56 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:44:49 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Croixalist

I thought I was pretty clear that I was referring to a particular kind of sede, not each and every sede. However, I still don't quite understand how you guys can go to these non-sede Masses said in union with a recognized Antipope. What branch of SV do you associate with? I suppose we can strike off the Sanborn/Cekada option.

I'll explain again. Most SVs believe they can go to a valid an una cuм in good conscience, at least when that is the only one available because the Priest offering the Mass does not reject the papacy as the Orthodox do, but merely is mistaken on who holds the office. This is not the sin of schism.

Okay, I had to catch up a little on which group is what... so you're coming from the CMRI and you're saying that most sedes are from that branch and do not subscribe to the Sanborn/Cekada position on the Una cuм (among others), right? Can you list the various branches of SV that accept the Una cuм issue?

I consider myself sede but for a smidgen of doubt. I attend an independent non-sede chapel. I would fulfill my Sunday obligation via a true Mass offered by a validly ordained priest whether sede or not, whether una cuм or not. Just because a priest may be mistaken about sede or una cuм does not make him a heretic, invalidate his orders or his Masses, etc. Now I would be wary of attending an indult though even with an old validly ordained priest due to the sermons. I have never had a bad sermon at an SSPX chapel. I have never even been to a sede chapel but would have no hesitation.

With the indult some "hosts" could be left in the ciborioum and distributed in the Indult from a novus ordo mass. It is rare to find a validly ordained Priest in the indult.

It is nice that you have not heard a sermon in SSPX which affirms people in their disobedience and lack of submission to those they insist are popes. From what I have heard this is the exception. You are correct that it is merely a personal error of the Priest.

jhfromsf68 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:49:04 AM »

I know this has probably been answered before but what is the difference between a material heretic and a formal and a public heretic and which one is Francis?

Thank you

Sbyvl · « **Reply #58 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:21:48 AM »

Quote from: PG

Falsecharity - nonsense. Vacantists when it comes to the una cuм is proof that the majority of them are either dogmatic or immature.

Right. Because broadbbrushing an entire group of Catholics based upon the statements of a few is completely mature.

Sbyvl · « **Reply #59 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:24:19 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I did not even read the post because the title itself was so repulsive. More and more since bergolio people are trying to convince themselves, kind of like DePauw in the 60's.

He's just gotta be Pope. He's just gotta.

Believe it or not, some of us (maybe more than a few) don't really spend a lot of time worrying about whether Francis is pope or not. I get the impression that Sedes think that non-Sedes are always trying to convince themselves that the Pope is really the Pope. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Is Pope Francis a modernist who is trying to change the Church? Yes. But our Lord did not guarantee that we'd never have a Pope who would hold heretical views.

I, for one, don't obsess over it. But I often think that some Sedevacantists obsess over the issue, and rarely think of anything else. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

And there are people on this forum who "obsess" over the h0Ɩ0cαųst, or Fr. Feeney, or Vladimir Putin.

Personally, I think the issue of who is the Vicar of Christ to be at least marginally more important than those issues.