Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 26246 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #60 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:57:06 AM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

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.

Quite.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #61 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:02:01 AM »

Quote from: jhfromsf68

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

A Catholic who rejects a part of the Faith is a formal heretic. One who does not hold a part of the faith through ignorance is a material heretic. A public heretic is a known heretic, one who teaches heresy or engages in heretical acts publicly. Francis is a public heretic and that is all that matters in regards to his claim to the Papacy as a public heretic whether formal or material cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office. Though one who claims to Pope cannot really claim to be ignorant. How can he make fun of what the Church "used" to teach without knowing what it taught? Plus he is confronted with his heresies by the R & R's so it is incuмbent upon him to see if they are correct or not.

Also a private or occult heretic can be either a formal or material heretic.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #62 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:06:51 AM »

Also in regard to "obligation" there is a general rule among traditional clergy that one is "obliged" to attend Sunday Mass if you are within one hours distance from the Church and that you "should" attend at least once a month if you are within two hours.

Now IMO the whole "hidden jurisdiction, the traditional clergy are vagrants and not formally the Church" issue, if true, would have the "obligation" cease since they are acting in the "state of emergency".

Yes, for close to 60 year the only valid Massed, Sacraments, Seminaries, Schools, Bishops and Priests have been brought to us by clergy who are not the hierarchy according to those who hold this opinion.

Of course SVs are not obligated to attend an una cuм heretic Mass any more than an R & R is obliged in their conscience to attend an SV Mass, even if that is the only one available.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:18:51 AM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

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.

Of course understanding EENS as the Church understands rather than how Feeney did is nothing to sneeze at either. Dogma is important. Feeney continues to wreck havoc on the Church 'til this day.

PG · « **Reply #64 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:12:14 PM »

Lot - you are a walking contradiction. You find it strange that a vacantist would go to a una cuм mass for the sole purpose of arguing vacantism. But, you join this r&r forum, and for the most part don't casually socialize with us, but just post vacantism articles in mass cluttering up the forum. You either clutter/muddy up a conversation, or don't converse. And, by the sounds of it, you are a cmri culti to me.

The cmri entice with open arms, only to defecate when they are full. They are no different from the orthodox in that sense. They are a loathsome bunch. They work like sharks. They undercut only to gouge.

Woe to the cmri.