Getting back on topic and back to the OP.  The sspx/resistance is superior to sedevacantism because it was headed by two holy bishops gathered together.  The key words being two, holy, and gathered together.  Recall the words of the Lord - "where two or more gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them".

The same cannot be said about the sedevacant movement.  In fact, it is ironic, because it is pretty much the polar opposite.  You had two bishops alright.  But, they were not holy, and they were not gathered together(of secondary importance).  You had the scandalous antipope bishop francis schuckardt of the cmri, and +Thuc who pretty much gave birth to everything else.  Compare and contrast.  +schuckardt became a filthy rich type bishop who came from schismatic excommunicated old catholic lines and ultimately became an antipope.  And, the previously filthy rich +thuc became an impoverished puppet of two gathered together laymen(hiller/heller) calling the shots.  It is the opposite of the will of Christ.  

+Thuc ordained and consecrated more unqualified and non catholic men than he did catholic men(if you want to call them that).  +Schuckardt was a druggy who sɛҳuąƖly abused his seminarians. +Thuc flip flopped between vacantism and the conciliar religion.  And, he too even created an antipope.  So, both camps of vacantism gave birth to antipopes.  

+Thuc pre v2 seemed more interested in being a wealthy businessman than a bishop.  +thuc apologists shed crocodile tears for the fact that +Thuc had no money post V2, and that he had no other choice but to flip flip/simulate the new mass to survive, and/or bow down to the two laymen running his life.  He was not a holy bishop.  The two are shameful.

+Lefebvre and +Castro mayer were holy men who kept with tradition, and that is where the church is.  +Williamson and company are keeping with the position of those two.  And, it goes to show, God does not leave us orphans.  

This is an extremely emotional way of looking at the issue.

If the sedevacantist position is true, it is true regardless of the personal virtues or vices of its adherents.

If the resistance position is true, it is true regardless of the personal virtues or vices of its adherents.

Attempting to answer theological questions based upon emotions and sentiments, rather than relying upon the teachings of authoritative theologians and canonists, is both dangerous and silly.

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: PG

Getting back on topic and back to the OP.  The sspx/resistance is superior to sedevacantism because it was headed by two holy bishops gathered together.  The key words being two, holy, and gathered together.  Recall the words of the Lord - "where two or more gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them".

The same cannot be said about the sedevacant movement.  In fact, it is ironic, because it is pretty much the polar opposite.  You had two bishops alright.  But, they were not holy, and they were not gathered together(of secondary importance).  You had the scandalous antipope bishop francis schuckardt of the cmri, and +Thuc who pretty much gave birth to everything else.  Compare and contrast.  +schuckardt became a filthy rich type bishop who came from schismatic excommunicated old catholic lines and ultimately became an antipope.  And, the previously filthy rich +thuc became an impoverished puppet of two gathered together laymen(hiller/heller) calling the shots.  It is the opposite of the will of Christ.  

+Thuc ordained and consecrated more unqualified and non catholic men than he did catholic men(if you want to call them that).  +Schuckardt was a druggy who sɛҳuąƖly abused his seminarians. +Thuc flip flopped between vacantism and the conciliar religion.  And, he too even created an antipope.  So, both camps of vacantism gave birth to antipopes.  

+Thuc pre v2 seemed more interested in being a wealthy businessman than a bishop.  +thuc apologists shed crocodile tears for the fact that +Thuc had no money post V2, and that he had no other choice but to flip flip/simulate the new mass to survive, and/or bow down to the two laymen running his life.  He was not a holy bishop.  The two are shameful.

+Lefebvre and +Castro mayer were holy men who kept with tradition, and that is where the church is.  +Williamson and company are keeping with the position of those two.  And, it goes to show, God does not leave us orphans.  

This is an extremely emotional way of looking at the issue.

If the sedevacantist position is true, it is true regardless of the personal virtues or vices of its adherents.

If the resistance position is true, it is true regardless of the personal virtues or vices of its adherents.

Attempting to answer theological questions based upon emotions and sentiments, rather than relying upon the teachings of authoritative theologians and canonists, is both dangerous and silly.

I don't know much about the SV bishops Thuc and Schuckardt, but I think that PG was mainly making a comparison of them and the two holy men +Lefebvre and  +Castro. There seems to be a great difference between the SV bishops and +Lefebvre and +Castro. I don't see that as being emotional, but rather making a distinction.

And my point can be summed up as: So what?

The personal virtues of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. De Castro Mayer do not somehow prove the resistance position to be correct.

But I would just like to note that Bp. De Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist towards the end of his life.

The personal virtues of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. De Castro Mayer do not somehow prove the resistance position to be correct.

In contrast, the lack of personal virtue in Thuc and Schuckardt doesn't make the SV position incorrect, would you say?

Thank you PG... not that I can attest to all that you have expressed, but it does express my sentimental position.

"Sentimental position."  What better to base crisis theology on than "sentimental positions?"

Wow!!

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up this thread--a whiny sentimental thread.  And that's not even coming from a hardcore full-fledged sede.  Once again, the more ridiculous nonsense set forth as "apologists" for R&R vis-a-vis sede, the more I see the illogicality of the one and the aptness of the other.

Quote from: PG

Getting back on topic and back to the OP.  The sspx/resistance is superior to sedevacantism because it was headed by two holy bishops gathered together.  The key words being two, holy, and gathered together.  Recall the words of the Lord - "where two or more gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them".

The same cannot be said about the sedevacant movement.  In fact, it is ironic, because it is pretty much the polar opposite.  You had two bishops alright.  But, they were not holy, and they were not gathered together(of secondary importance).  You had the scandalous antipope bishop francis schuckardt of the cmri, and +Thuc who pretty much gave birth to everything else.  Compare and contrast.  +schuckardt became a filthy rich type bishop who came from schismatic excommunicated old catholic lines and ultimately became an antipope.  And, the previously filthy rich +thuc became an impoverished puppet of two gathered together laymen(hiller/heller) calling the shots.  It is the opposite of the will of Christ.  

+Thuc ordained and consecrated more unqualified and non catholic men than he did catholic men(if you want to call them that).  +Schuckardt was a druggy who sɛҳuąƖly abused his seminarians. +Thuc flip flopped between vacantism and the conciliar religion.  And, he too even created an antipope.  So, both camps of vacantism gave birth to antipopes.  

+Thuc pre v2 seemed more interested in being a wealthy businessman than a bishop.  +thuc apologists shed crocodile tears for the fact that +Thuc had no money post V2, and that he had no other choice but to flip flip/simulate the new mass to survive, and/or bow down to the two laymen running his life.  He was not a holy bishop.  The two are shameful.

+Lefebvre and +Castro mayer were holy men who kept with tradition, and that is where the church is.  +Williamson and company are keeping with the position of those two.  And, it goes to show, God does not leave us orphans.  

So I take it you have no problem with the pederasty issues in the SSPX (Urrutigoity, Sloniker, etc).  Or the fact that 95% of all the people ever associated with the SSPX are either already in the N.O. Church or they will be soon.  Or I suppose it's no big deal that Fr. Pfeiffer was working with a schismatic fraud (Moran) or that Bishop Williamson thinks that the N.O. Mass is beneficial to your faith.  And you are proud that the Great Monarch (Gajewski) is R&R.  Yeah, that's a track record to be proud of for sure.  Are you an idiot?

People living in glass houses don't throw stones unless they are idiots.

All I can say that with a comment like this, your a real ass!

The SSPX is part of that Church, and so it's the work of God.

A part of what church?  The conciliar church?  The church that hasn't validly ordained a priest since 1968?  The church that fakes masses all over the world (which is an inherently sacrilegious act) and further purports to handle our Lord so irreverently at those fake masses (further egregious sacrilege)?  The church that puts heretics, pagans, infidels, etc. error on the same level as herself?

And a part of that church why?  Because they begrudgingly said you can be?  If SSPX is Catholic, then IT IS the Church--not any of this "part of that Church" wishy-washiness.  No wonder SSPX is so eager to rush back in--they have the red-headed step-child syndrome.

Our Lord said to judge a tree by its fruits. The fruits of the SSPX have been salvation for many souls, vocations, sanctity of life, more Catholics living their Catholic Faith during the week, and many conversions.  The majority of evidence points to the SSPX being "of God".

I realize that you're trying to disassociate from it with this then & now dichotomy--and I am not saying that that is completely invalid.  But to some degree the SSPX has to own the good fruit and the bad fruit.  Seriously bad fruit (working to reunify with modernist Rome) is on the table a mere 40 some odd years in.  And the Resistwnce doesn't have much of a track record, but in its short history has Ambrose, Pablo, Pfeifferville, Mr. Kramer, Gajewski, and the nutbag from, was it Minnesota, who cooked up a bunch of lies on Pablo ( :roll-laugh1:  this stuff is just too good).

Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson are heroes--saints--in my eyes.  And much saintly work has been accomplished via the SSPX.  But playing the judge by fruits game, you have to consider the good, the bad, and the ugly.

And the SSPX defended the Faith on a global scale, with chapels, seminaries, and priests all over the world. They had 500+ priests at their peak. The SSPX dwarfs any sedevacantist group in terms of priests, chapels, parishioners, or any other metric. So Catholics of good will have voted with their feet who they think is safer or more Catholic.

So were the many millions more Catholics who obeyed their Pontiff and remained in conciliardom out of that obedience--there were millions of good-will who thought they were right and doing Gods will by remaining where their Pontiff clearly was--mustn't they be correct because their numbers so overwhelmingly dwarf SSPX?

The SSPX has become the neo-SSPX now, and is collapsing before us. But at the same time, the true SSPX continues on in the form of the Resistance.

And what will the Resistance be in 45 years?  Is Bishop Williamson a much better leader than Archbishop Lefebvre?  What about Bishop/Pope Pfeiffer and King Gajewski?

So when I promote the "SSPX" I mean the SSPX before 2011 -- and after 2011, the Resistance.

And after 2051?

Sure, with human beings there are always bad apples. But you could say the same thing about the Catholic Church in general! There are always some bad fish caught in the net.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is simplistic, defeatist, and most Catholics (even good-willed Traditional ones) reject it. Many of them flirt/flirted with Sedevacantism, but they usually give it up and talk about it like a temptation or sin they fell into.

I suppose they can more easily conceive the unblemished Bride of Chrisf participating in Assissi than not having a Pope for an interval.  Not me.

How many good Traditional Catholic forums forbid Sedevacantists to participate, because of the noxiousness of their presence (with a few notable exceptions)? They only like to argue about the Pope question. They refuse to believe in any element of mystery in the Crisis in the Church. They want to understand it all with their puny, poorly educated human minds. Some of them have only been Traditional for a few years, or even a few months! And yet they'll happily throw the wisdom of wise priests and bishops right into the trash can.

"Refuse to believe in any element of mystery in the Crisis in the Church?"  So what is the biggest mystery that folks are "refusing to believe?"  We have a Pontiff who we must differentiate from and disobey?  Or Christ has permitted an extended interval of sedevacantism?

Again, I'll admit that it doesn't apply to *every* Sedevacantist, but it applies to far too many of them.

Mighty white of you to acknowledge that there may exist a couple of educated sedes who don't have puny brains.

After all, once you add "sedevacantist" to your name, you have to defend that difference by being obsessed with the issue. If your daily life or discourse were the same as a regular Traditional Catholic, then why the extra adjective "sedevacantist"?

That adjective stares at you in the mirror every day, imploring you to do something "different" than your fellow Traditional Catholics who aren't "sedevacantist". And far too many sedevacantists heed the call.

I don't add anything to my name--I am a simply Catholic.

---------------------

Sedes and jews hated by the world:

Their "universal unwelcomness" forces to mind the fate of the cursed Jews, forced to wander the earth without a home, since they rejected the Messiah they had been formed by God for centuries to recognize and accept. The Jews had been blessed so much, so highly favored, and they returned the favor by crucifying the Just One.

Sure, Our Lord said His followers would be hated.

But the Jews were also universally hated throughout Christendom during the Middle Ages. They were a persecuted people.

So which kind of persecution/unpopularity are the sedevacantists enduring today? The persecution endured by the just man, or the persecution endured by the wicked?

But what about Recognize & Resisters hated by the world:

The world hates Bishop Williamson (the Just) but it also hates Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer (the wicked).

Aw shucks--hatred by the world doesn't mean anything after all:

So simply being "hated by the world" proves nothing about a person or group.

Quote from: Sbyvl

The personal virtues of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. De Castro Mayer do not somehow prove the resistance position to be correct.

In contrast, the lack of personal virtue in Thuc and Schuckardt doesn't make the SV position incorrect, would you say?

Archbishop Thuc was a very holy person, you should look into this talk about him from a person very close to him.  Rev. Father Francis Miller, OFM:

Fr. Miller entered the Franciscan
Order at the recommendation of his
spiritual director Msgr. Hodgeson
in 1980. He was the first novice and
solemnly professed member of his
traditional Franciscan community.
When Archbishop Thuc joined the
household in 1982, Fr. Miller and one
other Brother were assigned to look
after the bishop’s needs and to assist
him. Currently the pastor of Christ
the King Church in Lafayette, Louisiana,
Father Francis will share with
us his recollections of the late Archbishop
Thuc.

If you want to talk about the late Archbishop Thuc, you should look into what he represented.  He has suffered much when he was trying to hold on to the Faith, and is truly a modern day Saint.  

As far as Schuckardt is concerned; SSPX has its own dirt to deal with right now, and also I am shocked to read that SSPX accepts annulments from the novus ordo.  That is not HOLY. I am sure any of you would be just a shocked to discover this out.  
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41485&f=8&min=20&num=10
One of the reasons people left CMRI was because they could not get their anulment so perhaps they ran to SSPX.   There are other reasons also, just as people leave SSPX, that is a silly point to make, thinking SSPX is superior.  When Our Lord returns, He even mentioned there won't be numbers around holding the Faith.  So don't put too much into numbers.  

I don't know why God used Schuckardt to be His instrument in the finding of CMRI, just like I don't know why God picked Judas to be one of His Apostles.  CMRI has been truly blessed by God since Schuckardt left, we are starting new chapels North, South, East and West.  We are alive with vocations, both men and women enter our religious order.  

You will know them by their fruits, Our Lord said, and the fruits of CMRI have been good.  Our Bishop doesn't waste his time talking against other Traditional groups, nor their Bishops to the laity.  I am sure he has discussed issues at their priestly meetings behind closed doors. I wouldn't know, since I am not the fly on the wall. He does not go around writing papers against them nor making youtubes about the sins of other Traditionalist.  

The only reason people here WANT to see something bad about CMRI is because they don't understand the true meaing of charity and they make up lies.  Vengeance is mine so says Our Lord, BEWARE!  

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Sbyvl

The personal virtues of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. De Castro Mayer do not somehow prove the resistance position to be correct.

In contrast, the lack of personal virtue in Thuc and Schuckardt doesn't make the SV position incorrect, would you say?

I don't know for certain whether or not the allegations you raised are true, but regardless, they have no bearing on the question of Jorge Bergoglio's legitimacy, or lack thereof.

Right.  You can have a valid Pope that fathers children as Pope, who never taught heresy as Pope, and you can have a mother Theresa who definitely held and taught heretical things while living a virtuous life.

Strangely, on the surface, the hypothetical Pope could have repented and gone to Heaven, and (hopefully not of course) Mother Theresa who did more natural good than many people combined may have ended up in Hell.  

When discerning facts it comes down to truth or error not virtue or vice (apparent or real).

We do not have to read souls to tell if their position is correct or not.