Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 26356 times)

Sbyvl · « **Reply #80 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:14:59 PM »

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.

OHCA · « **Reply #81 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:17:17 PM »

Quote from: St Ignatius

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.

Meg · « **Reply #82 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

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.

It wasn't me who raised the allegations. But you are implying that virtue is not a necessary quality in those leaders (bishops) of the traditional movement, whether they be SV or otherwise.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #83 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:03:45 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

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!

St Ignatius · « **Reply #84 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:34:50 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: St Ignatius
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.

Just happens that my sentiments are governed by my reason, so what's the problem? Since when is that considered whining?