Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on July 11, 2016, 03:35:21 PM
-
The SSPX is part of that Church, and so it's the work of God.
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".
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.
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.
So when I promote the "SSPX" I mean the SSPX before 2011 -- and after 2011, the Resistance.
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.
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.
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.
Again, I'll admit that it doesn't apply to *every* Sedevacantist, but it applies to far too many of them.
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.
Their "universal unwelcomness" forces to mind the fate of the cursed Jєωs, 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 Jєωs 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 Jєωs 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?
The world hates Bishop Williamson (the Just) but it also hates Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer (the wicked).
So simply being "hated by the world" proves nothing about a person or group.
-
Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?
Just curious!
-
The SSPX is part of that Church, and so it's the work of God.
Sedevacantist bishops are of the Church, too.
-
"Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is simplistic, defeatist,"
what nonsense, the sedevacantist refuses to believe a non catholic is their pope, which is the far superior position to take than yours, it's also the truth
-
What are you taiking about? And who cares! Your barking up the wrong tree.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?
Just curious!
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.
That good Priest did not have our hindsight and Fenton found himself in the same dilemma. "This will not be put through in the council". "Oops, it was put through." "Well it must be true some how or at least not false." This is based on the assumption that Paul sick was Pope. A reasonable assumption in the 60's. Father Fenton stopped public writing after the council and soon died of a heart attack. In his diary he was sure certain things proposed would get approved to go in the Council, but it did.
Over 50 years later we do not have the same excuse. I believe Father Fenton would have realized that the apostates are prevented by Divine Law from legitimately holding ecclesiastical office and I believe he would have acted accordingly if he had lived much longer.
I believe there are several clergy in the R and R (and even in the NO) who do know better and do not act accordingly. God knows for sure.
-
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.
I respect this position.
But one position must be correct and the other incorrect. All should be able to agree on that. Good Catholics do not resist the popes for over 50 years. The idea of it is untenable in sound Catholic theology.
-
Effeminate men will disagree. But, that's their problem, not mine.
You made some sense until the above effeminate statements.
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.
You simply have to ask them if they were ordained in the pre-1968 rite by a bishop consecrated in the pre-1968 rite. If they don't respond don't go to them or support them.
-
"Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is simplistic, defeatist,"
what nonsense, the sedevacantist refuses to believe a non catholic is their pope, which is the far superior position to take than yours, it's also the truth
Exactly.
R&R's calls him a non-Catholic, apostate, heretic, anti-Catholic etc, etc, etc, (The list is much longer).
Instead of all the name calling, Sedevacantists don't believe he's the pope. Period.
Well-stated. But he is all the names the R & R's call him.
The disobey and refuse submission to what they believe to be a valid Pope, we disobey and refuse submission to no one.
-
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)
He said this before Assisi thinking that line might need to be crossed if jp2 went through with it. That time has long passed. But we don't want to break the wounder reed or scandalize the weak who can't take the idea that an apostate cannot be pope. No?
-
LOT - that comment was mainly referring to those R&R who dislike +Williamson. Sedes generally are respectful of +Lefebvre.
But, that comment also can apply to sedes. It is not the popes place to tell us how to tie our shoes and comb our hair. Popes have their own thorns to pluck.
-
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.
-
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.
It would be interesting if someone would pick all the topics out that were started here about the misgivings of what Francis is doing, or saying, and looking who is reporting them, sedevacantists or SSPX.
Maybe Matthew will have to insert another icon on our posts, not only showing who is a man or woman, but who is a sede or SSPX or otherwise in order to have a correct and accurate statistic.
Example: SSPX could have a miter sitting in a chair, an undecided would have a miter sitting on a fence, and a sede might have an empty chair.
Example: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Pope-vows-that-he-wont-slow-down-for-Ultra-Conservatives
Started by Matthew
-
I don't think Matthew and other anti-sedevacantists actually read anything we write. It is not we who must justify our position of keeping the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but the Recognize and Resist folks, which includes the Resistance, who must justify their rejection of their pope.
-
Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?
Just curious!
Convince others, of course.
Here is a parable, which kind of explains why I get upset when people attack the OLD SSPX, on this Resistance-friendly forum that regularly bashes the neo-SSPX:
John's mother, at the age of 60, decided to divorce her husband of 40 years and run off with a younger man, who also happens to be much more adventurous than her old husband ever was. Their first marriage was in the Catholic church, and certainly valid.
John was complaining about this to a few friends and coworkers of his, how this causes all kinds of problems for him, especially now that he has children of his own.
One of his co-workers pipes up, "yeah, your mother always was a whore, wasn't she!".
John punches the co-worker in the face for talking about his mother that way.
The co-worker, in disbelief, and wiping a bit of blood off his lips with his right sleeve, bellows out,
"Why did you hit me for? You're complaining about your mother. I'm on YOUR side, against her, right?"
John explains: "No, you're not. I'm complaining about a fall that took place when she was 60 years old. She married my father with all good intentions 40 years ago. She was faithful to him all those years. Until she went crazy recently, I had nothing to reproach her about. You suggest that she was always a whore, and that simply isn't true!"
-
What I find kind of interesting is how willing SVs are to take advantage of non-SV chapels, churches, and forums. I mean CathInfo has always been an SSPX-aligned forum and yet it's overrun by some fairly hardcore dogmatic SV's. The reality for a SV who wants to be 100% true to their convictions means that most of them will be forced to leave their Sunday obligation unfulfilled.
Am I right guys? How many of you have access to SV priests and chapels?
-
What I find kind of interesting is how willing SVs are to take advantage of non-SV chapels, churches, and forums. I mean CathInfo has always been an SSPX-aligned forum and yet it's overrun by some fairly hardcore dogmatic SV's. The reality for a SV who wants to be 100% true to their convictions means that most of them will be forced to leave their Sunday obligation unfulfilled.
Am I right guys? How many of you have access to SV priests and chapels?
I was a faithful supporter of the "Old SSPX" for nearly 25 years. I must say, I was very thankful that there where SV's chapels nearby of the SSPX parish I was a member of. I couldn't have imagined spending all my time arguing about this subject after every Mass.
-
Agreed, when I began to 'dogmatically' apply the Non Una cuм approach to myself ( but Not to my friends remaining in the R. & R. Opinionist camp ), I was Very grateful to have ready access ( usually one a month ) to a Non Una cuм priest and congregation .
-
What I find kind of interesting is how willing SVs are to take advantage of non-SV chapels, churches, and forums. I mean CathInfo has always been an SSPX-aligned forum and yet it's overrun by some fairly hardcore dogmatic SV's. The reality for a SV who wants to be 100% true to their convictions means that most of them will be forced to leave their Sunday obligation unfulfilled.
Am I right guys? How many of you have access to SV priests and chapels?
I was a faithful supporter of the "Old SSPX" for nearly 25 years. I must say, I was very thankful that there where SV's chapels nearby of the SSPX parish I was a member of. I couldn't have imagined spending all my time arguing about this subject after every Mass.
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
-
"but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen"
LOL, yup, I hear ya and agree with ya.
:soapbox:
-
Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?
Just curious!
Convince others, of course.
Here is a parable, which kind of explains why I get upset when people attack the OLD SSPX, on this Resistance-friendly forum that regularly bashes the neo-SSPX:
John's mother, at the age of 60, decided to divorce her husband of 40 years and run off with a younger man, who also happens to be much more adventurous than her old husband ever was. Their first marriage was in the Catholic church, and certainly valid.
John was complaining about this to a few friends and coworkers of his, how this causes all kinds of problems for him, especially now that he has children of his own.
One of his co-workers pipes up, "yeah, your mother always was a whore, wasn't she!".
John punches the co-worker in the face for talking about his mother that way.
The co-worker, in disbelief, and wiping a bit of blood off his lips with his right sleeve, bellows out,
"Why did you hit me for? You're complaining about your mother. I'm on YOUR side, against her, right?"
John explains: "No, you're not. I'm complaining about a fall that took place when she was 60 years old. She married my father with all good intentions 40 years ago. She was faithful to him all those years. Until she went crazy recently, I had nothing to reproach her about. You suggest that she was always a whore, and that simply isn't true!"
That story is cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that a public heretic is barred by divine law from attaining the papacy.
-
In my time in the traditional Catholic world I have met many SVs who go to una-cuм Francis Masses whether they be SSPX, independent or eastern rite. I even met sedevacantists who take active part in una-cuм Francis Masses by being in roles like the cantor. And I met one person who was a SV who actually worked for the Novus Ordo by being the musical director for the Novus Ordo Masses. I think this is strange. I think the non-una cuм position makes more sense if one is an SV even though most SVs that I know of do not hold this position and are willing to go to una-cuм Francis Masses.
-
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
Trying to figure out if you are bragging or complaining about people who hold to the SV position are attending Mass at YOUR chapel. Sounds a bit exclusive!
Also confused about your remark after stating the SV attend Mass but now you say they don't attend Mass just hang out in the basement and argue with whom? Are they arguing with the SSPX people, and why are the SSPX people not attending Mass instead of arguing with the SV folks. Where do you go to Mass anyway or is this a joke?
Sorry but you lost me. Don't take it personal, I confuse easily especially when I try to understand SSPX today!
I am also confused about who are the OLD SSPX and the New SSPX, it seems the OLD should be the ones who are Keeping the Faith, and the New SSPX are the ones that are going toward the New Church, is that correct? Or is it the other way around?
-
In my time in the traditional Catholic world I have met many SVs who go to una-cuм Francis Masses whether they be SSPX, independent or eastern rite. I even met sedevacantists who take active part in una-cuм Francis Masses by being in roles like the cantor. And I met one person who was a SV who actually worked for the Novus Ordo by being the musical director for the Novus Ordo Masses. I think this is strange. I think the non-una cuм position makes more sense if one is an SV even though most SVs that I know of do not hold this position and are willing to go to una-cuм Francis Masses.
At Mount St. Michael we have parents that are SSPX and send their children to the Mount, also lately more and more SSPX families are coming to Mass at the Mount, and they are all welcome. The Pastor at the Mount does not exclude SSPX children from the school, nor the sacraments.
So, Matto, I guess it all evens out in the end, depending on the geographics of where one lives. Which is the way the Church has always been prior to Vatican II.
-
I am also confused about who are the OLD SSPX and the New SSPX, it seems the OLD should be the ones who are Keeping the Faith, and the New SSPX are the ones that are going toward the New Church, is that correct? Or is it the other way around?
Your former assumption is correct.
-
I am also confused about who are the OLD SSPX and the New SSPX, it seems the OLD should be the ones who are Keeping the Faith, and the New SSPX are the ones that are going toward the New Church, is that correct? Or is it the other way around?
Your former assumption is correct.
Thank you!
-
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
Trying to figure out if you are bragging or complaining about people who hold to the SV position are attending Mass at YOUR chapel. Sounds a bit exclusive!
Also confused about your remark after stating the SV attend Mass but now you say they don't attend Mass just hang out in the basement and argue with whom? Are they arguing with the SSPX people, and why are the SSPX people not attending Mass instead of arguing with the SV folks. Where do you go to Mass anyway or is this a joke?
Sorry but you lost me. Don't take it personal, I confuse easily especially when I try to understand SSPX today!
The basement is where people can gather before, after, or in between Masses if they so choose. It's what passes for socializing. And yes there were men who only hung out there and would hit people up with a barrage of arguments about why there is no Pope, yet they couldn't bring themselves to go to any Masses. I don't see this much at my chapel anymore thankfully, but we have lost a ton of good people since 2012. Small wonder that!
There's two ways that a sede can lose their ability to truly criticize R&R, and that is to attend non-sede Masses or to generally camp out or squat in non-sede venues with the sole purpose of arguing others into a home-aloner type situation. Of course I have issues theologically with the position and that's why I won't be going to an SV church anytime soon, but I do hope the situation turns around so that one day the well-intentioned of us can once again meet at the same places in unity and peace.
Otherwise, they're stuck going to Masses with an antipope in the Una cuм. I would imagine that would be pretty tough for a sede bent against all compromise. But then you have the ultra hardline Dimond Bros. who attend VII-aligned Eastern Rite Masses. 100% dogmatic Sedevacantism is about as exclusive as one can possibly get. If you're not there yet, take this as a heads up. Nothing more nothing less.
First and foremost, I have an issue with these major hypocrite dogmatic sedes who use everybody else's infrastructure to do very little else but argue and complain... about said infrastructure. I more than understand and have sympathy for those who are so scandalized by the current situation that they can't help but hold the opinion. The problem always comes in when they insist on ripping into the R&R thing like it's completely off base. It's really hard to listen to that when they literally have no place to call their own. That being said, every SSPX chapel is one liberal priest away from disaster.
I have my own take on the situation, but I know it really doesn't matter until the Church hierarchy rights itself. How far can the Church be co-opted without defecting? How long can we go without a Pope who would give his life for the Faith? I don't know and I don't want to find out!
For SV's every year that passes brings about another dilemma about the pool of Cardinals who might be eligible if they converted and came out of retirement to hold a conclave. Either way, we're all floating out there hoping a waterfall isn't just around the bend. We can hear the roar of the rapids and no one is too far to remain unaffected. This isn't a situation one can ever afford to be too overconfident. It's the capital "C" Crisis, and short of the Antichrist himself, it's the worst possible situation the Church has ever faced.
It's easy to forget how leaving all this up to private judgment is not how it normally ought to be. We need our Pope and our Bishops to do their job and start sorting out the various theological issues that have flooded the our "safe" little life rafts. I don't have all the answers to this, but we've been listing for a long time and we're only going to take on more water until the capital "R" Restoration. We need a major miracle. Or two. Or twenty-two. We need the Fatima Pope, the Angelic Shepherd and the GCM to name a few.
-
I do not attend a non-sede mass nor do I seek low hanging fruit which to convince conclavism.
In fact, I greatly admire Bishop Williamson. The man went through Hell regarding the magic number, several countries banned him, exiled (under orders by the future Nope) from Argentina, he is a household name synonymous with nαzι. He is now verboten.
No other R&R high priest has the above qualifications. The man is the real deal.
But to clarify, you wouldn't attend one of his Masses correct?
-
Falsecharity - nonsense. Vacantists when it comes to the una cuм is proof that the majority of them are either dogmatic or immature.
-
LOT - that comment was mainly referring to those R&R who dislike +Williamson. Sedes generally are respectful of +Lefebvre.
But, that comment also can apply to sedes. It is not the popes place to tell us how to tie our shoes and comb our hair. Popes have their own thorns to pluck.
Yes, I certainly have respect for Lefebvre.
-
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.
This just in. The Pope issue is important. It matters whether he is the Vicar of Christ or the Vicar of Satan leading countless souls to Hell. Hello?
-
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.
The can hold heretical views but can't teach them as your Popes do. "What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven." Jesus said that didn't He? Does he bind heresy in Heaven? Does he allow valid Popes to bind heresy on earth, and invalid Sacraments, and damned "Saints"?
-
What I find kind of interesting is how willing SVs are to take advantage of non-SV chapels, churches, and forums. I mean CathInfo has always been an SSPX-aligned forum and yet it's overrun by some fairly hardcore dogmatic SV's. The reality for a SV who wants to be 100% true to their convictions means that most of them will be forced to leave their Sunday obligation unfulfilled.
Am I right guys? How many of you have access to SV priests and chapels?
Most SVs believe they can go to Chapel's of valid Priests who do not reject the Papacy but erroneously believe the V2 claimants to be Pope.
Ultimately what is most interesting is whether he is Pope or not. Bellarmine, Paul IV, the Vatican council and canon law, along with many other authorities all clearly teach that public heretic cannot be Pope. That is what is very interesting.
-
What I find kind of interesting is how willing SVs are to take advantage of non-SV chapels, churches, and forums. I mean CathInfo has always been an SSPX-aligned forum and yet it's overrun by some fairly hardcore dogmatic SV's. The reality for a SV who wants to be 100% true to their convictions means that most of them will be forced to leave their Sunday obligation unfulfilled.
Am I right guys? How many of you have access to SV priests and chapels?
I was a faithful supporter of the "Old SSPX" for nearly 25 years. I must say, I was very thankful that there where SV's chapels nearby of the SSPX parish I was a member of. I couldn't have imagined spending all my time arguing about this subject after every Mass.
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
Really? That seem stupid and a waste of time. If this is really true. Wow.
-
Are you trying to convince the sedevacantist or yourself with this topic?
Just curious!
Convince others, of course.
Here is a parable, which kind of explains why I get upset when people attack the OLD SSPX, on this Resistance-friendly forum that regularly bashes the neo-SSPX:
John's mother, at the age of 60, decided to divorce her husband of 40 years and run off with a younger man, who also happens to be much more adventurous than her old husband ever was. Their first marriage was in the Catholic church, and certainly valid.
John was complaining about this to a few friends and coworkers of his, how this causes all kinds of problems for him, especially now that he has children of his own.
One of his co-workers pipes up, "yeah, your mother always was a whore, wasn't she!".
John punches the co-worker in the face for talking about his mother that way.
The co-worker, in disbelief, and wiping a bit of blood off his lips with his right sleeve, bellows out,
"Why did you hit me for? You're complaining about your mother. I'm on YOUR side, against her, right?"
John explains: "No, you're not. I'm complaining about a fall that took place when she was 60 years old. She married my father with all good intentions 40 years ago. She was faithful to him all those years. Until she went crazy recently, I had nothing to reproach her about. You suggest that she was always a whore, and that simply isn't true!"
That story is cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that a public heretic is barred by divine law from attaining the papacy.
Right! Just one of those "insignificant" things people prefer to ignore. Yet they bring up the issue. To what purpose? I believe to convince themselves.
It's like saying say a bachelor is married and trying to convince others of it.
-
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
Trying to figure out if you are bragging or complaining about people who hold to the SV position are attending Mass at YOUR chapel. Sounds a bit exclusive!
Also confused about your remark after stating the SV attend Mass but now you say they don't attend Mass just hang out in the basement and argue with whom? Are they arguing with the SSPX people, and why are the SSPX people not attending Mass instead of arguing with the SV folks. Where do you go to Mass anyway or is this a joke?
Sorry but you lost me. Don't take it personal, I confuse easily especially when I try to understand SSPX today!
The basement is where people can gather before, after, or in between Masses if they so choose. It's what passes for socializing. And yes there were men who only hung out there and would hit people up with a barrage of arguments about why there is no Pope, yet they couldn't bring themselves to go to any Masses. I don't see this much at my chapel anymore thankfully, but we have lost a ton of good people since 2012. Small wonder that!
There's two ways that a sede can lose their ability to truly criticize R&R, and that is to attend non-sede Masses or to generally camp out or squat in non-sede venues with the sole purpose of arguing others into a home-aloner type situation. Of course I have issues theologically with the position and that's why I won't be going to an SV church anytime soon, but I do hope the situation turns around so that one day the well-intentioned of us can once again meet at the same places in unity and peace.
Otherwise, they're stuck going to Masses with an antipope in the Una cuм. I would imagine that would be pretty tough for a sede bent against all compromise. But then you have the ultra hardline Dimond Bros. who attend VII-aligned Eastern Rite Masses. 100% dogmatic Sedevacantism is about as exclusive as one can possibly get. If you're not there yet, take this as a heads up. Nothing more nothing less.
First and foremost, I have an issue with these major hypocrite dogmatic sedes who use everybody else's infrastructure to do very little else but argue and complain... about said infrastructure. I more than understand and have sympathy for those who are so scandalized by the current situation that they can't help but hold the opinion. The problem always comes in when they insist on ripping into the R&R thing like it's completely off base. It's really hard to listen to that when they literally have no place to call their own. That being said, every SSPX chapel is one liberal priest away from disaster.
I have my own take on the situation, but I know it really doesn't matter until the Church hierarchy rights itself. How far can the Church be co-opted without defecting? How long can we go without a Pope who would give his life for the Faith? I don't know and I don't want to find out!
For SV's every year that passes brings about another dilemma about the pool of Cardinals who might be eligible if they converted and came out of retirement to hold a conclave. Either way, we're all floating out there hoping a waterfall isn't just around the bend. We can hear the roar of the rapids and no one is too far to remain unaffected. This isn't a situation one can ever afford to be too overconfident. It's the capital "C" Crisis, and short of the Antichrist himself, it's the worst possible situation the Church has ever faced.
It's easy to forget how leaving all this up to private judgment is not how it normally ought to be. We need our Pope and our Bishops to do their job and start sorting out the various theological issues that have flooded the our "safe" little life rafts. I don't have all the answers to this, but we've been listing for a long time and we're only going to take on more water until the capital "R" Restoration. We need a major miracle. Or two. Or twenty-two. We need the Fatima Pope, the Angelic Shepherd and the GCM to name a few.
SVs going to a valid Mass does not somehow undermine the fact that a public heretic can't be Pope. It is an odd way to discredit SVs. It is not like the want the only Priest available to them to publicly teach it is okay not to submit to a valid "pope".
-
It's lean times for everyone, but I can just imagine how bone dry it must be for the average SV. My heart goes out to them a bit. Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
Trying to figure out if you are bragging or complaining about people who hold to the SV position are attending Mass at YOUR chapel. Sounds a bit exclusive!
Also confused about your remark after stating the SV attend Mass but now you say they don't attend Mass just hang out in the basement and argue with whom? Are they arguing with the SSPX people, and why are the SSPX people not attending Mass instead of arguing with the SV folks. Where do you go to Mass anyway or is this a joke?
Sorry but you lost me. Don't take it personal, I confuse easily especially when I try to understand SSPX today!
The basement is where people can gather before, after, or in between Masses if they so choose. It's what passes for socializing. And yes there were men who only hung out there and would hit people up with a barrage of arguments about why there is no Pope, yet they couldn't bring themselves to go to any Masses. I don't see this much at my chapel anymore thankfully, but we have lost a ton of good people since 2012. Small wonder that!
There's two ways that a sede can lose their ability to truly criticize R&R, and that is to attend non-sede Masses or to generally camp out or squat in non-sede venues with the sole purpose of arguing others into a home-aloner type situation.
I do not attend a non-sede mass nor do I seek low hanging fruit which to convince conclavism.
In fact, I greatly admire Bishop Williamson. The man went through Hell regarding the magic number, several countries banned him, exiled (under orders by the future Nope) from Argentina, he is a household name synonymous with nαzι. He is now verboten.
No other R&R high priest has the above qualifications. The man is the real deal.
If the more serious Sedevacantist bishops had a platform like Bp. Williamson did at the time to interview with mainstream networks, they would also be regarded as nαzι's by ʝʊdɛօ-masonic standards. But since they don't recognize Francis to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, well, they are regarded as bishops of runaway catholic sects. They don't even make the label "Ultra-conservative wing" of the Church like the SSPX does.
But I digress, majority of sede's are not dogmatic.
CMRI in the US and "Foundation St. Vincent Ferrer" in Mexico come to mind as non-dogmatic, serious, larger SV congregations.
The Faith is not about arguable historical "facts". The SV Bishops I believe would die for the FAITH just as I hope Williamson would.
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
Yeah. That seemed odd to me. But we can't know for sure. Some feel it is their duty to "instruct the ignorant". Others, I guess, like to wreck things and cause trouble. But it is difficult for me to believe as well.
Believe it or not I have gone to indult Mass parking lots and put Dimond brother videos on people's windows. Obviously not now. Why lead them from one error to another. I wish others he did not hold heresy were as good as them at making convincing videos.
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.
TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.
I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.
TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.
I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!
This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.
Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.
TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.
I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!
This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.
Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.
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.
-
Though, when I first started going to an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how many SVs didn't actually go to Mass but hung out in the basement and get into arguments with anyone who would listen.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that sedevacantists drove to your SSPX chapel in order to NOT go to Mass.
Our chapel, when it was filled beyond capacity every Sunday, used to have a fairly large meet-ups downstairs after Mass. My guess is that some of these guys turned sede at some point during their time there but didn't want to leave behind the Church's community. I never really got to know them that well anyway.
TLM has a higher percentage of attracting shall we say "intense" personalities. Some of these people aren't the most stable you've ever met. Just last year, I saw a man sitting on a bench across the street from the Church and he was visibly shaking like he was physically ill. I asked him if he was alright and he asked me if our priest had been validly ordained. I said yes, but he just sat there and didn't come in.
I'm only stating the facts, I can't answer for them!
This side notes do not argue for or against the SV finding. It merely does a "guilt by association thing". If some SVs are strange then SV must be wrong.
Many unstable persons believe the truth about some things. The truth does not become untrue just because they believe it.
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.
-
I personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.
I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.
This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.
-
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 personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.
I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.
This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.
Okay, so in your particular neck of the woods, it's acceptable... but if it were up to you it wouldn't be. Would that be accurate?
-
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'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.
This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.
-
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'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.
This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.
I think you meant all SV's.... believe that SV's can attend una cuм heretic Masses. Correct?
That's a lot of big names you listed for those against it. How many other groups aside from all those plus CMRI and SSPV are there? Can't you say which one you come from?
-
I personally would not go to one as time passed. This was partly because the sermons sometimes where "we must believe what the pope teaches except when we shouldn't, and we must submit to the pope except when we shouldn't" variety. This from a man who was very sound theologically in other areas. Very sober, logical not emotional or flying by the seat of his pants. I believe such sermons are a danger to my wife and children.
I also don't wan anything to do with the Novus Ordo Church which is our enemy. And going to a Mass that acknowledges the head of the Novus Ordo Church as our Pope keeps us attached to that Church at least in a small way IMO.
This is kind of feeding the monster that is trying to kill us IMO. Quite acknowledging him I say. But these are confusing times. One must do what one must do which is to follow his properly informed conscience or one formed to the best of one's ability.
Okay, so in your particular neck of the woods, it's acceptable... but if it were up to you it wouldn't be. Would that be accurate?
I readily admit that I lack the authority to insist on a conclusion. Even if I were a Priest or Bishop I would not insist on it either way with my parishioners. It is simply my personal opinion (which is not 100% conclusive either way) which could be erroneous.
The current issue had not been addressed in regards to our exact circuмstances in a definitive or authoritative way. Father Stepanich who was the most qualified clergy alive in our day said one could go but did not have to. I'm not sure how anyone could claim, for sure, he was wrong. I also do not know how one can definitively claim he was right either as the issue has not been addressed in depth by sound theologians under a valid Pope.
I believe it is a conscience thing until the issue is settled under a future valid Pope.
-
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'm not CMRI. But all SVs, mainstream, apart from Sanborn/Cekeda/Dolan/Neville, as far as I know and possibly McKenna believe that SVs cannot attend una cuм heretic Masses. Also Droleskey. The rest believe one can go to an una cuм heretic Mass in good conscience, though that is not the same as recommending it I believe. They just won't condemn them for doing so.
This is true with CMRI and SSPV. Though SSPV absurdly condemns those who go to CMRI.
I think you meant all SV's.... believe that SV's can attend una cuм heretic Masses. Correct?
That's a lot of big names you listed for those against it. How many other groups aside from all those plus CMRI and SSPV are there? Can't you say which one you come from?
I think most believe you can but certainly not all. Not 100% sure though. CMRI and SSPV are the main groups though there are a lot of independent clergy both SV and not whom I'm sure have varying opinions on the matter or are not sure themselves. No clergy can bind us on the issue either way.
Father Stepanich led most of good will to accept his conclusion through The Four Marks. He was certainly correct that Dolan/Cekeda were overstepping their bound by insisting on their position.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
You have painted a picture in your head of me that is non-existent. In this very thread I stated I'm not with the CMRI.
But I'm pretty sure you slide down every chimney with gifts every midnight Christmas Eve. Don't try to deny it. :cheers:
Anything besides gossip fodder you'd like to discuss or is it glam magazine only for you?
-
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.
Where did this hatred for CMRI come from and the lies about them BTW. What planet do you hail from?
-
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.
Okay, I should have been more specific.
Obsessing over whether or not the Holy Office letter of 1949 to Fr. Feeney was in and of itself a dogmatic docuмent, and other minutiae that has no bearing on the overrall issue.
-
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.
Okay, I should have been more specific.
Obsessing over whether or not the Holy Office letter of 1949 to Fr. Feeney was in and of itself a dogmatic docuмent, and other minutiae that has no bearing on the overrall issue.
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
Do you at least agree with the bold statement made by Fenton above?
-
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.
Okay, I should have been more specific.
Obsessing over whether or not the Holy Office letter of 1949 to Fr. Feeney was in and of itself a dogmatic docuмent, and other minutiae that has no bearing on the overrall issue.
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
Do you at least agree with the bold statement made by Fenton above?
Yes of course. My point is that many people continue to banter back and forth on the issue of the authority of the letter in and of itself,?which, while settled, is not in itself as important as the dogmas.
In other words, baptism of blood and desire are true regardless of the letter, yet some people act as if it hinges solely upon that, which it doesn't.
-
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.
Okay, I should have been more specific.
Obsessing over whether or not the Holy Office letter of 1949 to Fr. Feeney was in and of itself a dogmatic docuмent, and other minutiae that has no bearing on the overrall issue.
By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton
Do you at least agree with the bold statement made by Fenton above?
Yes of course. My point is that many people continue to banter back and forth on the issue of the authority of the letter in and of itself,?which, while settled, is not in itself as important as the dogmas.
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
God bless you.
-
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.
-
Thank you PG... not that I can attest to all that you have expressed, but it does express my sentimental position.
-
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 (GaJєωski) 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.
-
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.
Schuckhardt was the satanic Pfieffablewkose to the power of ten of his day.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
I cannot begin to express my gratitude for the "Resistance" bishops--they are wonderful and this is not meant as any nature of a dig at them. But that spin that you just put on Sacred Scripture is ridiculous. If I didn't know better I would think you were auditioning to be a Baptist preacher with that over-the-top nonsense.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (GaJєωski) 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!
-
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?
-
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, GaJєωski, 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 GaJєωski?
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 Jєωs hated by the world:
Their "universal unwelcomness" forces to mind the fate of the cursed Jєωs, 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 Jєωs 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 Jєωs 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.
-
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?
Check me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought sentiments were inherently not governed by reason.
-
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!
-
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.
Well-stated.
-
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.
-
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, GaJєωski, 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 GaJєωski?
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 Jєωs hated by the world:
Their "universal unwelcomness" forces to mind the fate of the cursed Jєωs, 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 Jєωs 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 Jєωs 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.
I could not even bring myself to read it based on the title or I would have had a few comments. I still have only read what has been quoted.
Nice Post! :applause:
-
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.
:applause:
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!
:applause:
-
clemens maria - you, uttering the word pederasty? Aren't you a disciple of fr. cekada? As for those other small fry's of the sspx you mentioned, the snake does strike at our lady's heel. And, it is "better to enter into heaven maimed or lame missing a hand or foot than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into everlasting fire". The holy man Tobias was blinded with God's permission. But, your case is much different.
The OP is on whether SV is true or not so try to stay on topic and deal with facts rather than fall into the mistake that some fell into at the beginning claiming "I'm a follower of Paul" or "I'm a follower of Apollo" as if that mattered more than following and submitting to Christ and His True Vicars on earth while reject the vicars of Satan who pose as the Vicar of Christ.
Divine Law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope.
You do the math.
-
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.
That's an interesting way to spin my last post.
-
clemens maria - you, uttering the word pederasty? Aren't you a disciple of fr. cekada? As for those other small fry's of the sspx you mentioned, the snake does strike at our lady's heel. And, it is "better to enter into heaven maimed or lame missing a hand or foot than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into everlasting fire". The holy man Tobias was blinded with God's permission. But, your case is much different.
The OP is on whether SV is true or not so try to stay on topic and deal with facts rather than fall into the mistake that some fell into at the beginning claiming "I'm a follower of Paul" or "I'm a follower of Apollo" as if that mattered more than following and submitting to Christ and His True Vicars on earth while reject the vicars of Satan who pose as the Vicar of Christ.
Divine Law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope.
You do the math.
Clearly it was "pastoral" public heresy.
-
clemens maria - you, uttering the word pederasty? Aren't you a disciple of fr. cekada? As for those other small fry's of the sspx you mentioned, the snake does strike at our lady's heel. And, it is "better to enter into heaven maimed or lame missing a hand or foot than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into everlasting fire". The holy man Tobias was blinded with God's permission. But, your case is much different.
The OP is on whether SV is true or not so try to stay on topic and deal with facts rather than fall into the mistake that some fell into at the beginning claiming "I'm a follower of Paul" or "I'm a follower of Apollo" as if that mattered more than following and submitting to Christ and His True Vicars on earth while reject the vicars of Satan who pose as the Vicar of Christ.
Divine Law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope.
You do the math.
Clearly it was "pastoral" public heresy.
Yes, binding a heretical council and invalid and doubtful sacraments and an incentive to impiety Mass on the faithful falls under that category and this is even more damning to the popes who approved and maintain the above than the fact that they are public heretics which is quite damning enough and the fact that they now bind "saints" who worship false gods and all but destroy the Church
on us.
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.
In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.
It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.
Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.
One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.
The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!
-
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.
That's an interesting way to spin my last post.
And yet you don't deny that you were implying that virtue isn't a necessary quality in the bishops who are leaders of the traditional movement. It's interesting that this just isn't important at all to SV's, considering that they believe the chair of Peter to be empty. I have to assume, then, that the only thing that really matters to SV's is proving that the chair of Peter is empty.
On our side we have the founder of the SSPX. On the SV side, who was his equal in this regard?
-
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!
Thanks, Myrna, for giving another perspective on Thuc. However, you still believe that God used Schuckardt who, by accounts here a very sinful (evil?) man, to found an group blessed by God. When has this happened elsewhere in the history of the Church?
-
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!
Thanks, Myrna, for giving another perspective on Thuc. However, you still believe that God used Schuckardt who, by accounts here a very sinful (evil?) man, to found an group blessed by God. When has this happened elsewhere in the history of the Church?
I don't know the entire history of the Church, but Judas comes to my mind.
Maybe even Bishop Fellay?
-
Thanks, Myrna, for giving another perspective on Thuc. However, you still believe that God used Schuckardt who, by accounts here a very sinful (evil?) man, to found an group blessed by God. When has this happened elsewhere in the history of the Church?
I don't know the entire history of the Church, but Judas comes to my mind.
I don't think that Judas lived long enough to found a group of men that was supposedly blessed by God. And wasn't Satan working through Judas? I seem to recall that somewhere in sacred scripture.
Isn't it possible, that when focusing so much on the chair of Peter being empty, that other things that are important just don't get top priority? (And no, I'm not saying that SV's themselves cannot be virtuous).
I know that truth is important to SV's. But can truth really be detached from virtue?
-
My point was that Jesus who knows all things still picked Judas, to be an apostle and later allowed him to be replaced.
The reason as you say focus on the Chair being empty, is because that is what you and others focus on regarding SV.
-
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!
Thanks, Myrna, for giving another perspective on Thuc. However, you still believe that God used Schuckardt who, by accounts here a very sinful (evil?) man, to found an group blessed by God. When has this happened elsewhere in the history of the Church?
I don't know the entire history of the Church, but Judas comes to my mind.
Oh, come on Myrna!, your comparison between the CMRI's founder to Judas does not favor the CMRI in any way. It is actually quite counterproductive to your argument. I guess you did not understand the question? It is OK not to respond sometimes, instead of replying the first silly thing that comes to mind.
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.
In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.
It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.
Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.
One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.
The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!
They're in no position to talk about FS considering the deviants they hire to teach in their schools and act as camp counselors.
Lots of truth to the old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Or, as St. Paul put it best: let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
-
It should be of interest to note the SSPX was founded in 1970 when people were just trying to hold fast to tradition against the vicars of Satan who were abolishing it. They were holding on to a lifeboat not sitting back with decades of hindsight discerning the theological conclusion.
As it became more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think it was the time to official declare it (even if it was true). Ultimately, and Meg you are proof of this. Many do not want to come out officially with this conclusion because people like you would get scandalized and possibly lose the faith. Others don't do it because they will lose financial support.
Again this is about fact. The fact is a public heretic cannot be Pope and Mr. Bergolio is a public heretic layman.
-
It should be of interest to note the SSPX was founded in 1970 when people were just trying to hold fast to tradition against the vicars of Satan who were abolishing it. They were holding on to a lifeboat not sitting back with decades of hindsight discerning the theological conclusion.
As it became more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think it was the time to official declare it (even if it was true). Ultimately, and Meg you are proof of this. Many do not want to come out officially with this conclusion because people like you would get scandalized and possibly lose the faith. Others don't do it because they will lose financial support.
Again this is about fact. The fact is a public heretic cannot be Pope and Mr. Bergolio is a public heretic layman.
So you believe that ABL was a closet SV. You'll have to show proof of it. Not suggestions, but actual irrefutable proof. My understanding is that ABL held that it's possible that the chair is vacant, which seems reasonable. But you hold it as an absolute truth that the chair of Peter is vacant. ABL held no such view (unless, again, you can show actual real proof that he did).
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.
In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.
It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.
Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.
One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.
The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!
They're in no position to talk about FS considering the deviants they hire to teach in their schools and act as camp counselors.
Lots of truth to the old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Or, as St. Paul put it best: let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
Agreed. And neither do they realize how repulsive it is when those who regularly calumniate, detract and gossip decide to lecture the rest of us about good character.
-
It should be of interest to note the SSPX was founded in 1970 when people were just trying to hold fast to tradition against the vicars of Satan who were abolishing it. They were holding on to a lifeboat not sitting back with decades of hindsight discerning the theological conclusion.
As it became more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think it was the time to official declare it (even if it was true). Ultimately, and Meg you are proof of this. Many do not want to come out officially with this conclusion because people like you would get scandalized and possibly lose the faith. Others don't do it because they will lose financial support.
Again this is about fact. The fact is a public heretic cannot be Pope and Mr. Bergolio is a public heretic layman.
So you believe that ABL was a closet SV. You'll have to show proof of it. Not suggestions, but actual irrefutable proof. My understanding is that ABL held that it's possible that the chair is vacant, which seems reasonable. But you hold it as an absolute truth that the chair of Peter is vacant. ABL held no such view (unless, again, you can show actual real proof that he did).
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Proof below:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/
Pro-Sedevacantism Quotes from Abp. Lefebvre
NOTE FROM FR. CEKADA: In discussions on various forums, I’ve noticed that many SSPX supporters can’t bring themselves to believe that Abp. Lefebvre EVER said ANYTHING that favored sedevacantism, implying in bargain that SSPX sede old-timers like myself are are either liars or delusional.
Below is an article by John Daly which provides a nice selection of the Archbishop’s “pro-sede” quotes. I think it is time for SSPX loyalists to put aside the false ideas they have been fed about Abp. Lefebvre as the great anti-sede.
Since this is a rather long article, I have taken the liberty of putting into bold some passages in the quotes from Abp Lefebvre.
————————————-
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SEDEVACANTISM
by John Daly
(Four Marks, 2006)
So far as we know, Archbishop Lefebvre never formed a definite judgment that John-Paul II was not a true pope. So if we divide the ecclesiastical spectrum into two categories, those for whom the see is legally vacant and those for whom it is legally occupied, Archbishop Lefebvre will be in the non-sedevacantist camp.
But such divisions are not always helpful. If we divide the animal kingdom between bipeds and the rest we shall find ourselves misleadingly close to the turkeys. Other criteria of evaluation exist. Did Archbishop Lefebvre admit that sedevacantists might well be right? Did he consider them to be upright members of the Church? Did he avow that his persevering recognition of John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction? Did he envisage declaring the vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged? Did he insist that settling the question of whether the Vatican II “popes” were truly popes or not was an important duty, not to be evaded? Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally schismatic? Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally heretical? Did he believe it impossible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox sense? Did he reject outright all the conciliar reforms? Did he declare that Vatican II had founded a new, false and schismatic religion? Did he deny that the members of the new Vatican II Church were Catholics? Did he doubt the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration? Did he hold that John-Paul II and his henchmen were already excommunicated? Did he rejoice to be separated from the Church of John-Paul II? Did he consciously employ sedevacantist seminary professors at Ecône, ordain and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy, and send his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest?
You may find it surprising, even bewildering, but the answer to all the above questions is “yes”, as we shall shortly see. But it should first be emphasised that we are not studying Archbishop Lefebvre’s convictions in order to accept them as necessarily sound and judicious in every respect. Nor do we deny that other apparently contradictory texts may be cited from him on many of these points. The interest of the late prelate’s attitude to the Conciliar Church lies elsewhere. We shall come back to that subject after having shown that the Archbishop did indeed express the views we attribute to him. To do this we shall repeat the above questions, allowing the Archbishop’s own words and deeds to answer them.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre admit that sedevacantists might well be right?
1. “You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Did he frequently and respectfully allude to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis?
1. “To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
Did he consider sedevacantists to be upright members of the Church?
Undoubtedly. He rebuked certain over-zealous Society priests who refused the sacraments to sedevacantists. He collaborated with Bishop de Castro-Mayer after the Brazilian prelate had made his sedevacantism quite clear. He accepted numerous seminarians from sedevacantist families, parishes or groups. He patronised the Le Trévoux “Ordo” with its guide to traditional places of worship throughout the world, which has always included (and still does) certain known sedevacantist Mass centres. He was at all times well aware of the presence of sedevacantists among the Society’s priests.
Did he avow that his persevering recognition of Paul VI and John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction?
1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Did he envisage declaring the legal vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged?
1. “That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)
2. “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
Did he insist that settling the question of whether the Vatican II “popes” were truly popes or not was an important duty, not to be evaded?
1. “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally schismatic?
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally heretical?
In an interview with Mr Tom Chapman’s Catholic Crusader in 1984 the Archbishop expressly characterised the decree on Ecuмenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) as “heretical”.
Did he believe it impossible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox sense?
“Do you agree to accept the Council as a whole? Reply: Ah, not religious liberty – it isn’t possible!” ((Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône. The Archbishop’s words imagine the kind of interrogation his seminarians would have been submitted to if he had accepted the terms of agreement John-Paul II was offering him, entailing a Cardinal-Visitor entitled to grant or refuse the ordination of seminarians. The reply is the reply he assumes his seminarians would have to make and he goes on to explain that such a reply would have enabled the Cardinal-Visitor to refuse the seminarian’s ordination – his reason for refusing the deal.)
Did he reject outright all the conciliar reforms?
“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
Did he say that Vatican II and its “popes” had founded a new, false and schismatic religion?
1. “It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000 – these words appear in the original un-corrected version of the sermon as recorded and reported in the press)
2. “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
3. John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)
Was he forthright in stating that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church?
1. “This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
Did he deny that the members of the new Vatican II Church were Catholics?
1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
2. “To be publicly associated with the sanction [of excommunication] would be a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful, who have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church…” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 SSPX superiors, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
Did he question the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration?
1. “This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)
2. “If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
3. “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favour of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)
4. Moreover Archbishop Lefebvre personally conditionally re-ordained many priests who had been ordained in the 1968 rite and re-confirmed those purportedly confirmed in the new rite or by the new bishops.
Did he hold that John-Paul II and his henchmen were excommunicated “antichrists”?
1. “So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)
2. Post-consecration statement (Summer 1988), SSPX school Bitsche, Alsace-Lorraine: “the archbishop stated, going even beyond even his 15th June press conference, that those who had excommunicated him had themselves long been excommunicated.” (Summary in the Counter-Reformation Association’s, News and Views, Candlemas 1996)
3. “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987)
Did he rejoice to be separated from the Church of John-Paul II?
1. “We have been suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and from the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.” (July 29 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
2. “…we do not belong to this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We belong to the old religion, the Catholic religion, not to this universal religion as it is called today. It is no longer the Catholic religion…” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
3. “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)
4. “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the Conciliar Church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione…excluded from impious communion with infidels.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 leading SSPX priests, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
Did he consciously employ a sedevacantist seminary professor at Ecône, ordain and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy, and send his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest at his month-long summer camp each year?
He did indeed. We shall not run the risk of setting the poursuivants on the heels of those involved by naming persons who in many cases are still sedevacantist and still members of the SSPX or in collaboration with it. Any priest who was at Ecône in the days of the Archbishop will confirm our answer.
********************************************************************
The above quotations and facts point to a hard-line Lefebvre, very close to sedevacantism, rejecting outright Vatican II, the new sacraments and doctrines and communion with the leaders of the new pseudo-Catholic religion. But it is only honest to grant that that is only half of the story. Other words and deeds of the Archbishop would give a strikingly different impression.
It would be idle to debate which was the real Archbishop Lefebvre. The plain fact is that the Archbishop wavered. Unswerving on the fact that a new and false religion has been founded, he hesitates as to whether the pope of the new religion can also be head of the Catholic Church. Particular outrages provoke a strong reaction on his part: the suspension of 1976, the 1985 Synod, the 1986 Assisi jamboree of false religions, the 1988 excommunication – all bring him to the very brink of the explicit statement that those responsible cannot be popes. Close contact with men such as Fr. Guérard des Lauriers and Bishop de Castro Mayer, and with books such as that of Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira, encourage him towards such a declaration. Poised to plunge, he hesitates…and retreats.
We cannot justly force the facts in order to make Archbishop Lefebvre into a sedevacantist, for he was not one, but we can justly and respectfully draw several interesting conclusions from our texts and others too lengthy to quote in this article.
1. From 1975-8, and from 1985 until his death, Archbishop Lefebvre was not hostile to sedevacantism as such and seems to have accorded it the status of what theologians would call a “probable opinion”. He often came close to sharing this opinion, never pretended to be able to refute it outright, and he recognised that it might well one day become sufficiently clear for him to accept it firmly.
2. Not even the Archbishop’s most fervent admirers could claim that his statements bearing on recent papal claimants were always clear, firm and consistent or that they displayed detailed knowledge of the relevant theology and Canon Law.
3. Though aware of the classic “heretical pope” controversy among theologians, the Archbishop does not seem at any stage to have made a serious study of the nature of heresy, its effects and its recognition. He even thought that the extreme liberalism of Paul VI and John-Paul II was in some sense a defence against the charge of heresy. He meant that their minds were too full of heretical ideas for them to be insincere in believing these ideas to be orthodox. It does not seem to have occurred to him that such a “defence” would have been equally available to the likes of Lammenais and Loisy.
4. He was confident of his competence to recognise and denounce the heresies of Modernism and Liberalism, but he was conscious of lacking the theological formation necessary to be able to evaluate the status of the Johns and the Pauls, the difficulty the crisis poses with regard to the Church’s indefectibility and the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
5. His seminary training at the French College in Rome under the celebrated Père le Floch had vaccinated him forever against Liberalism in all its shapes. His ecclesiastical career had prepared him for organisation and for diplomacy. But neither had made him a specialist theologian or given him any notion of being one. This is apparent in his rôle of defender of tradition at the Council and afterwards: he organises and negotiates with skill, but he is uncertain in the theological evaluation of previously unimaginable events. He had relied heavily – and for very good reason – upon his profoundly learned and saintly theological adviser Fr Victor-Alain Berto, responsible for many of the Archbishop’s interventions at Vatican II, but Berto had died in 1968, succuмbing to the anguish of the Vatican II apostasy. Lefebvre was never again to find an adviser he could so fully trust, even when he stood in most need of one.
6. Archbishop Lefebvre’s nominal recognition of Paul VI and his successors was explicitly presented as being a provisional position. Those who have erected it into an immutable dogma are thus unfaithful to the Archbishop.
7. Archbishop Lefebvre was highly optimistic in the early years of John-Paul II and it was in those years that he was most trenchant in his anti-sedevacantist words and deeds. Yet even then he never expelled any priest from his Society for private sedevacantism and only twice for even public sedevacantism in the absence of other issues. His general policy was to persuade sedevacantist priests to remain. And with the 1985 Synod and Assisi in 1986 he was disabused of his illusion that “Pole” could be made to rhyme with “Pope”.
8. No one can be sure that, if Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today, he would not be a sedevacantist. No one can be sure that he would be one either. But one thing that seems highly improbable is that he would have adopted the anodyne style of Bishop Fellay and the ruling left-wing of the Society for whom in our days expressions such as “excommunicated antichrists” is more likely to be an allusion to sedevacantists than to the apparent occupant of the Roman See. And another equally improbable notion is that he would have been deceived into taking Josef Ratzinger, whom he cordially detested, for a sincere friend of traditional Catholicism.
9. It is possible to sympathise with the Archbishop’s plight as he contemplated, alone, the very grave ecclesiological aspect of the crisis – the aspect which he felt unable to make up his mind about; indeed it would be heartless not to sympathise. Defend the faith, assure the continuity of the priesthood and the availability of the sacraments to the faithful, but leave “on hold” the difficult question of the status of the soul-murderers in the Vatican: however much we may regret it, that is at least a comprehensible policy. Certain glib young sedevacantists of our days, with no gift of hindsight and quick to attribute blame, clearly cannot imagine the weight of responsibility felt by the Archbishop as he contemplated, trembling, the enormity of what sedevacantism implied.
10. What seems much harder to countenance is the consequent policy of pragmatism by which a position the Archbishop himself was not sure of became officially obligatory in the Society in order to maintain unity and streamline the Society’s apostolate. Like all men, priests need to be able to converse freely with their peers about their concerns and their doubts, without fear of denunciation for “thought-crime” and possible sanctions. The Archbishop failed to provide this facility and it still does not exist in the SSPX. One consequence is the weakness of character of many SSPX priests – inevitable outcome of a sectarian training. Another is the massive defection rate from the Society: some have become sedevacantists, some have accepted the indult, some have gone independent, some have gone off to “marry” and some have succuмbed to nervous breakdowns – all bear witness to the Society’s internal stress problem.
We have seen that there is no truth in the mythology according to which Archbishop Lefebvre had a firm and consistent policy of recognising the Vatican II popes, sternly and consistently rejecting sedevacantism as a solidly refuted error. On the contrary, the Archbishop often expressed views so hard-line that today no SSPX priest or seminarian would dare say anything similar for fear of expulsion! The mythology is due to the fact that the Archbishop fluctuated and hesitated, leaving on the record words and acts enabling him to be invoked both by the liberal and by the hard-line camps. Indeed his fluctuations and hesitations were on a scale such as to be tolerated only because of the great personal veneration which the mass of traditional Catholic faithful felt for the Archbishop himself. And today the Society no longer has any prominent member whose personality or ecclesiastical status are comparable to those of the Archbishop. Thus the Society’s need for credibility requires it to show more consistency than the Archbishop himself did, while continuing to invoke his authority for decisions that no one can feel any confidence he would have endorsed.
Let us be candid about the origins of this situation. The SSPX’s independent traditionalist apostolate was originally intended only as a provisional succour for a temporary need. Understandably no one foresaw the length of the crisis. Emergency measures sometimes have to be undertaken before there is time for a full theological evaluation of the need that calls for them. But there can be no lasting and effective apostolate which is not firmly founded on theology. This does not mean merely that effective apostles must have an adequate formation in theology, though that is true. It means that the basis, nature, actions and aims of their apostolate itself must also be theologically determined. This is not and never has been the case of the SSPX, because the Archbishop’s legacy to the Society he founded did not include any ecclesiology of the Conciliar Church’s relation to the Catholic Church. The SSPX malaise will continue until this omission is fully rectified, if that is possible.
And that malaise cannot be denied. A quarter of a century ago, the SSPX was swamped with vocations, had a high level of priestly loyalty and was in a position to contrast its success with the manifestly miserable state of the Modernist seminaries and clergy. Everyone knows that the gloating has stopped. Fewer vocations, very high drop-out and expulsion rates in the seminaries, numerous priestly defections in every direction, scant sign of a theological élite among the Society’s clergy, the toleration of priests infected with the innovative itch, high second-generation lay lapsation rates even among those schooled in the Society’s own schools – the sad tale is undeniable and things are not getting any better. Meanwhile, the Society is losing the theological debate not only with sedevacantism but also with the indult groups, who have shown a remarkable drawing power and a surprising ability to produce a learned and thoughtful clergy.
For the SSPX publicly and formally to declare the vacancy of the Holy See would require a miracle and doing so would not suffice to cure the malaise we have pointed to.
But it is perhaps not completely unrealistic to wonder whether the Society’s authorities might not one day explicitly avow that sedevacantism is at least a theologically probable opinion and encourage polite and open debate about the sedevacantist thesis among priests and faithful within the Society and outside. It would not perhaps be incurably optimistic to hope that the Society’s sedevacantist priests and collaborators might be allowed to be frank about their convictions. A statement might be made pointing out that in any discussions with occupied Rome, Benedict XVI can place nothing worth having on his side of the negotiating table except the remote prospect of his own conversion to the Catholic Faith which he has spent the greater part of his life destroying. While we are daydreaming, we could imagine collaboration between SSPX priests and such sedevacantist priests as might be appropriate and willing. We could add the expulsion of the Society’s ultra-liberal fifth column – beginning with Fr. Grégoire Célier – and what about publicly disowning Fr. Boulet’s absurdly ignorant anti-sedevacantist pamphlet which finds it necessary to quote falsified history and theology from a book on the Index of Forbidden Books in order to defend what its author believes to be the party line? Nor could anyone reasonably object to the formal study of Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice on the dogmatic theology syllabus.
It cannot seriously be doubted that such measures would be sound in theology, a relief to many of the Society’s priests and faithful and would strengthen the Society’s ability to answer the objections made to it from Conciliar quarters. Nor would there be any difficulty in invoking Archbishop Lefebvre’s authority in favour of such initiatives. Above all, there should be the consideration that truth is more important than pragmatism and that its courageous profession earns the blessing of God.
© John Daly 2006
-
A new poster to the forum asked many pages ago about public heresy, material heresy, and formal heresy. And, here is my comment.
There was a reason that canon hesse before every conference talk he gave would announce that if you do not understand the difference between material and formal when it comes to heresy, you have no business participating in the heresy discussion. And, likewise, those who keep talking about public heresy are not welcome in this discussion. These popes have been material heretics. They are not formal heretics.
Those who use the word public heresy are either ignorant or deceptive. They are ignorant because there are distinctions that have to be made when it comes to heresy. Or, they are deceptive because they know that distinctions must be made, but are biased. So, they use the ambiguous word public to mislead the ignorant into believing that the popes heresy is formal by not confessing that their heresy is only material. Which, they do know it to be so.
Those who use the term public heresy are doing a disservice to the church, and they need to stop.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
:facepalm:
I said this:
As it became more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think it was the time to official declare it (even if it was true).
And this:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that")
I stand by that. If you have read the facts I presented you cannot deny it unless you are willfully blind as many are who are ruled by emotion rather than logic. If you can’t handle the truth don’t pretend you are open to it.
How on earth is that saying "being open to the idea automatically makes them SV". :facepalm:
Here, I'll even placate you further. If I'm open to the idea that the earth is the center of the universe it does not make me certain of it.
Do you have the ability to grasp the difference between "being open to an idea" and actually accepting the idea to be fact?
I doubt you are ignorant as you have just made yourself seem. So quit trying to twist my words and moving the topic to the judgments of individuals who hold the position and look at the theology behind the position itself.
Take all your emotion and brainwashing out of the picture and just look at the bald facts.
A public heretic cannot be Pope.
Bergolio is a public heretic.
You do the math.
This will be all I say to you on the topic unless you cease being antagonistic and begin appearing to be sincere and unbiased in your search for truth.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
:facepalm:
I said this:
As it became more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think it was the time to official declare it (even if it was true).
And this:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that")
I stand by that. If you have read the facts I presented you cannot deny it unless you are willfully blind as many are who are ruled by emotion rather than logic. If you can’t handle the truth don’t pretend you are open to it.
How on earth is that saying "being open to the idea automatically makes them SV". :facepalm:
Here, I'll even placate you further. If I'm open to the idea that the earth is the center of the universe it does not make me certain of it.
Do you have the ability to grasp the difference between "being open to an idea" and actually accepting the idea to be fact?
I doubt you are ignorant as you have just made yourself seem. So quit trying to twist my words and moving the topic to the judgments of individuals who hold the position and look at the theology behind the position itself.
Take all your emotion and brainwashing out of the picture and just look at the bald facts.
A public heretic cannot be Pope.
Bergolio is a public heretic.
You do the math.
This will be all I say to you on the topic unless you cease being antagonistic and begin appearing to be sincere and unbiased in your search for truth.
So....was ABL a Sedevacantist, or not, in your view? It's a simple enough question.
-
A new poster to the forum asked many pages ago about public heresy, material heresy, and formal heresy. And, here is my comment.
There was a reason that canon hesse before every conference talk he gave would announce that if you do not understand the difference between material and formal when it comes to heresy, you have no business participating in the heresy discussion. And, likewise, those who keep talking about public heresy are not welcome in this discussion. These popes have been material heretics. They are not formal heretics.
Those who use the word public heresy are either ignorant or deceptive. They are ignorant because there are distinctions that have to be made when it comes to heresy. Or, they are deceptive because they know that distinctions must be made, but are biased. So, they use the ambiguous word public to mislead the ignorant into believing that the popes heresy is formal by not confessing that their heresy is only material. Which, they do know it to be so.
Those who use the term public heresy are doing a disservice to the church, and they need to stop.
Bellarmine, Paul IV, Vatican (1) canon law and Divine Law are not welcome the Discussion. Okay replace them with Mr. Bergolio and you win.
-
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!
Thanks, Myrna, for giving another perspective on Thuc. However, you still believe that God used Schuckardt who, by accounts here a very sinful (evil?) man, to found an group blessed by God. When has this happened elsewhere in the history of the Church?
I don't know the entire history of the Church, but Judas comes to my mind.
Oh, come on Myrna!, your comparison between the CMRI's founder to Judas does not favor the CMRI in any way. It is actually quite counterproductive to your argument. I guess you did not understand the question? It is OK not to respond sometimes, instead of replying the first silly thing that comes to mind.
Unless you didn't get my point, I was saying that God has picked Himself the worse of the worse. I am not even looking to favor CMRI, I don't have too. I was merely trying to explain something to Meg about how even God picked someone evil minded for His own apostle. A point that annoys you, it seems.
BTW coming home from Mass just now and thinking about this Schuckardt thing, I always read posters reminding the world about his evil behavior, which was true, but as far as I know he never taught heresy. Unlike YOUR POPE Cantarella so clean up your own house, WE DID ALREADY!
I came to CMRI at the end of Schuckardt and never heard, nor did anyone ever accuse him of teaching heresy. The most I can say negative about his teaching was, he believed he was the only one left on earth teaching true doctrines. Of which I realize he was not the only one in the world as he thought he was. I questioned him on this point myself finding an recent article at that time with other Bishops names on it against Vatican II, and he never really gave me a good answer. I wish I could remember the magazine, but that was about 30 + years ago.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
-
Bellarmine:
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Quite using the term "manifest heretic" great Sainted Doctor of the Church or ignorant bloggers will get mad at you.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
Thank you for answering it. But we already knew that ABL was open to it. However, you wrote this, which implies, IMO, that you believe that he was a Sedevacantist:
"As it becomes more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think that it was the right time to official declare it (even if it was true)."
The above, to me, implies that ABL believed SVism to be true, but didn't think it was the right time to declare it. Perhaps you meant that he was going to declare that he was "open to it?" But I was assuming that it was already known, by his statements, that he was "open to it". That's why I assumed that you were referring to the former....that he believed SVism to be true. Do you see what I'm trying to explain?
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
When I started looking into SV it was the intellectual dishonesty (or their incredible ignorance) of their apologists that re-enforced the correctness of the SV position for me when compared to those who simply showed me what the Church taught in an unbiased manner. Meg brings back those memories to me. Those days of Ferrara and the "patent absurdity of SV". I looked up to him until I saw how dishonest and biased he was.
-
I think the problem is Meg thinks of Sedevacantist as a different religion other than Catholic. Sedevacantism means we conclude as Catholics that since the man sitting in the Chair of Peter is not a Catholic therefore the chair is currently EMPTY of a Catholic pope.
When in reality it is the novus ordo that is not Catholic AND A DIFFERENT RELIGION; and Francis is its leader. Leader of the novus ordo, New Order.
With Francis so obvious these days, and if Archbishop Lefebvre is as you say he was, he would not only be opened to it but would embrace it. To say otherwise is saying one does not think as highly of him after all.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
Thank you for answering it. But we already knew that ABL was open to it. However, you wrote this, which implies, IMO, that you believe that he was a Sedevacantist:
"As it becomes more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think that it was the right time to official declare it (even if it was true)."
The above, to me, implies that ABL believed SVism to be true, but didn't think it was the right time to declare it. Perhaps you meant that he was going to declare that he was "open to it?" But I was assuming that it was already known, by his statements, that he was "open to it". That's why I assumed that you were referring to the former....that he believed SVism to be true. Do you see what I'm trying to explain?
He was going to declare he was open to it?
He did declare he was open to it!!!
Did you read the article or not? If not you don't care about the answer. As you have plenty of time to post here but won't read it.
I made my position clear. I'm done with you.
Say goodnight Gracie.
-
I think the problem is Meg thinks of Sedevacantist as a different religion other than Catholic. Sedevacantism means we conclude as Catholics that since the man sitting in the Chair of Peter is not a Catholic therefore the chair is currently EMPTY of a Catholic pope.
When in reality it is the novus ordo that is not Catholic AND A DIFFERENT RELIGION; and Francis is its leader. Leader of the novus ordo, New Order.
With Francis so obvious these days, and if Archbishop Lefebvre is as you say he was, he would not only be opened to it but would embrace it. To say otherwise is saying one does not think as highly of him after all.
The SSPX ain't what it used to be. That is for sure. This is where compromise with error leads. The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
Archbishop Lefebvre died years before I even knew that tradition still existed. He had been dead more than a decade before I had even heard of sedevacantism. All that I know about the archbishop's thoughts is from his English-language writings and sermons I have read and listened to.
It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre was conflicted on the issue. It is clear that he was open to the sedevacantist thesis but was not prepared to openly declare it, unlike Bishop Castro Meyer. The problem with Archbishop Lefebvre is that one can find quotes from him to "prove" whatever position one wants to paint him with.
Don't worry, though, I don't expect you to actually understand a thing that I've written here. I expect that you'll read this and say that I won't tell you even though I've told you exactly what "I think" (as if what I think is of any importance).
(P.S. Lover of Truth has answered your question multiple times.)
-
The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.
-
The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.
Good Catholics can be wrong? Hello. A virtuous man can lack knowledge or expertise in one or more areas.
Did you read the article? If not you do not care about truth. Emotion dictates you conclusion. You have already decided that you are not open to the position.
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
The answer would be:
1. Yes
2. No
-
The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
Good Catholics.....such as ABL? But of course it was a bit less than 46 years that he refused submission, since he's been deceased for awhile now.
Good Catholics can be wrong? Hello. A virtuous man can lack knowledge or expertise in one or more areas.
Did you read the article? If not you do not care about truth. Emotion dictates you conclusion. You have already decided that you are not open to the position.
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
The answer would be:
1. Yes
2. No
I read some of it. You seemed to be trying to convince me that ABL was open to svism. But I already knew that he was open to it. I thought that everyone pretty much knew that. He thought it was a possibility (as do I). Do you believe that it comes as a surprise to any of us that ABL was open to it? So why do I need to read the entirety of something that is trying to convince me of what I already know?
Edited to add:
Lover of Truth, please try to not get so upset about this issue. I don't care what you say about me personally, but try to remember that's it's just a debate.
-
I read some of it. You seemed to be trying to convince me that ABL was open to svism. But I already knew that he was open to it. I thought that everyone pretty much knew that. He thought it was a possibility (as do I). Do you believe that it comes as a surprise to any of us that ABL was open to it? So why do I need to read the entirety of something that is trying to convince me of what I already know?
Edited to add:
Lover of Truth, please try to not get so upset about this issue. I don't care what you say about me personally, but try to remember that's it's just a debate.
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
Let me know if you want to deal with the theology supporting the SV finding. Or if you conclude things only by the impression you have of the men that hold the position.
I knew a lady really well in the NO. She thought some priests were good and some were bad.
Her criteria? If the Priest smiled and waved at her when he passed he was a good Priest. If he did not he was a bad Priest.
No this person was not a retard but rather intelligent. But led by emotion again. Objective truth? Perhaps when it suited her or was convenient.
Again, if you want truth deal with the theology.
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
-
The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
The dogma does not say we must submit blindly to the Roman Pontiff.
The dogma is quite specific, it decrees “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
If you held a position of authority and wanted your subjects to sin numerous times over the course of many years and some refused, you could unjustly, yet arguably truthfully, accuse those subjects of disobedience for refusing to obey your wishes to offend God, you could even say they were bad subjects on account of their disobedience to your wishes, but that's about it. While you would be busy being angry that they were being disobedient to you, they would be busy as usual doing what is needed for them to keep the faith in spite of your sinful wishes.
But what you are doing is saying that the Church teaches that we must blindly submit to the pope even when he wants us to sin.
Fr. Wathen put it best in TGS when he said: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another - even an errant pope for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person - even the pope - to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same."
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
:facepalm:
Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.
AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.
You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.
ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:
Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
:facepalm:
Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.
AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.
You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.
ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:
Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.
It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?
-
The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!
The dogma does not say we must submit blindly to the Roman Pontiff.
The dogma is quite specific, it decrees “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
If you held a position of authority and wanted your subjects to sin numerous times over the course of many years and some refused, you could unjustly, yet arguably truthfully, accuse those subjects of disobedience for refusing to obey your wishes to offend God, you could even say they were bad subjects on account of their disobedience to your wishes, but that's about it. While you would be busy being angry that they were being disobedient to you, they would be busy as usual doing what is needed for them to keep the faith in spite of your sinful wishes.
But what you are doing is saying that the Church teaches that we must blindly submit to the pope even when he wants us to sin.
Fr. Wathen put it best in TGS when he said: "No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another - even an errant pope for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person - even the pope - to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same."
Well said.
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
:facepalm:
Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.
AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.
You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.
ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:
Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.
It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?
Because I stated that point on around 5 different posts THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED.
Anything else?
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
:facepalm:
Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.
AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.
You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.
ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:
Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.
It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?
Because I stated that point on around 5 different posts THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED.
Anything else?
I asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. Did you somehow miss that I was asking you for this? That's not what you gave me. I never asked for proof that ABL was "open to it." So why did you provide that?
-
That took a lot of work. Did it really take you that long to realize I merely stated he was open to it?
REALLY?
No need to answer. I'm not at all upset about the issue. I'm upset at people who play dumb in order to avoid admitting the inevitable conclusion.
I initially asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. You then provided the article, without explaining anything about differentiating between the two.
:facepalm:
Perhaps your tactic no is to purposely get me frustrated with your blindness, thus according to your "logic" I mean emotion discrediting the SV position.
AGAIN. My repsonse was as follows:
He was clearly open to the position (not whining "but Bishop Thuc was like this and Cekeda is like that").
Please let me know if you need the definition of the word "open" in the above sentence.
You have come to your conclusion and have concluded no other conclusion is possible and even if it is you will not accept it because it is to much for you to take which leaves you pissing around about the virtue of the public figures that hold the position.
ABL. Was a nice man. Friendly. He must of been right. :cheers:
Still harboring on this rather then look at the issue from a theological perspective. Cool beans.
It's unfortunate that you think that everything is a tactic against you. I missed the part where you said that he was clearly open to the position. Why do always assume the worst of people when they disagree with you?
Because I stated that point on around 5 different posts THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED.
Anything else?
I asked you for proof that ABL was a Sedevacantist. Did you somehow miss that I was asking you for this? That's not what you gave me.
I said he was open to it. You said prove he held the position. I again said he was open to it. We repeated this about 5 or 6 times.
ABL was a nice mean therefore SV is incorrect. I get it.
You want the last word so you can try to save face. I want to find a serious minded R & R who can discuss the position theologically. You are not that person. This is very clear.
Bye Bye Gracie.
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.
In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.
It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.
Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.
One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.
The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!
:laugh1: Oh, Myrna. I know he's dead! No, I'm talking about his legacy and honestly, that anyone has a problem distancing themselves from this beast of a man makes me think CMRI is even more of a cult.
Speaking of Popes, what is Schuckardt doing here?
(https://magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/bishop_holy_land.jpg)
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
-
I want to find a serious minded R & R who can discuss the position theologically. You are not that person. This is very clear.
What kind of person would that be? A person who doesn't have a life and can keep up with all your posts every five minutes throughout the day?
-
Wait a sec, who here is a supporter of Schuckardt? Should you feel obligated to defend his character as a SV? All theological discussion aside for a moment, who needs this guy around?
For your information he is not around, he has been judged by God already.
In spite of his evil deeds, he did wake up a myriad of souls, he also caused a myriad of souls confusion and lose of Faith. Who is denying that? CMRI does not try to wiggle out of Schuckardt and that is what makes you so flaming mad. You want to glory in the fact that CMRI make excuses for his evil behavior.
It is more evil in the eyes of God to pretend that your pope is Catholic and admit he is a heretic on a public forum such as this: that is tantamount of coming out and saying God has not kept His promise; the Church has failed. Your kind boasts of belonging to the Church, but your can't belong to the One, True Church and the Evil, New Church which was spawn by Lucifer at the same time. They even name their new telescope LUCIFER, which is operated by the Vatican Observatory located on Mount Graham in Arizona ... as they wait for the aliens to save them. Some religion you brag to be united too.
Don't talk about Schuckardt sins till your camp gets their act together and figures out who they really are.
One reason people are afraid of SV is because of human respect. It is popular to belong to what the world sees as Catholic. You know what God says about those who choose human respect over truth, if not, do some research.
The Chair of Peter is empty of a Catholic, face it!
:laugh1: Oh, Myrna. I know he's dead! No, I'm talking about his legacy and honestly, that anyone has a problem distancing themselves from this beast of a man makes me think CMRI is even more of a cult.
Speaking of Popes, what is Schuckardt doing here?
(https://magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/bishop_holy_land.jpg)
Yes, after he left I had heard that he believed as I said that he was the only one, therefore he thought himself a pope, of course he was wrong, or do you believe it? You are the one who seems obsessed with him. He never declared from the pulpit that he was the pope.
That still is not heresy; after all your guy Francis thinks he is a pope. :laugh1:
At least Schuckardt spoke Catholic doctrine, which is more than I can say about your guy.
-
The fact is a public heretic cannot be Pope and Mr. Bergolio is a public heretic layman.
Excellent point about Mr. Bergoglio being a layman. R&Rers like to banter about "doubtful sacraments." But I've come to believe that it's just a catchy sound-bite for them. The SSPX (ohhhhh--but the few resistance SSPXers are better and smarter than the majority SSPX--what was that about there's more R&Rers than sedes so they must be right) accept NO prietenders without conditionally ordaining them and Bergoglio was "ordained" and "concecrated" post--1968 via those "doubtful orders" that R&Rers speak out of one side of their mouth about, and call the clown their pope out of the other side of there mouth.
Recognize & Resistism is really quite contradictory (NOT MYSTERIOUS) in many ways--a doubtfully ordained bumbling idiot spewing heresy with every other breath is their pope who, of course, they must not follow nor obey, but rather distance themselves from him, all the while recognizing him to be the Vicar of Christ. Maybe it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I am an uneducated puny brained sede-leaner (leaning farther every time I read some hare-brained defense of R&Rism).
-
whatever you are, no matter your trad designation, hoard all your pre-vatican II resources. All the books, everything. I fear that the novus ordo may attempt to edit the church's deposit into something else right out of the stalinist school of falsification. You can only prove error if you have the past in hand, in those texts or even digital copies. You can prove error by saying "tolle, lege" but only if the editions are valid.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
You know, Lover of Truth, you should not have a picture of St. John Marie Vianney attached to your username. He would never have treated people the way that you do. You have a superiority complex. He did not.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
You know, Lover of Truth, you should not have a picture of St. John Marie Vianney attached to your username. He would never have treated people the way that you do. You have a superiority complex. He did not.
If what you were posting in this thread were true, you wouldn't need to resort to an ad hominem.
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
Source? According to every source I have ever read, Bishop Castro Mayer told people at the consecration of the four SSPX bishops that "We have no pope".
-
Yes, after he left I had heard that he believed as I said that he was the only one, therefore he thought himself a pope, of course he was wrong, or do you believe it? You are the one who seems obsessed with him. He never declared from the pulpit that he was the pope.
That still is not heresy; after all your guy Francis thinks he is a pope. :laugh1:
At least Schuckardt spoke Catholic doctrine, which is more than I can say about your guy.
I'd call that cold comfort there, Myrna. I'm also not going to defend the indefensible as far as Francis goes. One Pope can judge another's pontificate, and that's what I'm holding out for. Official action by the right people is crucial to maintain the Catholic order of things. I just happen to think it will take both the temporal and spiritual wings of the Church to overcome the present corruption.
Now if you ask me, a better comparison to Schuckardt might be a Pope who was better at playing the role of conservative when it suited him like JPII or BXVI. My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried. I'm less interested in Schukardt than I am the people who feel compelled to defend him. Even so, 3 posts does not an obsession make.
Anyway, I know a lot of you guys are decent people trying your hardest not to lose it completely in the face of this sheer blasphemy. It's being vomited on a daily basis! If we live to see the end of it, I hope we won't have too much to confess, myself included. I wish you well, but as we can see there are a lot of opportunists out there just waiting to take advantage of the situation. False prophets and false saviors and little antichrists abound.
God bless you all.
-
Yes, after he left I had heard that he believed as I said that he was the only one, therefore he thought himself a pope, of course he was wrong, or do you believe it? You are the one who seems obsessed with him. He never declared from the pulpit that he was the pope.
That still is not heresy; after all your guy Francis thinks he is a pope. :laugh1:
At least Schuckardt spoke Catholic doctrine, which is more than I can say about your guy.
I'd call that cold comfort there, Myrna. I'm also not going to defend the indefensible as far as Francis goes. One Pope can judge another's pontificate, and that's what I'm holding out for. Official action by the right people is crucial to maintain the Catholic order of things. I just happen to think it will take both the temporal and spiritual wings of the Church to overcome the present corruption.
Now if you ask me, a better comparison to Schuckardt might be a Pope who was better at playing the role of conservative when it suited him like JPII or BXVI. My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried. I'm less interested in Schukardt than I am the people who feel compelled to defend him. Even so, 3 posts does not an obsession make.
Anyway, I know a lot of you guys are decent people trying your hardest not to lose it completely in the face of this sheer blasphemy. It's being vomited on a daily basis! If we live to see the end of it, I hope we won't have too much to confess, myself included. I wish you well, but as we can see there are a lot of opportunists out there just waiting to take advantage of the situation. False prophets and false saviors and little antichrists abound.
God bless you all.
Thanks for the note, however don't get the idea I am defending Schukardt, it is what it is. CMRI is nothing today as it was in his time. God made lemonade out of lemons as the saying goes.
-
Lover of Truth,
You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?
Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.
Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
He was open to the idea.
Do you get it?
Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.
Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
You know, Lover of Truth, you should not have a picture of St. John Marie Vianney attached to your username. He would never have treated people the way that you do. You have a superiority complex. He did not.
I said he was open to the idea. Please let me know if you need further explanation.
-
My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried.
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
-
My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried.
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I was curious as to when they will canonize him. Shouldn't he be already canonized?
-
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I can just see it now...
My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried.
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I was curious as to when they will canonize him. Shouldn't he be already canonized?
No, but he probably deserves cannonization.
-
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I can just see it now...
My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried.
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I was curious as to when they will canonize him. Shouldn't he be already canonized?
No, but he probably deserves cannonization.
There is absolutely no doubt. Bergolio the Greatest Vicar of Satan after Paul 6 and possibly JP2.
-
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I can just see it now...
My only question in regards to Pope Francis at this point is whether he'll even be buried.
That hadn't crossed my mind. Wouldn't surprise if he has his old rotten ass cremated. But do they use hearses for cremations though? Some of his funeral instructions have been leaked to me.
I was curious as to when they will canonize him. Shouldn't he be already canonized?
No, but he probably deserves cannonization.
There is absolutely no doubt. Bergolio the Greatest Vicar of Satan after Paul 6 and possibly JP2.
There I go encouraging you. :laugh1:
Fair enough. Let's all pray for God's Justice.
-
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.
-
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.
Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".
-
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.
Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".
R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.
-
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.
Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".
R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.
Spot-on man! Very well stated. :applause: :cheers:
-
One thing I would like to respond to is the idea that we are obligated to wait until there has been a formal trial for heresy before we are permitted to make any personal conclusions about whether or not a crime has been committed. That is patent nonsense. Consider how we treat those who are suspected of murder. We arrest them and possibly jail them until the conclusion of the trial. In some cases they are shot or bombed (cf. the Dallas shooter) before their guilt has been decided. Obviously only legitimate authority can do these things but the public is still permitted to refuse all association with a suspected criminal and we are even permitted to say that he did commit a crime if we are an eyewitness to it. Before the trial. If this were not possible, how could a witness testify against the suspect? But we are all witnesses of Bergoglio's crimes. He is a notorious heretic. cf. notoriety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) There is no requirement to recognize such a person's authority until the trial. And in practice no R&R person does recognize his authority. They say they do, but they don't. In order to properly recognize authority one must submit to that authority.
Well-stated. The Church teaches that a public heretic loses office (if he ever held it in the first place) "by that very fact and without need of a declaration".
R&Rism view of Bergoglio = Doubtfully a priest; doubtfuly a bishop; probably a heretic; definitely the Vicar of Christ.
Spot-on man! Very well stated. :applause: :cheers:
ALL ADDS UP TO SEDEVACANTISM SUPERIOR TO SSPX
-
Bingo!!!
For some no proof is sufficient. My heart goes out to any honest intellectual who is sincerely grappling with the issue thought. And to those who have been brainwashed by the R & R mentality over the years. This mentality makes them think they will risk their souls even if the entertain the possibility of SV because SV is so dangerous.
Dear Lord help us all.
The truth sets you free. It is not something to fear. It is difficult to reconcile being betrayed all these years from those who pretended to guide us. But the fact remains. Once this is accepted the state of perplexity dissipates.
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
-
Thank you for this topic. I read through and had a few comments.
First and foremost, it is my opinion that Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre equally represent a formal opposition to Vatican II. Archbishop Thuc was uniquely prepared to defend the Church with his unusual mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre had every authority to call into question the divergent teachings of Vatican II and exercised good Catholic judgement in his disobedience.
I do not believe it is proper to compare the varying degrees of opposition to the Second Vatican Council. Each person is responsible to God alone, and God alone knows the internal disposition of the person. I consider each person's recognition of the modern errors to be a type of personal revelation, rendering that person responsible for the revelation, but that the personal revelation is not binding on others. This is not to say that multiple people can't share the same revelation, but we shouldn't expect others to be responsible for the revelations we ourselves receive.
I often tell people, I can see the Grace of God working in my life, and I know that God is extending His Grace to others. If we cooperate with those Graces, God will have us where we need to be when we need to be there.
I observe a condition of sede vacante. I am responsible for that observation. I am responsible for the actions I take because of that observation. As Catholics, we are here to assist one another through this difficult time. If there is one thing I can say with absolute certainty, it is that God will always provide.
Prayer is so very essential, as is your Easter duty.
God bless you and yours, now and always.
-
Thank you for this topic. I read through and had a few comments.
First and foremost, it is my opinion that Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre equally represent a formal opposition to Vatican II. Archbishop Thuc was uniquely prepared to defend the Church with his unusual mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre had every authority to call into question the divergent teachings of Vatican II and exercised good Catholic judgement in his disobedience.
I do not believe it is proper to compare the varying degrees of opposition to the Second Vatican Council. Each person is responsible to God alone, and God alone knows the internal disposition of the person. I consider each person's recognition of the modern errors to be a type of personal revelation, rendering that person responsible for the revelation, but that the personal revelation is not binding on others. This is not to say that multiple people can't share the same revelation, but we shouldn't expect others to be responsible for the revelations we ourselves receive.
I often tell people, I can see the Grace of God working in my life, and I know that God is extending His Grace to others. If we cooperate with those Graces, God will have us where we need to be when we need to be there.
I observe a condition of sede vacante. I am responsible for that observation. I am responsible for the actions I take because of that observation. As Catholics, we are here to assist one another through this difficult time. If there is one thing I can say with absolute certainty, it is that God will always provide.
Prayer is so very essential, as is your Easter duty.
God bless you and yours, now and always.
Great post. This fairly accurately describes my perspective and way of viewing others vis-a-vis the crisis. I attend Mass with an R&R priest and no vocal sedes (though I suspect 1/4 or more are privately sede). I very much respect everybody at my chapel and the priest is as rock solid Catholic as one could imagine.
I am frequently quite critical of Bergoglio and the other conciliar popes here on CI. But generally not critical of R&Rers for being R&Rers. But I found the op extremely over-the-top childishly antagonistic. I am obviously not dogmatic sede, nor do I claim to have the crisis figured out with 100% certainty nor claim that we are definitely in a state of sedevacantism with 100% certainty.
I believe traditional Catholics should strive for their common ground, and I found this thread and the tone set by the op counter-productive to the Nth degree. I think those of each side gratuitously slinging assertions that those of the other are not Catholic or have puny brains should be locked in a small building together for a long weekend.
-
Many internet arguments come off as arrogance. So go ahead and kill the messenger but the truth still stands. After all were all sinner's.
-
Internet articles come off as arrogance due to our fallen imagination. I often have to fight myself when I desire to impute evil to a person making an Internet argument.
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
And your response is not antagonistic? My ability to cut and paste? This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.
Why?
Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side. It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before. If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it. Judge me as you like. But I stand by my point. I judge your words. You judge my inner motives. If your strongest argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.
Happy culpable ignorance. :cheers:
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
And your response is not antagonistic? My ability to cut and paste? This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.
Why?
Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side. It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before. If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it. Judge me as you like. But I stand by my point. I judge your words. You judge my inner motives. If your strongest argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.
Happy culpable ignorance. :cheers:
This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.
1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.
2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.
3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side
You poor victim!
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.
You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works. Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.
You judge my inner motives.
Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
And your response is not antagonistic? My ability to cut and paste? This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.
Why?
Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side. It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before. If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it. Judge me as you like. But I stand by my point. I judge your words. You judge my inner motives. If your strongest argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.
Happy culpable ignorance. :cheers:
This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.
1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.
2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.
3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side
You poor victim!
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.
You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works. Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.
You judge my inner motives.
Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.
Thank you for your keen insights. I hope eventually we can get back on topic after we have finished our pre-school antics. If you have any more baby stuff to post I give you the opportunity to have the last word. I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.
-
ABL:
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
And your response is not antagonistic? My ability to cut and paste? This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.
Why?
Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side. It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before. If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it. Judge me as you like. But I stand by my point. I judge your words. You judge my inner motives. If your strongest argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.
Happy culpable ignorance. :cheers:
This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.
1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.
2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.
3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side
You poor victim!
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.
You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works. Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.
You judge my inner motives.
Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.
Thank you for your keen insights. I hope eventually we can get back on topic after we have finished our pre-school antics. If you have any more baby stuff to post I give you the opportunity to have the last word. I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.
My feelings are if someone asks a question they should be honest enough to read the answer no matter if it is a copy and paste or not. Everyone here, I believe has copied and pasted even Matthew does it.
The Bible says seek and you will find, how will one find the truth if they don't bother to even read the answer. We are talking about our immortal souls here, and God knows if we are sincerely seeking or just desperately trying to save face.
I have always thought it wrong to judge the message just because one does not like the messenger, and doubly wrong to ridicule the messenger just because a few people don't like that person bringing the message. The messenger is a person that just makes them feel uncomfortable so in that case just skip over that persons notes if you are so uncomfortable about the words printed.
Again, they say women are the emotional ones! What a joke!
-
If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?
:facepalm:
To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.
I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.
When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.
You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)
If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives. They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions. They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.
And your response is not antagonistic? My ability to cut and paste? This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.
Why?
Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side. It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before. If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it. Judge me as you like. But I stand by my point. I judge your words. You judge my inner motives. If your strongest argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.
Happy culpable ignorance. :cheers:
This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own. I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.
Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.
1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.
2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.
3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.
People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.
So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.
Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side
You poor victim!
If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.
You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works. Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.
You judge my inner motives.
Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.
Thank you for your keen insights. I hope eventually we can get back on topic after we have finished our pre-school antics. If you have any more baby stuff to post I give you the opportunity to have the last word. I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.
My feelings are if someone asks a question they should be honest enough to read the answer no matter if it is a copy and paste or not. Everyone here, I believe has copied and pasted even Matthew does it.
The Bible says seek and you will find, how will one find the truth if they don't bother to even read the answer. We are talking about our immortal souls here, and God knows if we are sincerely seeking or just desperately trying to save face.
I have always thought it wrong to judge the message just because one does not like the messenger, and doubly wrong to ridicule the messenger just because a few people don't like that person bringing the message. The messenger is a person that just makes them feel uncomfortable so in that case just skip over that persons notes if you are so uncomfortable about the words printed.
Again, they say women are the emotional ones! What a joke!
Thank you very much. Men have become feminized in our society. There is of course nothing wrong with women being feminized.
Women do tend to be more emotional than men due to hormones but men tend to be less sensitive to others feelings. Though I have seen women quit knowledgeable and logical and men have great sympathy for others.
It is disappointing for me to see men crying like babies because we have, in effect, told them Santa Claus does not exist.
-
I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.
See....here's big part of the problem. You continually accuse everyone here who doesn't agree with your interpretations to be insincere and not caring about truth. As if you alone are the carrier and interpreter of all truth. Do you believe yourself to be a prophet?
-
ABL:
2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
Don't be antagonistic.
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
Don't be antagonistic.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
Don't be antagonistic.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
How old are you?
-
ABL:
3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
ABL:
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
Don't be antagonistic.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.
[/b]
I second that...
-
ABL:
4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
-
To you "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" from a faithful and attentive son of the great Archbishop...
Quoted from "Eleison Comments" #357
The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic. (emphasis mine)
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.
Link to letter: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/churchx2019sinfallibilityx2013iii/
This is what my opinion, in general, has been for a long time about the Archbishop's position.
I have read long ago, what some are posting now as evidence to support their sedevacantist (dogmatic) positions, and found them to be what Bp Williamson expresses here.
I believe for one to even begin to understand the Archbishop's position, one can't just take these excerpts out of context of his life's work.
-
ABL:
5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
-
ABL:
1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
-
ABL:
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
ABL:
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
God did allow it so why did they not come out then and state the obvious?
-
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.
What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.
To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.
Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.
-
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
As far as I understand, this is Matthew's definition as well. If there are any dogmatic sedevacantists on CathInfo, they must either hide their dogmatic belief on the subject or they will be banned posthaste.
There are, however, quite a number of outspoken dogmatic anti-sedevacantists that post their vile schismatic dogmas on the forum with abandon. They are usually the people who frequently condemn all the "dogmatic sedevacantists" because, in their evil, they simply assume that anyone who provides logical arguments on sedevacantism that they cannot answer and that bother their consciences must be dogmatic on the issue since they realize in their very core how untenable their beliefs really are.
-
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.
What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.
To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.
Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.
The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example, all speak as if it is an indisputable fact that the conciliar popes have not been popes. Dogmatic sedevacantists could never admit there there is even the most remote or even the slightest possibility that Francis is indeed the Vicar of Christ. IOW, dogmatic sedevacantists believe the pope simply cannot be pope as if the opinion itself is dogmatic or based on dogma.
-
Dogmatic feeneyites could never admit there there is even the most remote or even the slightest possibility that there is salvation apart from water. IOW, dogmatic sedevacantists believe No Salvation Apart From Wateras if the opinion itself is dogmatic or based on dogma.
-
I'm not sure if "Dogmatic SV" is a theological term. What the inventor of that term might wish to convey is that this is one who claims one cannot be saved unless he is a SV.
Now it Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.
And it is Dogma that we must submit to a valid Pope.
If believing either of those two things is being a Dogmatic SV then I am guilty as charged. And quite willingly so.
-
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.
What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.
To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.
Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.
The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example...
I refer to my post above. Stubborn is probably the most ardent and disgusting dogmatic anti-sedevacantist and dogmatic Feeneyite on the forum. His lack of charity has very few rivals.
-
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.
What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.
To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.
Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.
The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example...
I refer to my post above. Stubborn is probably the most ardent and disgusting dogmatic anti-sedevacantist and dogmatic Feeneyite on the forum. His lack of charity has very few rivals.
I could not possibly agree more.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
I notice this term being tossed around this ENTIRE forum lately; "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" and frankly I admit I am confused with the definition of it. I think different people here have different ideas of what it actually means.
What does it mean to you or are you just posting the term because ... it is popular to do so?
My own definition of the term means if you are not a sede when you die you are ripe for Hell, no doubt about it. Who here says that?
The only Dogmatic Sedevacantist I know of would be the Dimond people, or another example of "Dogmatic Hellbound judging" fits the Feeneyites position.
To explain sedevacantism or to defend it is not being Dogmatic! I think others like to toss it around because they feel guilty about some issue they do not want to face.
Maybe this post is taking this thread in a different direction but it still fits the Title of the thread.
The dogmatic sedevacantists, like LoE and even yourself for example...
I refer to my post above. Stubborn is probably the most ardent and disgusting dogmatic anti-sedevacantist and dogmatic Feeneyite on the forum. His lack of charity has very few rivals.
And here I remember you saying that you don't even read what I post anyway, so you wouldn't know any more than LoE would know.
If you would ever accept the challenge and actually reply to my posts (which you said you don't even read) or answer some questions one of these days, you'd find yourself to be the disgusting one thank you very much.
Always remember, every pope the Church has ever had is and always was, a dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, I'd say while you think it disgusting, I'd say that's a pretty good group to be a part of.
The proof is in your reply - same old non-answer the post, just shoot the messenger - - -same o same o typical dogmatic sedevacantist reply.
-
Don't worry. Be Catholic.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
-
Okay.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
-
And here I remember you saying that you don't even read what I post anyway, so you wouldn't know any more than LoE would know.
I'm often reading posts before I notice who wrote them. Someone recently posted a clip of a movie where the character says that everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to someone. It is the perfect clip to describe what happens every time you post on CathInfo.
Stubbornness is not a virtue.
-
And here I remember you saying that you don't even read what I post anyway, so you wouldn't know any more than LoE would know.
I'm often reading posts before I notice who wrote them. Someone recently posted a clip of a movie where the character says that everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to someone. It is the perfect clip to describe what happens every time you post on CathInfo.
Stubbornness is not a virtue.
Neither is ignorance of the truth, which you willingly wallow in.
And same o same o dogmatic sedevacantist reply.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
That's not surprising you'd feel certain of that.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
That's not surprising you'd feel certain of that.
Thanks Stubborn!
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
That's not surprising you'd feel certain of that.
Thanks Stubborn!
You're welcome!
Just remember that +ABL, if God willing, he is in heaven, is now among all the popes in heaven, who by default were themselves all anti-sedevacantists.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
That's not surprising you'd feel certain of that.
Thanks Stubborn!
You're welcome!
Just remember that +ABL, if God willing, he is in heaven, is now among all the popes in heaven, who by default were themselves all anti-sedevacantists.
Of course, all the popes that are in heaven were True popes not Freemasons or wolves in sheep's clothing. I hate to sound like roscoe, but in those days there were no sedevacantists to be anti about, in the sense the word is used today. Even the Anti-popes were Catholic.
I have no idea where the Conciliar dead "popes" of Vatican II are and I do not even want to speculate on where. We will leave that up to the Feeneyites, for we all know the Catholic church teaches No Salvation Outside the Church, however, Vatican II of which is not the Catholic Church and of which the Conciliarist belong is quite frightening yet, John XXIII his words "Stop the Council, Stop the Council" give me hope that God will give His grace at His perfect time for each one of them.
-
ABL:
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
.........as he kicks out "the nine" for their sedevacantism - among other things.
One point I feel certain about is +ABL is sedevacantist today because it is a fact that when we pass into the next life, knowledge is given to us that we did not have is this life.
That's not surprising you'd feel certain of that.
Thanks Stubborn!
You're welcome!
Just remember that +ABL, if God willing, he is in heaven, is now among all the popes in heaven, who by default were themselves all anti-sedevacantists.
Of course, all the popes that are in heaven were True popes not Freemasons or wolves in sheep's clothing. I hate to sound like roscoe, but in those days there were no sedevacantists to be anti about, in the sense the word is used today. Even the Anti-popes were Catholic.
I have no idea where the Conciliar dead "popes" of Vatican II are and I do not even want to speculate on where. We will leave that up to the Feeneyites, for we all know the Catholic church teaches No Salvation Outside the Church, however, Vatican II of which is not the Catholic Church and of which the Conciliarist belong is quite frightening yet, John XXIII his words "Stop the Council, Stop the Council" give me hope that God will give His grace at His perfect time for each one of them.
Perhaps the fat dunce was too stupid to be culpable.