Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Quote

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.

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.