Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25914 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #140 on:** July 14, 2016, 07:48:37 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Croixalist
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!

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?

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.

At least Schuckardt spoke Catholic doctrine, which is more than I can say about your guy.

OHCA · « **Reply #141 on:** July 14, 2016, 11:54:39 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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).

qeddeq · « **Reply #142 on:** July 15, 2016, 02:11:02 AM »

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 · « **Reply #143 on:** July 15, 2016, 05:21:35 AM »

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Meg
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?

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.

Meg · « **Reply #144 on:** July 15, 2016, 06:05:06 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Meg
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?

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.