Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 24612 times)

OHCA · « **Reply #150 on:** July 15, 2016, 08:27:13 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #151 on:** July 15, 2016, 08:33:32 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Croixalist
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?

Croixalist · « **Reply #152 on:** July 15, 2016, 08:50:37 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

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...

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Croixalist
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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #153 on:** July 15, 2016, 08:55:27 AM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: OHCA
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...

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Croixalist
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.

Croixalist · « **Reply #154 on:** July 15, 2016, 09:00:03 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: OHCA
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...

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Croixalist
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.

Fair enough. Let's all pray for God's Justice.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #155 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:22:20 AM »

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 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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #156 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:31:29 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

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 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".

OHCA · « **Reply #157 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Clemens Maria
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 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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #158 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:43:27 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Clemens Maria
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 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:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #159 on:** July 15, 2016, 01:54:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Clemens Maria
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 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

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #160 on:** July 15, 2016, 02:28:02 PM »

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.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #161 on:** July 15, 2016, 07:08:56 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius
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.

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.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #162 on:** July 15, 2016, 10:57:58 PM »

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.

OHCA · « **Reply #163 on:** July 15, 2016, 11:36:52 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

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.

insidebaseball · « **Reply #164 on:** July 16, 2016, 08:05:49 AM »

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.