Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25860 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #185 on:** July 27, 2016, 12:47:36 PM »

ABL:

Quote

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)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #186 on:** July 28, 2016, 05:14:04 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

ABL:

Quote
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?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #187 on:** July 28, 2016, 09:56:32 AM »

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.

TKGS · « **Reply #188 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:20:02 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #189 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:39:12 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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.