Author Topic: Thoughts on the divisions among the nine (Read 33574 times)

PG · « **Reply #175 on:** June 09, 2014, 03:21:14 PM »

LOT - I read that schiavo article as well, and I am glad I did. If she could swallow, then that is the route to take. However, I suspect that there is more involved in the decisions. I say that because it is true of everything these days. It makes me want to not pick sides.

Ambrose · « **Reply #176 on:** June 09, 2014, 03:49:11 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

I am getting tired of this "schism" language. Schism boils down to denial of papal primacy. And, in the practical order, currently, we have no pope. So, enough with this condemning of schism(or promotion of tradecuмenism). Ambrose is showing himself to be an arch tradecuмenist(catering when desirable the concept that the CMRI and the sspx are in "communion"(??) but stating the opposite a few posts later when confronted).

Being called a politician these days cannot be "interpreted" as a complement(unless you are one).

I have no problem being called names by one who rejects the last certain Pope. Call me what you like, it matters not.

Ambrose · « **Reply #177 on:** June 09, 2014, 03:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: + PG +
I am enjoying reading this thread. Here is my opinion:

Ambrose is a politician.

SJB is correct about Cekada and his "facts", although(LOT), I do subscribe to his quidlibet(some of his articles are really good).

Thanks for answering the question. But Ambrose is anything but a politician. He would be popular with you and the feeneyites if he was. He is as technically sound as anyone I noticed on this site. Though I mostly hang around in the crisis forum and only read a few selected threads.

Thank you, LoT, he calls me a politician because he does not like to hear what I have to say. Of I was a politician, I would most certainly not be elected.

Ambrose · « **Reply #178 on:** June 09, 2014, 03:53:30 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

LOT - I am not a feeneyite.

Ambrose is a serpent(he has two tongues); my encounters with him lead me to believe this. He "usurps the keys" by declaring "publicly" that I am "no longer a member of the catholic church" because I place guilt on Pius XII and apply consequences that follow.

Canon 7 on the sacrifice of the mass Trent 1562 - "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathama."

Tradition has to make a choice. Do you want Pacelli and "rythm"(albiet for "grave reasons")? Or, do you want the traditional mass(pre 1954)? You cannot have both.

I am not a sedevacantist. I believe in the theory of privation(Peter wept "outside the walls").

You have in your own words cut yourself off from the Church by declaring that Pope Pius XII after 1951 was no longer the Pope. If you don't like being a schismatic, then repent, and go to a priest.

PG · « **Reply #179 on:** June 09, 2014, 06:03:43 PM »

Here we have Ambrose in his element deceiving and twisting words.

I have expressed my opinion on this forum(hardly a declaration) that Pius XII was the pope post 51/54, but that he was a doubtful pope(privately the pope). A doubtful law is no law, and a doubtful pope is no pope.