Author Topic: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler (Read 6628 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2020, 11:36:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:12:11 AM

Many R&R like Meg or SeanJohnson immediately begin foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of any SV or SP principles

...and yet it is you who just fired off 4 posts in 10 minutes.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2020, 11:38:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:22:57 AM

Of course we also have different nuances of the R&R position.

1) +Schneider is clearly in the R&R camp, but he remains within the Conciliar Church materially.
2) +Vigano has a stronger version of R&R.
3) neo-SSPX is also R&R and are not currently fully in the Conciliar Church materially but are moving in that direction.
4) Resistance R&R feel that they must stay outside the Conciliar Church materially.
5) Father Chazal's R&R justfies material separation from the Conciliar Church due to their loss of formal authority.

So I ask the R&Rers, are all the above R&R?

1 is conciliar, not R&R;

2, 4, and 5 are identical (and despite your subversive attempt to portray R&R as a splintered group a la sedevcantism/protestantism, it is to no avail);

3 is semi-conciliar.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2020, 11:39:23 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 27, 2020, 10:13:36 AM

It’s an R&R perspective JUST for the specific question of V2. That doesn’t mean that J23, Paul VI, etc were necessarily popes, except materially speaking (ie they were elected). I wish the sede-privationist position could unify the R&R vs Sede camps. I think they’re both right, in a sense.

They are irreconcilable.

SP is SV with makeup.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2020, 11:42:41 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 27, 2020, 11:17:47 AM

While yes, he does, disappointingly, seem to be gravitating toward the barely-Catholic (if at all) R&R position, the second sentence here is incorrect. That's not what Vigano was saying.

Classical R&R is non-Catholic garbage. Father Chazal's position, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable ... and also quite probably true.

Chazal is classical R&R, despite your lying efforts to turn him into some kind of sede-something.

He is on record as denying that which you continuously impute to him.

Hey, maybe you could invent yet another new position to give him:

You can call it "sede-R&Rism!"

That way, you can simultaneously pretend he is a sede-?something?, while remaining honest that he is PURE R&R.

Meg · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2020, 12:15:18 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 27, 2020, 11:39:23 AM

They are irreconcilable.

SP is SV with makeup.

Very true! Though the SP's will never admit it. They are so obsessively focused on the Pope question, that they can't think of much else.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler (Read 6628 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler

SeanJohnson

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler

SeanJohnson

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler

SeanJohnson

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler

Meg

Re: Vigano Interview with Phil Lawler