Quote from: Matto

So the Dimonds are tools of satan. And what about R&R? Are you really saying that the SSPX is a tool of satan to deceive? The resistance is R&R also. So the resistance is a tool of satan to deceive? What are you doing here? If you think the R&R traditional groups are tools of satan to deceive what are you doing here? This is officially an R&R forum. Why don't you go and haunt a sedevacantist forum with your slanders of those R&R supporters?

I am sorry LOT, but I was very upset with you when I made this post. I do not like it when you insult the R&R position and those who hold it. That is why I don't like it when you post Novus Ordo Watch articles that say that only sedevacantists are real Catholics and that is why I got upset just a few minutes ago when you basically said that R&R people are tools of satan deceiving people and keeping them from the true faith. And I am not even R&R (I am not sedevacantist either. I am in between because I don't know which position is right). But I get upset when you or the articles you post say so many people who I love and see as good Catholics trying to do the will of God are not real Catholics. And I get upset when you say that those R&R supporters are not really honest Catholics trying to do the will of God but are really tools of satan deceiving people so they do not come to the truth. If you really believe that all non-sedevacantists are not really Catholics and that they are tools of satan deceiving others to keep them from the truth, you do not belong here.

Believe it or not I see where you are coming from.  With me, if I can keep from getting personal I'll avoid sin.  When others make personal with me I will show them how they are wrong by imitating them.  My hope is that they can see that they are not making any significant points on the issue but merely hurling insults.  The idea that R & R's are used by Satan for his purposes if properly understood is simply that the more we acknowledge the apostate Mr. Berogolio as the Vicar of Christ the more power and "legitimacy" we give him and the more we undermine the Catholic Church.  

Please don't take it personally, but your above message is based on pure emotion.  You have not shown me anything at all of any weight whatsoever that supports you feelings, and it is feelings rather than a position you manifest.  

Can papal teaching about the Pope and the Church just be disregarded for a few decades when it doesn't "fit"?  Can we believe that the Catholic Church can give us heretical liturgical rites, evil canon law, etc.?

Some people seem to take a position of, "Look, we've agreed that sedevacantism is an option, but you guys don't return the favor but say ONLY sedevacantism is true." Yeah, it's typically like that in the Catholic Church: There is only one truth and all have an obligation to adhere to it. It reminds me of a Lutheran saying, "Look you Catholics, I agree it's OK to be Catholic, but now you need to say it's also OK to be Lutheran." No, it doesn't work that way.

And this is an entirely different matter from the question whether someone who is trying to figure this stuff out and isn't sure about Sedevacantism and, in his confusion, goes with the SSPX instead, can still be saved. That's a different issue. Yes, he can be, under certain circuмstances, but that doesn't mean the obligation to be sede goes away.

People can argue Sedevacantism is wrong all day long - that's fine, at least it's a claim that presupposes ONE position is definitely right. But this sort of, "I'm OK, you're OK" makes no sense whatsoever.

But it is quite okay to admit you are not sure, that is a rather humble position.  That is not the willful blindness I have personally encountered with many R & R's.  

Some SV clergy say SV is an "opinion" based upon sound theological principles.  But it is an "opinion" only in the sense that it has not been officially bound upon us and it is possible people can believe the contrary in good conscience.

If the R & R's had a position that was equally compatible with Catholic doctrine, then they would have a point. If both views were opinions, and neither of them clearly followed from Catholic teaching nor was contradicted by it, then they would be correct. But that is not the case.  The apostate is either Pope or he is not.  Both positions cannot be true.

No theology or history supports the idea of a non-Catholic Pope, but rather supports the contrary - a Pope must be Catholic.

The alternative solution is that Jesus Christ was a liar and we die we just stay in our graves.

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.

Just in the objective realm they may be thinking in regards to it being authoritatively bound on the Faithful.  Obviously the truth is the truth even when no one binds it on us.

Claiming that those who insist is right based upon Dogma and Divine Law are wrong because the Church has not officially bond it on us (who would bind it?) shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter. It has NOTHING TO DO with binding it on the faithful.

I have no authority to bind you to say that 2+2=4. But then I don't need any authority to do that. It is binding of itself, because it is a necessary truth and must be accepted by anyone who understands what 2 means, what 4 means, what plus means, and what equal means.  So to that a public heretic cannot be Pope and automatically loses his office (if he ever held it in the first place) without the need of declaration.  This must be accepted by all who know what "public heretic" means, what "Pope" means, what "automatically" means, what "without the need of declaration" means.  

Some clergy see how difficult it is for the laity to handle it.  Others don't want to be looked down upon.  Neither reason justifies lying to the faithful.  (To protect the wounded reed for instance).  Avoiding the topic entirely might be different.  Father Ringrose seemed to think women could not handle it.  It seems many men cannot handle it either.  But many men are feminized so there you go.

A priest is obliged to answer the Faithful's questions even if he says it is only his opinion.  He then must state why it is his opinion and go on to show that it is dogma that one must submit to a legitimate Pope in all he binds on the Church and that it is divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.  He must admit and state clearly that the above are not opinion.  The only "opinion" is whether Francis is not a public heretic or not.

Father McMahon used to give us the opportunity to read between the lines in his sermons at Saint Athanasius when Ringrose was still known to be R & R.  But I do not think the people did read between the lines.  They would sit, listen, nod their heads and continue to be R & R.

It's 2016. We have an open blaspheming apostate in the Vatican. It's not 1967 where you could see that people would want to be careful and not jump to conclusions. This is ridiculous.

Things are different than even 1990 when ABL died.  Though he may have been a secret SV after the 1986 Assisi nonsense.  The excuses are running out.  They have ran out.  God wants us to pick a side.  The people sitting on the fence due to willful blindness will get split in half or vomited out of our Lord's mouth.

It really looks like God is doing everything possible to show people that the Novus Ordo Church is false and its head is an impostor.

Some might say, "But I'm waiting for it to get even more obvious, where Francis says he's the Antichrist and a false pope!" To which I would respond with the answer given by Lazarus to the rich man: "If they do not listen to Moses or the prophets, they would also not listen to one who rose from the dead" (or something like that).

I just assumed JP2 was Pope before I became SV and would argue from that perspective.  But I listened to the contrary and weighed the arguments pro and con and then looked at the Church teaching on the issue in context reading the docuмents in their entirety instead of selected quotes.  

Willful blindness reigns. I think that is all there is to it generally speaking, at least in regards to the people on the internet all day.  Denial, denial, denial.  They do not want to believe.  I try to see where they could be coming from if they are sincere so I can respond to it, but it becomes more and more difficult for me to believe that many of these people are not culpably ignorant.  This is because when you make an undeniable point they refuse to grant it but ignore it.  Not sure what other conclusion one could come to.  

Lover of Heresy has many axes to grind.

Should he not be banned for declaring that R&R people do the work of Satan?  While I don't agree with R&R myself, it's a major leap to claim that R&R are tools of Satan.

He's a foaming-at-the-mouth dogmatic sedevacantist that simply goes under cover when called out for it.  He posts Novus Ordo Watch articles and Tradcast stuff that promote dogmatic SVism.

For many Catholics, their perception of the modern problem determines their reaction.  Each is compelled by their own conscience.  I am confident that God is providing each and everyone the graces they require to endure these trials.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.

Hardly. Many of those who reject sedevacantism reject it for theological reasons. You speak as if it was theologically certain that sedevacantim is true, some people just can't figure it out. The reality is that sedevacantist thesis has very serious problems, such as Apostolic Succession (according to SVs there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in posession of Episcopal sees - you have been destroyed recently in a discussion on that topic), inability to prove that V2 Popes were formal heretics (the most you can prove is material heresy), or the fact that there were heavy weight theologians who did not believe that a Pope formally loses office without any declaration immediately after becoming a heretic.

SVs tend to elevate the St. Robert Bellarmine opinion to the level of dogma.  Meanwhile, you had many other credible theologians who held to the ab ecclesia deponendus school of thought.  Yes, the SVs argue that it's untenable, but the "deposition" is "ministerial" or "delcarative" rather than "effective", and it's a perfectly tenable opinion.  I in fact hold this position myself.  I believe that these popes remain in office at least materially, are capable of exercising the material aspects of the office, even if they are suspended in the formal exercise of their authority due to doubt and suspicion of heresy.  Kindof along the lines of what Father Chazal has articulated.

SVs try to oversimplify EVERYTHING, from the dogma of infallibility to the syllogism regarding heretics losing office.

Show me where we do not have to submit to what he binds on the Church.

This, on the other hand, is a valid objection against classic R&R.  Father Chazal's position is much better and avoids this problem.

Why do the girls keep coming up here with their personal attacks and emotional tirades.  

Ladislaus decides not by appearance but by looking into souls I suppose and this is how he would have the Church do it:

 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.  

I just read the first words of the response and consider the source.