Author Topic: Why I finally Caved (Read 22122 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2016, 09:08:53 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: knish
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.

God Bless,
Knish

Do tell.

How did this change come about?

What convinced you to renounce sedevacantism?

I have noticed that many times, sedevacantism is the way to go, but then they discover there is no compromising especially when it comes to marriage, no annulments handed out like candy. Their lifestyle might require a change ... might it be a sacrifice is required?

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2016, 09:48:41 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
The conciliar popes were elected by the same process and in the same manner that the popes before them were elected. The conciliar popes accepted their election the same way the popes before them did.

To put it in the words of Pope saint Pius X, after the newly elected accepts his election......."the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."

It really is that simple.

It matters not during these days of enlightment, the dawn before the New Order, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr if the servants of God are Catholic or not?

No. It really doesn't matter to me. It matters to you, but not to me.

Quote from: MyrnaM

Are you Stubborn a Freemason?

As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.

TKGS · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2016, 09:56:01 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.

I don't know enough about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to know whether your supposition is correct or not.

But I do know that Catholics must docilely submit to the teachings of the pope. Many would characterize this as blindly submitting to him. What Catholics are not obliged to do is to submit, docilely or otherwise, to a non-Catholic who pretends to be pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2016, 11:17:40 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
As I understand it, Freemasons must blindly submit to the wishes of their superiors without question. That is freemasonic, not Catholic. As Catholics, we are required to know our faith, we are not permitted to be ignorant of what is required for our own salvation nor put our souls in peril by blindly submitting to anyone, even the pope.

I don't know enough about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to know whether your supposition is correct or not.

But I do know that Catholics must docilely submit to the teachings of the pope. Many would characterize this as blindly submitting to him. What Catholics are not obliged to do is to submit, docilely or otherwise, to a non-Catholic who pretends to be pope.

The simplest way to say it, is that we are bound to adhere to the faith period. That's the way it is due to this crisis.

The ordinary Catholic is a humble person, he has been taught humility and obedience. He has been told that his salvation lies in being humbly obedient.

In our present circuмstance, what is called for, is not this kind of servility. What is called for now, is some sense of responsibility. Our Lord said we are to be wise as serpents and simple as doves. Now is the time to be as wise as a serpent, and questioning and incredulous and dubious - this is the posture of the true Catholic nowadays because the clergy have shown they are irresponsible, that they are inconsistent, that they are irreverent - and that what they once taught they no longer teach. So they are no longer reliable guides and they surely need not be obeyed when that which they once established, they now go contrary to and try to cause the people to do likewise.

qeddeq · « **Reply #34 on:** June 18, 2016, 01:22:42 AM »

Quote from: knish

I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.

God Bless,
Knish

What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:03:15 AM »

Quote from: qeddeq

Quote from: knish
I have since recanted of my error and am no longer a sedevacantist. I pray I have not lead anyone astray by this post.

God Bless,
Knish

What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.

Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.

TKGS · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:38:39 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: qeddeq
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.

Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.

A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.

In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.

The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:43:38 AM »

Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.

I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:50:21 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: qeddeq
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.

Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.

A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.

In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.

The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.

This is dead on, but the question is why?

For some I have encountered it is because they do not know where they will then get the sacraments from for their children or have their children educated. For others it is an emotional thing when the clergy tell them that if they hold the position they are "skating on thin is" "are schismatic" and "could be damned" for this. That gives one pause.

Others, I am convinced are simply plants. Satan knows where the true Church is and knows the correct position on the issue. The diabolical non-nonsensical discreditation of SV can only come from the pits of Hell.

For instance "Fr." Grunner went around insisting that SV could not be true. Father Stepanich wrote him a very respectful and clear letter explaining the position of SV to which it was incuмbent upon Grunner to reply to or to at least to stop publicly insisting on what he knew there was very valid objections to. What was his response? Surely if he was so convinced the position he was binding on others and for which he would have to answer for was so obviously correct he would have dutifully responded and refuted Father Stepanich. What was his response?

Silence.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:53:15 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: qeddeq
What would it take to convince you that someone claiming to be the pope is not the pope? Is there any belief, statement or behavior of his that would convince you that he cannot be the pope? Or is the papal election itself sufficient to ensure that he is pope, irrespective of anything he might do or say? I'm just trying to understand your theory of the papacy.

Those are the perfect questions to ask any anti-SV. I guess they would have to put on lay clothes and leave the Vatican never to be seen or heard from again. But even that might not do it from what I have seen.

A while back, someone sent me a link to a topic on another forum (it is a SSPX forum in the sense that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, that I am not a member of) in which this very question was asked of the membership. I don't have the link anymore, but the answers were interesting. In the end, the responses indicated that nothing ever could convince anyone of sedevacantism.

In fact, there was a poster by the screen name of Stubborn (I don't know if it is the same poster as our very own Stubborn) who candidly replied that nothing could possibly convince him.

The conclusion I drew (besides that I was not going to join that forum) was that anti-sedevacantism is the only dogma that unites them. The more I see how anti-sedevacantists think, the more I see how similar it is to Protestantism.

Yes, that is me and I replied with what it would take for me to become a SV.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:54:59 AM »

The sad thing is that the more the "real" Catholics insist this apostate is a valid Pope the more they keep him afloat and give him the ability and influence to continue to destroy (to the extent that such is possible) the Church from within.

His madness must be stopped. But it can't be so long as the real Catholics keep insisting that he is the unifying visible head of the Roman Catholic Church. "He who hears him hears Christ".

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:55:55 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.

I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2016, 08:59:09 AM »

How much more certain do you need to be than Divine Law?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #43 on:** June 20, 2016, 09:14:29 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.

I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.

I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.

For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.

Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #44 on:** June 20, 2016, 09:24:43 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Has anyone ever noticed that it is the sedevacantism that is feared the most of the enemies of God? The higher ups in the novus ordo are so afraid of sedevacantism as are those sitting on the fence.

I think the reason is the sedevacantist are unwilling to compromise the faith, and they know it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure fear has nothing to do with it, most likely their expression is showing they are in awe as to how the sedevacantists know with certainty, as if by Divine Revelation that there is no pope.

I am surprised at you, because you and your ilk are the ones that are so in earnest on the dogma of EENS yet, when your pope speaks of other religions as if they are good you stick a banana in your ear.

For me, it is the breaking of the First Commandment that with certain, Francis is NOT a true pope and I do believe that a doubtful pope is no pope so that rules out any other possibility at this time.

Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and He is guiding it. We are not orphans.

The First Commandment is the most important Commandment and it is the one the false-Popes break publicly and with the most regularity. That is what you call an heretical act.