Author Topic: Why I finally Caved (Read 21926 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #90 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:12:53 AM »

Just wanted to say here that I cannot longer defend a dogmatic "sedeplenist" position in good conscience and that I have concluded that the SSPX position is the most schismatic one of ALL. The separatist R&R position is a failure. I think Archbishop Lefebvre (without intending so) may have done more bad to good in the resistance to Vatican II and Modernism by creating a type of false traditional Catholic movement which promotes separatism from the hierarchy it still recognizes as such.

After months of studying and praying about it I have grown very fond of the sedeprivationist position (Cassiciacuм Thesis) I really think there is a lot of value in the Fr. Des Lauries Thesis. This is just a personal opinion of course.

Alexandria · « **Reply #91 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:24:23 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's quite simple, everyone.

If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. ...

But that's where we are at today. I don't care what you do. You can hide yourself in a corner of the local novus ordo parish and wear earplugs while you pray the Rosary and read your St. Andrew's Missal, but the atmosphere itself will poison you. I know of that which I speak. Trust me.

As for the fssp and other indult places, just as bad. Talk about mass confusion. The pews are filled with more varieties of Catholics than a Chinese take-out menu.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #92 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:42:28 AM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Ladislaus
It's quite simple, everyone.

If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. ...

But that's where we are at today. I don't care what you do. You can hide yourself in a corner of the local novus ordo parish and wear earplugs while you pray the Rosary and read your St. Andrew's Missal, but the atmosphere itself will poison you. I know of that which I speak. Trust me.

As for the fssp and other indult places, just as bad. Talk about mass confusion. The pews are filled with more varieties of Catholics than a Chinese take-out menu.

Keep in mind that objectively there is not a "variety" of Catholics from the perspective doctrine, from the perspective of faith, and in the Latin Rite from the perspective of worship and discipline.

We come up with the idea of a "variety" of Catholics because the Church has been usurped by apostate heretics and their followers. Once we get this we might be able to do something about it. The same thing is happening in the world. Nations no longer have sovereignty. The world and the Church is headed by the same zionist elite who want to control our money and our souls.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #93 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:48:50 AM »

Stubborn:

Quote

It was not promulgated by the Church - always remember that the Church is Christ.

Circular reasoning. If you can get out of reality by say whatever is promulgated by the false Pope is not promulgated if the Benedict Center does not agree with it you do not have a Church.

The thinking is actually ridiculous. It makes a mockery of the papacy making it an op-ed where those under decide what is "promulgated" and what is not.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #94 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:49:55 AM »

Indefectibility of the Church
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=994&sid=829eafa4c3a825bd57d6aeaec534c45b

I strongly urge those who really want a true understanding of the Church to read the links I have been providing in this thread.

Stubborn · « **Reply #95 on:** June 21, 2016, 11:55:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.

You simply declare these to be false without any argument for why they're false. So everything taught by any 20th-century theologian is false?

I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".

I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church. I say that when the revolution was only initially being perpetrated in the late 60s, when the Catholic world was still largely Catholic and the vast majority of hold outs still rejected the NO and still clung tightly to their faith and their Mass, this teaching is the crow bar that finally was able to pry the stubborn holdouts from their faith and accept the new faith. It was always, literally, "if the pope said it, then we have to do it because it must be ok". The reason they all thought like that was because of the 20th century theologians who promulgated their false teaching regarding the infallibility of the pope as a teaching of the Church.

Quote from: Ladislaus

NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that it's possible for the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require schism from the Catholic hierarchy. Infallible safety derives from the indefectibility of the Church. So, if you disagree with this position, rather than simply dismissing the opinion as false and denouncing "20th-century" theologians, demonstrate how the Church would not have defected in her mission if she could lead souls to hell through her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.

So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, which means those who went along with the revolution did so under false pretenses that the imposition of the NO, having the pope's and council's blessing, was a product of infallibility. IOW, the people were fooled, something else most will likely deny can happen even though it did - and still does.

They all went along because they were taught that no matter what the pope says or does, it is automatically infallible. That the pope's power is limitless. That "if the pope said it's ok, we gotta do it". Where did this originate? Where did they all learn this from? I don't mean only lay people, I mean pretty much everyone - priests, bishops, seminarians, nuns, nearly everyone. Where did the millions get this teaching from that made them all believe the pope is infallible no matter what he does? From discussions on another forum, the answer keeps pointing back to originating with some of the "respected" 20th century theologians who invented the whole idea and passed it off as a teaching of the Church.

Per V1, the conditions for papal and OUM infallibility that Pope Pius IX spelled out for all those teachings Catholics must submit to under pain of mortal sin are these:

The teachings must be contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Note these conditions above are the same for papal infallibility ("Ex Cathedra") as well as the infallibility of the teachings of the OUM. Does not the teachings from an Ecuмenical Council qualify as teachings of the OUM?

So there it is. All anyone can do, is try and accuse V1 of failing in it's duty by not covering everything, or that there are exceptions or additional conditions not mentioned, or it is incomplete, or whatever other excuses one wants to make to reduce the decrees to mere starting points so "we'll take it from here", but the doctrine of papal and OUM infallibility is right there, solemnly decreed. Who ever thinks they know more can try all they like, but no one can honestly make her teachings agree with the false teachings of the 20th century theologians' that "The fallible teachings of popes are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #96 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:13:17 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.

You simply declare these to be false without any argument for why they're false. So everything taught by any 20th-century theologian is false?

I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".

I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church. I say that when the revolution was only initially being perpetrated in the late 60s, when the Catholic world was still largely Catholic and the vast majority of hold outs still rejected the NO and still clung tightly to their faith and their Mass, this teaching is the crow bar that finally was able to pry the stubborn holdouts from their faith and accept the new faith. It was always, literally, "if the pope said it, then we have to do it because it must be ok". The reason they all thought like that was because of the 20th century theologians who promulgated their false teaching regarding the infallibility of the pope as a teaching of the Church.

Quote from: Ladislaus

NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that it's possible for the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go so badly off the rails as to justify and even require schism from the Catholic hierarchy. Infallible safety derives from the indefectibility of the Church. So, if you disagree with this position, rather than simply dismissing the opinion as false and denouncing "20th-century" theologians, demonstrate how the Church would not have defected in her mission if she could lead souls to hell through her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.

So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, which means those who went along with the revolution did so under false pretenses that the imposition of the NO, having the pope's and council's blessing, was a product of infallibility. IOW, the people were fooled, something else most will likely deny can happen even though it did - and still does.

They all went along because they were taught that no matter what the pope says or does, it is automatically infallible. That the pope's power is limitless. That "if the pope said it's ok, we gotta do it". Where did this originate? Where did they all learn this from? I don't mean only lay people, I mean pretty much everyone - priests, bishops, seminarians, nuns, nearly everyone. Where did the millions get this teaching from that made them all believe the pope is infallible no matter what he does? From discussions on another forum, the answer keeps pointing back to originating with some of the "respected" 20th century theologians who invented the whole idea and passed it off as a teaching of the Church.

Per V1, the conditions for papal and OUM infallibility that Pope Pius IX spelled out for all those teachings Catholics must submit to under pain of mortal sin are these:

The teachings must be contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Note these conditions above are the same for papal infallibility ("Ex Cathedra") as well as the infallibility of the teachings of the OUM. Does not the teachings from an Ecuмenical Council qualify as teachings of the OUM?

So there it is. All anyone can do, is try and accuse V1 of failing in it's duty by not covering everything, or that there are exceptions or additional conditions not mentioned, or it is incomplete, or whatever other excuses one wants to make to reduce the decrees to mere starting points so "we'll take it from here", but the doctrine of papal and OUM infallibility is right there, solemnly decreed. Who ever thinks they know more can try all they like, but no one can honestly make her teachings agree with the false teachings of the 20th century theologians' that "The fallible teachings of popes are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".

What does your Pope (Saint Benedict Center) say about the doubtful and invalid Sacraments? Valid Popes can do this right? No more valid Bishops or Priests but it's cool. A Pope can do that.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #97 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:18:15 PM »

Quote

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

If what you hold about the Papacy is true then you make a mockery of Christ and the Church.

snowball · « **Reply #98 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:22:51 PM »

Quote from: knish

I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.

Either a true Pope will be chosen who will anathematize Vatican II and all its
antipopes, or a true Pope will be elected by dissident bishops .. if that happens,
most of the world will consider the true Pope to be the antipope.
I think sedevacantists are still hoping for a change to come from within
which is why they have been so patient about it.
These issues are coming to a head.
I've been reading Philip Hughes's 3-volume History of the Catholic Church.
He started a 4th but passed away in 1967.
If the Church got through everything it's been through, it can get through this
also. Only God knows if the end times are quickly approaching, or if we are
only moving through a stage in Church history.
As my grandmother used to say, "something's gotta break".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #99 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:23:03 PM »

Quote

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48]. (Membership within the Church depends on this yet you reject the doctrines, worship and disciplines of the one you must accept in order to be a member within the Church. LoT)

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #100 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:25:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I thought I made my argument clear but apparently not. So, allow me to clarify - Per the posters on SD, the 20th century theologians teach as a teaching of the Church, that; "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful".

I argue that this is a novel teaching, not a teaching of the Church.

You don't "argue" anything. You just make the claim. Your position is proximate to heresy because it rejects a principle that derives very clearly from the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.

Quote from: Stubborn

So what if NO THEOLOGIAN has ever taught that, Vatican 1 decrees the conditions for infallibility of the OUM and the pope - those conditions were never present at V2, ...

Again, you understand nothing about the Church's broader indefectibility. This has little to do with infallibility in the strict sense.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #101 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:26:29 PM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: knish

I don't know the solution. I do know I can't continue lying to myself about these destroyers of the faith.

Either a true Pope will be chosen who will anathematize Vatican II and all its
antipopes, or a true Pope will be elected by dissident bishops .. if that happens,
most of the world will consider the true Pope to be the antipope.
I think sedevacantists are still hoping for a change to come from within
which is why they have been so patient about it.
These issues are coming to a head.
I've been reading Philip Hughes's 3-volume History of the Catholic Church.
He started a 4th but passed away in 1967.
If the Church got through everything it's been through, it can get through this
also. Only God knows if the end times are quickly approaching, or if we are
only moving through a stage in Church history.
As my grandmother used to say, "something's gotta break".

I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.

"Within" what? It is not the Catholic Church but the Church of Satan that everyone is so obsessed with. It is the ape of the Catholic Church with its new false everything. That is the big mistake of many traditionalists, pretending that the NO is somehow the Catholic Church. It is Satan's favorite Church because the most souls, by far, are led to Hell through it.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #102 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:37:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's quite simple, everyone.

If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected. This is very simple and no error, Stubborn. You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.

While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect. Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold. It is not Catholic.

Of all the arguments and opinions I've heard... yours seems to be the most logical.

There doesn't seem to be any logical solution for the vast array of opinions out there on this subject. :cheers:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #103 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:38:12 PM »

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Do you do this Stubborn? - J.G.)

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50]. (You are not in the flock if you do not do this Stubborn)

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (You have departed from it Stubborn)

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51] (You must submit to the bishops under the "Pope" Stubborn, what does SBC say about that?)

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power (or retired lawyers for Virginia, the SSPX, the SBC or the Dimonds God forbid), which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon (Do you get that Stubborn?) [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

This is the council you keep appealing to right Stubborn?

Stubborn be honest is this how you regard Francis? Is this how you "submit" to him. Be honest.

snowball · « **Reply #104 on:** June 21, 2016, 12:50:56 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I don't hope for a change from within. My SV friends do not see this happening. We laugh at the idea. Sandborn favorite theory depends on this happening in a certain sense though.

Nevertheless, the only two options, from within (at least partially), or
from without totally.. which hasn't happened yet. As long as SV's don't
have a Pope, they are being patient... for what ?
Do you have a link to Sandborn's favorite theory specifically as
it pertains to the machinations of a full restoration in the Church ?