End of discussion by me! My reasons follow…

The Sedevacantists have accomplished a diabolical inversion, professing errors in order to pretend to remain faithful to Tradition! They invert the patently clear and most solemnly defined teachings and construe them to mean exactly the opposite of what the Church has always professed them to mean; and what the saints, Doctors, Popes, theologians, and the vast multitude of faithful have constantly professed them to mean. They fancy themselves to be a tiny faithful remnant, loyal to Tradition -- but in reality, they are a mere dissidents who have alienated themselves from communion with the One Holy Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

I read this in Matthew’s rules for this site:
Quote: “As a footnote, the "official position" of CathInfo regarding the Crisis in the Church is the SSPX position. (Not that it really matters -- see Rule #2) CathInfo is also officially behind Bishop Williamson, and has no disagreement with anything he has said publicly or in private.”[/b] Unquote

Really? Wow! Is that true? Maybe if I use private judgment I can interpret it to mean something else. To me it seems to be contradictory, either Bishop Williamson is in error or it is the sedevacantists who are trying to suck the life out of Tradition. Bugger private judgement, we get deceived by this trickery every day, one of the best tools in the devil’s kitbag. I know whose judgement I will follow, and here’s a clue, it will not be Mithrandylan’s.

Below is what Bishop Williamson said in 1990.
Quote: “….The Society of St. Pius X has from the beginning rejected sedevacantism and continues to do so. Catholics are told that if they find any Society priest taking that position, he is out of line with the Society, and in fact numbers of Society priests have left the Society, or forced their own dismissal, because of their aggressive sedevacantism….” Unquote

Do I have to quote more, I have heaps and no matter how much private judgement you throw at me at the end of the day the SSPX/Resistance is not, I repeat not, sedevacantist. That is an error that should be corrected. If CathInfo really is officially behind Bishop Williamson, and has no disagreement with anything he has said publicly or in private then sedes should never be allowed to express their trash on this site in the manner they do. Based on the above rule is gives the appearance that it is line with Bishop Williamson’s and the SSPX/Resistance line of thinking.

The quote above was from when the Archbishop was still alive. Mithrandylan, did you hear any outbursts, any complaints, anything from the Archbishop, the other Bishops, its Priests  anyone?  NO,  because that was the position of the SSPX and don’t let no leech attach himself to you and allow you to think you and it are one and the same and never the twain shall part.  

I have probably over stepped the mark and I do apologise to Matthew, but the Church has always taught us when there is a problem to take the safest path. Can you honestly tell me sedevacantism is the safest path?

Another quote from the good Bishop:
 “Yet good Catholics do fall into sedevacantism. Many do so, because of a false dilemma. They say: if he is pope he must be obeyed; if he need not be obeyed then he cannot be pope. The error here is an error on obedience. The truth is that absolute obedience in everything is owed to no superior except to God (a tape and a flyer are always available from the seminary on the question of true and false obedience). I am perfectly entitled to "disobey" the pope when he gives me an unlawful order, but that does not entitle me to disobey his lawful orders.” Unquote

Submitting to heretics is the safest path?


Mmmmkay.  

 :really-mad2:Are you calling Bishop Williamson a heretic? Shame on you. :pop:

Quote from: 2Vermont

Submitting to heretics is the safest path?


Mmmmkay.  

 :really-mad2:Are you calling Bishop Williamson a heretic? Shame on you. :pop:

No, I just disagree that the Resistance has the right answer in the Crisis.

But I can see that even though you said this was the "end" of the discussion for you, it's really not.  

You continue to safely "submit" to the non-Catholic non-pope.

But as long as they can say they are submitting to the "Supreme Pontiff", then they can point to sedevacantists and call them diabolical, heretics, schismatics, yada yada.

Capiche?

Very well put.  The Apostate heretic is Pope even though he can't be and we submit to him even though we do not.  Pretty fun position to be in.  Kind of like the idea that one only has to believe in order to be saved.  

Quote from: Mithrandylan

a. No traditional Catholic accepts the VII claimants, though.  The most you'll get is vain lip service from them (inserting the title "pope" before his name) and an insertion of his name at the canon.

Traditional Catholics:

1) Don't worship according to his liturgy; in fact they refuse to
2) Don't believe his doctrines (VII); in fact they refuse to
3) Don't venerate his saints
4) Don't use his calendar
5) Don't follow his canon law
6) Don't worship at the places he's approved for worship
7) Don't attend the liturgies celebrated by priests he sent
8) Don't particpate in the sacramental rites he's approved
9) Don't follow the fasting and abstinence laws approved by him
10) Don't follow the indulgences he's approved
11) Don't even pray the same rosary

I could go on.  One does not treat a man whose legitimacy they are certain of as if he had no legitimacy.  Inserting the title "pope" in front of his name does not supply for a whole-sale rejection of his religion; that is not what the theologians mean when they speak of accepting a pope.  The pope is the proximate rule of faith from whom Catholics learn the faith.  Traditional Catholics actually go out of their way to NOT learn their faith from these men.

But as long as they can say they are submitting to the "Supreme Pontiff", then they can point to sedevacantists and call them diabolical, heretics, schismatics, yada yada.

Capiche?

Great points but let's face it if the "canonizations" ROFL :roll-laugh1: don't get them to see the reality I don't think anything will.

Because of course canonizations are not infallible and a True Roman Pontiff can put people who may not even be saved, the one was most probably a freemason, to the honor of the Altars for the whole Church to pray to and venerate.

They obviously can't face the truth because intellectually they feel they don't have an answer for it and they're too scared to go there so the ridiculous farce of "recognizing" and resisting aka not listening to or doing a thing that he promotes or says must go on.

You don’t get it do you; Let me write this slowly so it will stick, although I doubt it! :sad:

This...  is...   in...   Matthew’s...  rules...  for...  this...   site:
Quote: “As a footnote, the "official position" of CathInfo regarding the Crisis in the Church is the SSPX position. (Not that it really matters -- see Rule #2) CathInfo is also officially behind Bishop Williamson, and has no disagreement with anything he has said publicly or in private.”Unquote

You understand what this means sedes, the OFFICIAL POSITION, you got that, OFFICIAL POSITION. The OFFICIAL POSITION is 100% with Bishop Williamson. It does not matter one ounce what your dribble, excuses, complaints are.  :sleep:Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, SSPX and the Resistance are never, never, never sedevacantists. So why are you infiltrating Cathinfo with your false errors? Ah ha, the old rule eh, divide and conquer.  Maybe this quote from Bishop Williamson will convince you that this site is not for sedevacantists and that you are on the wrong train.

Quote:
 “The Archbishop achieved a well-balanced overview of the whole problem in the Church, which was the fruit of his experience and spirit of prayer, his virtues and gifts received from God. Bishop de Castro Mayer drew closer to the Archbishop in his last years, but it seems that the Campos priests did not have their own bishop's wisdom or, perhaps, his humility. In my opinion the Campos priests have gone backwards because they had a different way of looking at the crisis of the Church.

Let me explain: up until the consecrations of 1988 Bishop de Castro Mayer's reaction to the crisis was curious. On the one hand he was legalistic, tending to stick to the letter of the law. For instance after ceasing to be the diocesan bishop of Campos, he ordained no more priests except one that he ordained after the 1988 Consecrations. On the other hand he had a tendency towards sedevacantism, as when he would say of John Paul II, 'Whoever does not belong to the body of the Church cannot be its head'.

Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of this twofold tendency in Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is why he would say concerning the bishop's legalism, 'Bishop de Castro Mayer must understand that today we have to "go illegal", if necessary' (a remark to be understood, obviously, in the present context), and concerning his sedevacantism, Archbishop Lefebvre said, 'Were it not for me, Bishop de Castro Mayer would be sedevacantist, but in order not to separate from us, he holds back from sedevacantism'.

 I think the Archbishop was right. There were in Bishop de Castro Mayer the two tendencies of legalism and sedevacantism. The bishop's friendship with Archbishop Lefebvre moderated these two tendencies and enabled Bishop de Castro Mayer to take courageous and well-founded positions. However the Campos priests seem never to have completely shaken off these two false ways of posing today's problem, because they seem to me to argue like the sedevacantists: 'If John Paul 11is Pope, we must obey him. If we do not obey him, we must declare that he is not Pope' ...

The Campos priests, in my opinion, are lacking in vision. They are taking too simple a view of this crisis. What is the cause of this turning back of theirs? Either they never judged the crisis in the way that the Archbishop did, or, under the influence of some of their own number, they slipped back, and left the good road on which Bishop de Castro Mayer had set out before he died ... For sure and certain they always kept a certain distance between themselves and the Society.” Unquote :applause: :applause: :applause:

Now do you understand! There is no friendship between the SSPX/Resistance and sedevacantists. I’m sorry but that is how it is, just like a leech to its victim. When the victim realizes he is getting sucked dry he will as quick as he can separate himself from the leech. Capiche?

Put as many dislikes as you like it does not change anything. It only proves that you are applying private judgement of convenience to Matthew’s rules, just as you do with your sedevacantist errors. :roll-laugh2:

Yeah, pbax.

For someone who thinks the discussion is over, you have a penchant for coming back to it.  Sort of.  I don't see how any of your last three posts amount to much more than a puerile "go away!"  

There have been plenty of threads on ++Lefebvre and ++dCM.  I'm about out of energy with people like you.  You're late to the party; your one-dimensional and primarily political views have been handled over and over again.  You're posting to convince yourself, not anyone else.