Fr. Raphael Arizaga has come out as a sedevacantist.

This quote alone proves it: Neither we can say that the Conciliar Church "has something Catholic”

One cannot be an ecclesiavacantist without also being sedevacantist. It is a logical impossibility.

UPDATE 2/15/17: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-truth-about-Fr-Raphael-Arizaga-OSB


Dear friends and benefactors:

"The religion that comes from heaven is truth, and she is intolerant with other doctrines " Card Pie.

    Our Monastery San José has held since its beginning, the following teaching of Cardinal Pie which has been our guide in the midst of the crisis of the Church that we are going through. This teaching  has been a guide by which Our Lord test constantly our fidelity to His Truth, to His Love. This has brought to us persecution and the fact of being stripped of our Monastery San Jose in Colombia. But we know that this is the price that the love of Christ demands from us and by which we demonstrate our love that we have for Him and for his immutable Truth.

This is the luminous principle that has guided us:
"Battles are won or lost at the level of principles. If we wait until we see the consequences of false principles in order to react, we will lose the battle, and it will be too late to try react"

 In terms of faith we have several principles that we cannot alter without being guilty of betraying Christ:
1.-"He who is not with me is against Me"
2 .-"The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ" (traditional catechism)

  - "The Conciliar Church is a Counter-Church" (Bishop De Castro Mayer,
 Publication to the fathers of Campos # 33)
 - There is a "radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church” (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, Sermon Econe, June 29, 1976)

    And the spirit of the Conciliar Church was clearly manifested throughout the Council Vatican II. This Council created another religion and wanted to impose it with deceitfulness to the whole Catholic Church through blind obedience. The most beloved fruit of this Council was the new Mass. Necessarily must be considered as intrinsically evil to everything that flows from this new religion of Vatican II, which is not the Catholic religion, is the religion of the Conciliar Church.
     This new rite of the Mass expresses a "New faith, a faith that is not ours, a faith that is not the Catholic faith “ (Mons. Lefebvre, Idem).

   So, Why do we say that the Conciliar Church, also known as the official Church, has betrayed Jesus Christ? Because the Conciliar Church has embraced the Masonic principles of freedom, equality and fraternity (religious freedom, ecuмenism and collegiality),  revolutionary ideas opposed to the Catholic Church and CONDEMNED BY SHE HERSELF MANY TIMES. Those diabolical maxims mixed with what it seems the Catholic religion is what is called the new religion of the Conciliar Church.

     As a consequence of principles 1 and 2, mentioned above, one cannot say that Vatican II has a percentage of good things (“95% of the Vat II Council is acceptable”, Msgr. Fellay, magazine La Liberté, 11-05-11). Neither we can say that the New Mass has something good (“There is something good in the new Mass” Dom Tomas de Aquino, In defense of Mons. Williamson II). Neither we can say that the Conciliar Church "has something Catholic” (Msgr. Williamson, Eleison 445).
 And following the same principle one can not seek to associate and much less to seek to be integrated into this new religion of Vatican II (commitments, concessions, and soon the Personal Prelature that will be granted to the SSPX within the Conciliar Church).

   In a similar way one can not accept that someone may allow, or worst, that one may NOT condemn this association of the SSPX with the Conciliar Church (we are referring to the policy that the 3 “Resistant” bishops have adopted of putting only a yellow light instead of a red light to all those who want to continue to be associated with the SSPX).

 There are other doctrines taught by these bishops which cause an dangerous approach of our faithful to this adulterous spirit of the New Church. We can mention as examples the recommendation of Valtorta, heretical and forbidden book; Or the teaching of the existence of "miracles" in the new Mass (we could say that "despite" the new Mass there could exist miracles, but we cannot say that miracles can happen in the new Mass).

  This attitude of the SSPX, of the three bishops of the “Resistance", and of their followers, break flagrantly against those 2 unalterable principles mentioned before.

    We can not longer consider them as defendants of our sacred faith while they not change their false doctrine. And against all appearances they are not anymore followers of Christ nor the saints, neither of Monsignor Lefebvre. They are losing the battle and fighting against the interests of Christ.

    As long as they do not rectify the road we have to move away from them. Us
 We will approach them again when they speak and act as Catholic bishops.
 But we make it clear that we will never stop praying for them. We will always practice charity towards their souls.

   It is already a little more than a year that the bishops of the so-called "Resistance" have fallen on these serious doctrinal errors, either by word or by silent complicity. Some of them, bishops, priests, or even layman, have realized the mistakes, but they have loved more the bond of friendship than Truth. They preferred to defend their friend or father instead of defending the truth.

     Even one of them went so far as to say, "They do more good than bad", breaking again the same principle: in matters of faith one is either with Christ or against Christ; either one teaches and defends everything, or one does neither teaches nor defends anything. This attitude of all of them forces us to continue the battle in spite of them so as not to have to lower our combat weapons out of human respect. By charity we must admonish them and set the example, inviting them to continuous martyrdom and glorious persecution and suffering; inheritance of those who fight the good fight of faith. Let us pray that the 6 traditional bishops will come out of their sleep, from their comfortable trench, so that with the grace of God they may rise as did David once who knew how to shepherd flocks, and fight against Goliath with the strength of God in order to save his people, a people that is now only a remnant, but a faithful remnant, children of God, sons conquered at the price of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to reach the eternal happiness of Heaven.
 
       Already the illustrious Cardinal Pie had warned us as regards the reasons for such painful falls which could happen to any one of us if we do not put ourselves in guard with the armor of faith, and fidelity to the principles: "The same Christians, living in the middle of this impure atmosphere, have not completely avoided their contagion: they accept too easily many of the errors. Fatigued to resist the essential points, often tired of struggling, yield in other points that seem less important to them, and sometimes they do not notice - because they do not want to realize - how far they can be carried by their imprudent weakness. Between this confusion of ideas and false opinions it is up to us priests of the incorruptible truth to come out and censor with action and word, satisfied if the rigid inflexibility of our teaching can stop the overflow of lies, dethrone the erroneous principles that reign proudly in the intelligences, correct destructive axioms already admitted... Our time cries: Tolerance! Tolerance! It is admitted that a priest must be tolerant, that religion must be tolerant. My brothers: first, nothing equals frankness, and I come to tell you bluntly that there is in the world only one Society that has the truth, and that this society must necessarily be intolerant... It is of the essence of all truth not to tolerate the contradictory principle. The affirmation of a thing excludes the negation of that same thing, as light excludes darkness. Where nothing is defined, feelings can be divided, opinions can vary. I understand and ask for freedom in the debatable things: In dubiis libertas. But when the truth comes with the sureties of certainty that distinguishes it, exactly because it is true, then it is affirmative, it is necessary and, consequently, it is one and intolerant: In necessariis unitas. To condemn the truth to tolerance is to force it to commit ѕυιcιdє. The affirmation is annihilated itself if it doubts itself of itself, and doubts itself if it remains indifferent to the fact that the denial of it be placed at its side. For the truth, intolerance is the longing for conservation, the legitimate exercise of the right of property. When it is possessed, it is necessary to defend itself, under pain of being soon totally stripped. Therefore, my brothers, because of the very necessity of things, intolerance is necessary in everything, because in everything there is good and evil, truth and falsehood, order and disorder; everywhere truth does not support the false, good excludes evil, order fights disorder."

With the blessing and in union of prayers

Father Rafael Arízaga OSB
Prior of the Monastery San José

That's a pretty serious rant against the three Resistance bishops.

Is this Fr. Arizaga a sedevacantist, or maybe associated with Boston, Kentucky? I haven't heard of him before.

Meg,
Whats the difference between a rant and quoting someone's exact words?

Quote from: Meg

That's a pretty serious rant against the three Resistance bishops.

Is this Fr. Arizaga a sedevacantist, or maybe associated with Boston, Kentucky? I haven't heard of him before.

Meg,
Whats the difference between a rant and quoting someone's exact words?

Who accused the OP of ranting? The most logical assumption is that Fr. Raphael Arizaga (the author of the words) is being identified as the "ranter".

Of course these aren't Enoc's words. They are Fr. Raphael's words.

But I would say the same thing myself:

That's a pretty serious rant against the three Resistance bishops which God has given us. Shame on Fr. Raphael.

  This attitude of the SSPX, of the three bishops of the “Resistance", and of their followers, break flagrantly against those 2 unalterable principles mentioned before.

    We can not longer consider them as defendants of our sacred faith while they not change their false doctrine. And against all appearances they are not anymore followers of Christ nor the saints, neither of Monsignor Lefebvre. They are losing the battle and fighting against the interests of Christ.

    As long as they do not rectify the road we have to move away from them. Us
 We will approach them again when they speak and act as Catholic bishops.
 But we make it clear that we will never stop praying for them. We will always practice charity towards their souls.

Am I the only one that can read this with pure objectivity?

If someone just arrived into this fray (the classic "alien from Mars" perspective, which is a metaphor for pure objectivity) -- let's say a Catholic from 1850 --  he would say that this letter reads like a Papal Bull of excommunication.

He done kicked them three bishops right out of the Catholic Church! All hail Pope Raphael!

He lays out the doctrine and principles, claims that so-and-so has violated this doctrine, and proceeds to exclude him from God's flock "for the correction of his soul" which is what excommunication is always for.

This tendency towards fracture, fighting, and informal "excommunication" is what I hate about so many sedevacantists. And yes, TKGS, it isn't just the Dimond Brothers and a few others. I believe it is not accidental, but rather fundamental to the sedevacantist position. The sede position tends towards simpler, black and white "thinking" and "reasoning". When your thinking is this simplistic, and you consider youself "good", naturally you are going to condemn all those who don't think like you as "evil".

That is why so many fora have banned Sedevacantists outright. Generally speaking they don't "play well with others". Of course, that is with all due respect to the Sedevacantists that are on CathInfo.

And yes I include Fr. Raphael in that number. If he isn't sede today, give him a few months or a few years. He'll get there. He's mostly there already.

Quote from: KatieRose

Quote from: Meg

That's a pretty serious rant against the three Resistance bishops.

Is this Fr. Arizaga a sedevacantist, or maybe associated with Boston, Kentucky? I haven't heard of him before.

Meg,
Whats the difference between a rant and quoting someone's exact words?

Who accused the OP of ranting? The most logical assumption is that Fr. Raphael Arizaga (the author of the words) is being identified as the "ranter".

Of course these aren't Enoc's words. They are Fr. Raphael's words.

But I would say the same thing myself:

That's a pretty serious rant against the three Resistance bishops which God has given us. Shame on Fr. Raphael.

I'm not accusing the OP of ranting. Of course the words are Fr. Arizaga's. I didn't intend to imply that they weren't.

Shortly after he was consecrated as bishop, Bishop Faure said in an interview that the Resistance receives attacks from both the right and the left. The left being those who want the SSPX to reconcile with Rome, and on the right the sedevacantists. That's why I asked if Father was a sedevacantist. They are the ones on the right who will most likely to attack the Resistance.

Note: most sedevacantists (we have no Pope) are also ecclesiavacantists (the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, their bishops are not bishops, their priests are not priests, etc.)

This is not correct.  To say the conciliar church is not the Catholic church is not the same as saying there is no Catholic Church.  

Likewise, to say the Lutheran Church is not the Catholic church is not equal to saying there is no Catholic church.

The Catholic church is recognized by her four marks (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), whcih the conciliar church does not possess.  She is visible, meaning she possesses the threefold bond which persons can see using their external senses, of public profession of the same faith, participation in the same rites, and obedience to the same (true) authority.

The conciliar church does not profess the Catholic faith, it has instituted its own sacraments different from the sacraments of the Catholic church, and its authority is anarchical and anti-Christ.

Father's quotes Cardinal Pie and his principles are true.  People don't like the conclusions that flow from those principles.    

Quote from: Magna opera Domini

Quote from: Matthew

Note: most sedevacantists (we have no Pope) are also ecclesiavacantists (the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, their bishops are not bishops, their priests are not priests, etc.)

This is not correct.  To say the conciliar church is not the Catholic church is not the same as saying there is no Catholic Church.  
 

Plenty of people say the conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (simpliciter).
But they also say that Francis Bergoglio is not the Pope of the Catholic Church.

That is my point.

Francis is the pope of the conciliar church, we all agree.

If the conciliar church is not the Catholic church, can he also be the pope of the Catholic church?  Is there such a thing as a pope of two churches, a false church and the one, true, Catholic church?