Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: soulguard on March 21, 2014, 12:00:47 PM
-
Just so people know, I retract my opinion that the SSPX has no right to defy a valid pope if they think conciliar popes are valid, and I also retract sedevacantism.
Reason 1: SSPX has the faith, and it seems that a valid pope has no right to alter the faith, therefore the SSPX are in communion with eternal rome, and not in schism, whereas the reigning pope is in schism. But he is still the pope because:
Reason 2: I now think Francis is the pope because it seems more prudent to follow the advice of priests and bishops than make the decision on my own. Until the traditional bishops and priests condemn the pope as an antipope then I will say that he is the pope, but not proudly, because I cant wait for him to be deposed, disgrace that he is to the church. Basically i am letting the bishops of tradition do the thinking for me on the issue of whether we have a pope. This position thouroughly disgusts me and I despise the liberal traitors and freemasons in the vatican, but until some traditional bishops meet together and decide to condem the claim of this man, then i will stay out of it. Holding on to the SV position would only create divisions between myself and the only traditional Catholic organisation in this country.
Might change my mind, because i still have not got a better reason why francis is pope other than 2, but i have been contemplating this for a while, and i see my place as within the church, not as a home aloner, because i hope for a vocation to be fulfilled.
Dont anyone think that this is some miracle, because the arguments against SV were ridiculous. This is a decision based on practicalities and emotion and even faith, not on hard facts to answer the question.
End of.
-
Until the traditional bishops and priests condemn the pope as an antipope then I will say that he is the pop....
I take it you have never talked with a traditional bishop. Many do condemn Bergoglio as an anti-pope.
-
You seem a bit rudderless, soulguard. The waters of our day are rough and the fog dense, but you seem to have thrown the ores overboard, too, determined to wait until the rudder starts to work on its own.
Congratulations on realizing that the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre was never in schism. This is truly old news, but it was all Vatican sanctioned propaganda designed to confuse the faithful as well as many of the priests and religious. As it was not in schism and continued to offer the true Mass and valid sacraments and, thereby, save souls, it really, really, really displeased the Devil and his agents in Rome. So, guess what? They, demonstrating a persistence that is worthy of praise within itself, systematically infiltrated the SSPX (call a spade a spade). We are seeing the fruits of their hellish hounds let loose against many priests and faithful who you know to be part of what has become known as the Resistance. You shall know them by their fruits. And they are clever little sowers of cockle, indeed. Their fruits are in full bloom. You can find them in the chaos and confusion section at your local SSPX chapel. They didn’t barge in and declare war. That would be far too obvious. Nope, they are charming and polished – just like all other socio-paths (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html). . . producers of glossy magazines and seducers of the lukewarm.
The Devil has been having a field day with you, obviously . . . “. . . it seems more prudent to follow the advice of priests and bishops than make the decision on my own.” Yes, of course, but which ones? The ones who are being persecuted in the name of Tradition or the ones doing the persecution in the supposed name of Tradition, but, in fact, are true champions of change. The ones suffering true persecution are easily recognized: they have been left without hearth and home. They have been exiled from their communities and their reputations have been dismantled, but they are holding to the true Faith and a suitcase and far too many frequent-flyer points.
Soulguard, you are obliged only to hold to the Roman Catholic Faith. It’s found in your catechism. Read it and heed it in order to guard your soul!
-
+AMDG+
Friday of the Second Week in Lent & Feast Of SAINT BENEDICT (543 A.D.)
We keep praying for you and your desire to be a monk - a Benedictine Monk.
So keep praying ~ Sedes Sapientiae, Ora Pro Nobis.
-
Not sure why you felt the need to announce this if you "might change [your] mind ," "[made the decision based on] practicalities and emotion" and the fact that you recognize the arguments against your former position were "ridiculous."
-
soulguard, in all charity, you seem to change your opinion quite often. I guess that's understandable given the circuмstances we find ourselves in, but maybe if you're not so sure about your opinion you shouldn't post about them with such certainty (and then renege).
-
Soulguard, there are some traditional bishops and priests who "condemn the claim of this man". You might check out the Insitiute of the Mother of Good Counsel http://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/index.php?pid=1 Don Floriano Abrahamovic is loosely affiliated, and probably others. Then there's CMRI. Why do you need to make a firm commitment on this issue. Let it ride and it will eventually be clarified. Just follow the Catholic teaching and live a life of prayer and sacrifice and don't worry about declaring yourself at this stage.
-
The main reason most of us say he is the pope is because according to the law, that's what he is. Beyond that, there's really isn't anything anyone can do about it even if he were not the pope.
We need to persevere and keep the faith no matter what - in this crisis, that means keep the faith in spite of the conciliar popes. It is beyond a travesty to even say that, but that's just the way it is until heaven does something about it.
-
This seems sincere soulguard and I hope you continue in your faith. I would not assert or make the claim that Bergoglio is anybody. If you are uncertain just don't make any statement about the papacy is what I would do. Remember in cuм Ex Apostolatus it is stated that even if every cardinal votes or (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. The SSPX has the faith.
The bishops don't have to speak for it to be null.
-
The main reason most of us say he is the pope is because according to the law, that's what he is. Beyond that, there's really isn't anything anyone can do about it even if he were not the pope.
We need to persevere and keep the faith no matter what - in this crisis, that means keep the faith in spite of the conciliar popes. It is beyond a travesty to even say that, but that's just the way it is until heaven does something about it.
According to the law he is not pope.....
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.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm
-
edit
-
The main reason most of us say he is the pope is because according to the law, that's what he is. Beyond that, there's really isn't anything anyone can do about it even if he were not the pope.
We need to persevere and keep the faith no matter what - in this crisis, that means keep the faith in spite of the conciliar popes. It is beyond a travesty to even say that, but that's just the way it is until heaven does something about it.
According to the law he is not pope.....
Thank U--- :detective: :reporter:
-
The main reason most of us say he is the pope is because according to the law, that's what he is. Beyond that, there's really isn't anything anyone can do about it even if he were not the pope.
We need to persevere and keep the faith no matter what - in this crisis, that means keep the faith in spite of the conciliar popes. It is beyond a travesty to even say that, but that's just the way it is until heaven does something about it.
According to the law he is not pope.....
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm
Either way, cuм ex tells us what we are to do about it. Beyond contradicting him, no one - alone or all together - can do anything about it.
1. ....Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.
The Church is the one who established the election procedures, and since those procedures are followed for each election, including the NO elections, the presumption is that the newly elected person is the new pope. That is the law. That is the way the Church works.
Our knowledge of his heresies in no way qualify or authorize us to determine that he was never elected as pope. That is not how the Church works.
Even though all the faithful on earth may know well that the pope has committed sins to which the censure of ipso facto excommunication is affixed by the Church, this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected - and because there is no clergy or tribunal within the Church to make this final decision, sad though it is, the man who was elected remains the pope till he retires or dies.
SG is going through the same thing many of us have gone through while trying to sift through the same confusion - but as has been said, keep the faith and do not be concerned whether the man is pope or not - there's nothing you can do about it either way.
-
Public heretics cannot possess offices in the Catholic Church.
You must be a member of the Church to possess an office.
You are not a member if you have publicly defected from the Faith.
-
In the number of years I have gone to the Latin mass, I have gone to masses said by priests, who do not hold the sede vacantist position, for about half of those years. I still continue to do so, without any problems.
You don't need to talk about these things in order to go to mass or to collaborate with other Catholics towards a common goal.
The traditional bishops have about as much power as the rest of us to turn things around, we are all in the same boat, relying on Almighty God to sustain us through this storm and to end this chastisement. All we can do is to hang on to our Faith, pass it down, and remain united with all who hold the Catholic Faith.
-
Soulgard, read carefully the entire text of the decree that Centroamerica has cited because it will prove that sedevacantism is an error, especially right in the beginning:
"We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world,"[/b]
Sedevacantism is a dangerous error involving the private judgement of those who are not entitled to judge (can you spell P-R-O-T-E-S-T-A-N-T-I-S-M).
Sedevantistism is outside the Catholic Faith and you should challenge anybody who holds it to prove that they are entitled to be the judge with in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Absent such proof consider that Sedevacantism itself is a dangerous heresy for you as a Catholic to avoid.
-
Since your retracted your opinions, you must now realize that you can never be taken seriously again.
I hope you appreciate the fact that I have pointed out to you where things now stand.
-
Since your retracted your opinions, you must now realize that you can never be taken seriously again.
I hope you appreciate the fact that I have pointed out to you where things now stand.
:dancing-banana:
ABL changed his ideas with regard to the Papacy and with what should be the Society's actions regarding the unconverted Vatican. Unless you believe soulguard to speak infallibly, :roll-laugh1: is he not entitled to change his mind? He and his fallible opinions are entitled to respect, same as any others. We are always free to accept or reject his ideas--unless soulguard is now entrusted with the Deposit of Faith!!!!!!!
-
Agreed, Frances.
It's a tricky situation to deal with and the more you learn, the better your judgements.
This is just my opinion but this is the way I understand it...
I'm not a sedevacantist in practice because then, all of Our Lady's prophesies regarding a time of bad popes would not be true. Also, there is practical versus real. Practically he is pope, but in God's reality, he's just a guy in white vestments. Like pope Michael.
-
I would just like to say that I was just joking and regret having made my above comment.
-
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.
The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.
Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.
-
Looking forward to your future retraction of your retraction.
Some Protestant denominations differ from Catholicism " . . . only in degrees of belief . . .".
:baby:
-
I would just like to say that I was just joking and regret having made my above comment.
Sounds like a retraction if I ever heard one.
-
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.
The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.
Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.
This is amusing that the same errors and heresy that the SSPX is accusing sedevacantists of holding to is actually being used by those who are affirming Francis is the pope unquestionably. Soulguard must not have read much regarding the positions he is changing ever so rapidly.
"The first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas surfaced during the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII in the 1300’s.[28] In 1681 a General Assembly of the French clergy summoned by Louis XIV, King of France, obtained the “Declaration of the Four Articles,” known as the Four Gallican Propositions, namely that:
The pope may not interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal concerns of princes.
In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.
The rights and customs of the Gallican church are inviolable.
The Pope is not infallible, even in matters of Faith, unless his decision is confirmed by the consent of the Church.[29]
From the second proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils. This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism:
Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.[30]
It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic_part_3.htm
-
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him.
SG, that doesn't make any sense. Whether or not Francis is a valid pope is a matter of fact, and matters of fact are true or false on their own merits. For example, when the Church condemned Luther he did not begin to be a non-Catholic at the moment he was condemned; he was a non-Catholic the moment he began to be a public heretic. The Church's ruling was not what caused Martin Luther to be a non-Catholic, it was Martin Luther's own actions which caused that.
Another way to think about it is that the Church only declares on matters of fact when she judges heretics. In other words, if the Church was ever to judge Francis an anti-pope, it would first have to be true in the order of fact that he was an anti-pope!
Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.
So what? I know you've got a really weird and nonsensical brand of sedevacantism going on which involves attending the Novus Ordo and relying on Novus Ordo ministers for the sacraments (though hopefully no longer?) but traditional Catholics generally anticipate the Church's judgement on condemning the Novus Ordo and Vatican II-- what's so different about the Vatican II claimants, that we cannot anticipate the Church's judgement on them?
The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.
I don't really know what you're saying here, but your assertion that the conciliar Church is the Catholic Church (why is Catholic in quotes?) is not supported by the proceeding sentences. Are they supposed to prove your assertion? The fact that there are a few Catholics left who appear to be "in" the Novus Ordo Church does not make the Novus Ordo Church the Catholic Church.
Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.[/b]
That is a bad analogy. What we are experiencing is heresy and apostasy in practice, discipline and doctrine from the Novus Ordo Church. The Catholic Church is not an apple, prone to producing either good fruit or poison. She cannot give poison at all. The fact that the Novus Ordo Church serves a heavy diet of poison should be convincing enough a reason to conclude that it is not the Catholic Church.
-
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.
The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.
Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.
This is amusing that the same errors and heresy that the SSPX is accusing sedevacantists of holding to is actually being used by those who are affirming Francis is the pope unquestionably. Soulguard must not have read much regarding the positions he is changing ever so rapidly.
"The first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas surfaced during the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII in the 1300’s.[28] In 1681 a General Assembly of the French clergy summoned by Louis XIV, King of France, obtained the “Declaration of the Four Articles,” known as the Four Gallican Propositions, namely that:
The pope may not interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal concerns of princes.
In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.
The rights and customs of the Gallican church are inviolable.
The Pope is not infallible, even in matters of Faith, unless his decision is confirmed by the consent of the Church.[29]
From the second proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils. This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism:
Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.[30]
It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic_part_3.htm
MO is that Philip IV cannot be accused of 'Gallicanism'. It is nearer the truth to say that Boniface VIII(8?) is the dawn of the 'Reformation' & V2 anti-church.
Throne of the anti-pope(?) in Agnani
-
Soul Guard,
I think someone has stolen your log in and password; these
two postings by you sound so confused and illogical that either
Rostand of Pflugger put them out. Better change your security settings! :roll-laugh2:
When the thieves break into the bank with masks on and guns brandished,
those caught inside charged with protecting the cash (faith) don't
need to take a vote or wait for word from on high to see that the thieves are evil
people and mean them harm-- you either give up ( your faith) or sound the alarm!
You are debating about a riduculous topic. "Just call me Jorge" IS the
pope-- of the universal conciliar church; this is the same church to which
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer REFUSED to belong.
The whole world acclaims him as the pope of that church-- why are you fighting
it? At no time has he ever claimed to be the pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church
founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jorge doesn't even believe
that Jesus Christ founded a Church-- because he believes that
the Jєωιѕн people are the chosen people of God, and that the Jєωιѕн
faith is salvific.He still believes we are in the Old Testament-- and Jesus was just
A good guy!
What do you mean no Catholic Bishops have condemned Montini, Wyjtola, Ratzinger, or Bergoglio? How about Bishops de Castro Meyer, Dolan, Kelly, Santay, Morello, McKenna, Sanborn, Primavera, and the six bishops of the Ukrainain Orthodox Catholic Churvh in Poland who declared
Ratzinger an excommunicant?? Your judgement is better than all these bishops ? You're waiting for what, deMallerais or DeGalleretta to say something? They won't even breath unless Fellay and Rostand tells them its okay! Are you waiting for Fellay to admit that Jorge's a joke? Fellay , Krah, Lorans, Schmidberger, Anglais and Co. are all trying to crawl into the sodomite den in Rome-- you really expect any of them to tell you the truth about Mr. "The carnival is over" Jorge?
And Soul Guard, I also will pray for you. A poster above wished you well on your efforts to become a religious. Well, I'll pray you find another vocation to enter.The last thing tradition needs
is another blindly obedient,"this is Felay's church," weak willed, uninformed, definitely confused, vacillating , easy to manipulate religious. Look what Fellay has done to the Benedictines and Dominicans! You want to be abused like that?
Please read "I Accuse the Council!" Read "A Letter to Confused Catholics!"Read the "Impossible Reconciliation"! Read "Good Bye, Good Men", read "Spiritual Journey"! Read anything from Father
Patrick Girouard in Canada! If you still want to be a brother, get in touch with the Resistance monastery in South America, or Bishop Morello in Argentina.
-
I just posted this thread because i was prolific in my promotion of sedevacantism.
But unfortunately Francis is a valid pope because the church has not condemned him. Such a thing could probably only happen at some point in the far future when vatican 2 and ( some of ) the conciliar popes are declared anti-popes, and their changes reversed.
The conciliar church is still the "Catholic" church, but differs only in degrees of belief ( or adherence to doctrine). Many so called Catholics have a negative degree of belief, and they are Catholic in name only, but others have some degree of belief, and the very basics of the faith, and they are part of the Catholic church, but their personal holiness, helped by their knowledge of sacred doctrine, varies in degrees according to how much they know, what is available to them, and how much their will is cooperating with God's grace.
Something I read today said that the modernists are a rot in the church, and the situation is like a rotten apple. The apple has parts of it that are rotten, but they are still part of the same apple.
I got 5 thumbs downs for this and no thumbs up even though what i said is the SSPX position and this is an SSPX forum.
Basically I dont know if I can say that the man that people who profess to be Catholic say is the pope is not the pope because I am a lay man. How am I supposed to know? I just go to the SSPX for sacraments and mass and i dropped the SV position because it was a division between me and the other trad catholics in the church. There is no SSPV or CMRI in this country. I think to just stay outside of the pope anti-pope debates in the future, until I learn more. I would appreciate if someone posted a good Ebook that i can download on this subject.
-
I got 5 thumbs downs for this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30606&min=20&num=5)and no thumbs up even though what i said is the SSPX position and this is an SSPX forum.
Yes, I thought that was interesting. I think it reflects what Bishop Williamson brought up in some recent ECs, about new life being breathed into the sedevacantist debate. Dismantling the cardboard pope (Ratzinger) seems to have had that effect. Also, your OP received an even 50/50 split of thumbs up and thumbs down. Evidently, people are beginning to leave aside those ridiculous notions expressed by user "rlee" that the sedevacantist opinion is a heresy. On the contrary, it would seem that more and more people are persuaded by it, or at least no longer convinced that it's wrong.
Now, this comment:
Basically I dont know if I can say that the man that people who profess to be Catholic say is the pope is not the pope because I am a lay man.
Is not the same as this comment:
How am I supposed to know?
The first comment is an appeal to authority (i.e., "who am I to say? I'm just a layman") and the second comment is about private judgements. As a layman, you are not only entitled but obliged to make private judgements based on the evidence available to you. You do this any time you go to mass-- is the priest valid? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Is the priest Catholic, and is the liturgy Catholic? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Look at Francis. Is the man pope? Make a judgement and proceed accordingly. If you doubt that he is pope (Archbishop Lefebvre's "main" position, from what I can tell) then you are justified in resisting him.
I just go to the SSPX for sacraments and mass and i dropped the SV position because it was a division between me and the other trad catholics in the church.
How?
There is no SSPV or CMRI in this country. I think to just stay outside of the pope anti-pope debates in the future, until I learn more. I would appreciate if someone posted a good Ebook that i can download on this subject.
That is a humble and laudable approach. Do not think you must accept the crisis position of the group you attend mass with. This is religion, not politics.
Go to strobertbellarmine.net
-
The first comment is an appeal to authority (i.e., "who am I to say? I'm just a layman") and the second comment is about private judgements. As a layman, you are not only entitled but obliged to make private judgements based on the evidence available to you. You do this any time you go to mass-- is the priest valid? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Is the priest Catholic, and is the liturgy Catholic? You make a judgement and proceed accordingly. Look at Francis. Is the man pope? Make a judgement and proceed accordingly. If you doubt that he is pope (Archbishop Lefebvre's "main" position, from what I can tell) then you are justified in resisting him.
This is the first time I've heard this. Can you direct me to a catechism or magisterial teaching on the obligation of laity to discern the validity of the clergy?
Thanks.
-
Mithrandylan you pose some interesting arguments, and your expertise surpasses mine on this subject. But I do not think that now, in the great confusion of the church, that believing one way or another about a papal claimant will hamper our salvation. It would be profitable to read the works of the saints first. We know francis is an apostate and a formal heretic. When he says "I believe in God, I dont believe in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God", he says that the church teaches X but he teaches Y, and he pronounces formal heresy. Is he the pope? The SSPX seems to say that we cant base our judgement on his off the cuff remarks. We can only conclude that he is not if he solemnly proclaims formal heresy.
With Francis / Pope Francis, one need only wait for a while. He will cause many in the SSPX to take the Sedevacantist position, but until then I will go along with the rest of the people in my church, and when or if they change their mind about him, and if the priests and bishops do, then I will do what the majority of traditional Catholics do on this issue.
-
Mithrandylan you pose some interesting arguments, and your expertise surpasses mine on this subject. But I do not think that now, in the great confusion of the church, that believing one way or another about a papal claimant will hamper our salvation.
In and of itself, no-- but there are implications that result from either decision, and those are really what are at stake. Have you seen the CMRI, SSPV or the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel courting the new-Roman heretics? Have you seen these groups equivocating over what canon law to follow, or what saints to recognize or not? For whatever problem each group has, none of them have the categorical danger of being absorbed by the Conciliar religion.
I support the Resistance because they've got that part right, but so long as it remains decidedly sedeplenist, it will always carry with it the inherent danger of being drawn toward the Conciliar religion. If it "takes off" (define that how you want, I'd define it as being able to establish permanent mass centers where we can count on the sacraments at least bi-weekly), twenty or thirty years down the road it will face some of the same problems the SSPX is facing now; and that's if it takes off. My observation is that the hardline "R&R" position of Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal et al. is not a position that most traditionalists are very interested in. You said it yourself, you expressed the quintessential R&R position on the "de facto Resistance headquarters" forum and were met with a flurry of thumbs down.
It would be profitable to read the works of the saints first.
Absolutely. Trust in the approved, venerated and renowned teachers of the Catholic faith before you trust anyone else, present traditional clergy (of ALL groups) included.
We know francis is an apostate and a formal heretic. When he says "I believe in God, I dont believe in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God", he says that the church teaches X but he teaches Y, and he pronounces formal heresy. Is he the pope? The SSPX seems to say that we cant base our judgement on his off the cuff remarks. We can only conclude that he is not if he solemnly proclaims formal heresy.
Well, read the saints and theologians and see how many of them teach that a pope can express "off the cuff" formal and public heresy.
With Francis / Pope Francis, one need only wait for a while. He will cause many in the SSPX to take the Sedevacantist position, but until then I will go along with the rest of the people in my church, and when or if they change their mind about him, and if the priests and bishops do, then I will do what the majority of traditional Catholics do on this issue.
Which is your prerogative, of course. People who insistent against sedevacantism pretty much always do it because they think that in order to accept it, they have to accept some sort of denial of an essential mark of the Church; and of course sedevacantists say the exact opposite, that their position keeps the faith intact and it is the sedeplenist approach which threatens the Church. Point being, take the approach to the crisis which best preserves your faith; but always approach the subject with the highest regard for truth since the Church only holds and expresses that which is true, you cannot go wrong if truth is your primary motive.
-
We know francis is an apostate and a formal heretic. When he says "I believe in God, I dont believe in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God", he says that the church teaches X but he teaches Y, and he pronounces formal heresy. Is he the pope? The SSPX seems to say that we cant base our judgement on his off the cuff remarks. We can only conclude that he is not if he solemnly proclaims formal heresy.
Well, read the saints and theologians and see how many of them teach that a pope can express "off the cuff" formal and public heresy.
I presume that we are forgetting here Bergoglio's formal and official remarks about the Jews' covenant still being valid in his "Apostolic Exhortation", or whatever it was. In this docuмent, no one can legitimately claim that he is not intending to "speak as the pope", for it is a formal papal docuмent. So that line of reasoning is simply no longer valid.
This is the problem with dogmatic-sedeplenists. They keep moving the line. They used to claim that he hadn't actually tried to "officially" teach or impose heresy, but now that he has, they seem to be ignoring it.
-
Considering how frecuently Cathinfo must be used to manipulate public (Traditional Catholic) opinion, threads like these never seem to grab my attention very long.
-
Shall I show you the door?
-
Considering how frecuently Cathinfo must be used to manipulate public (Traditional Catholic) opinion, threads like these never seem to grab my attention very long.
I'm sorry to impose, but please can you explain a bit? Honestly I don't understand your meaning.
(Nadir, you always make me smile.)