Author Topic: New on the website: An analysis on Obedience (Read 3956 times)

sspxbvm · « **on:** January 25, 2013, 09:45:18 PM »

http://ourladysresistance.org/

The daily commentary takes on the true meaning of obedience in several parts. Today is part 1

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2013, 10:23:40 PM »

That was excellent. Thank you for sharing.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2013, 08:59:40 PM »

Quote from: sspxbvm

http://ourladysresistance.org/

The daily commentary takes on the true meaning of obedience in several parts. Today is part 1

"Obedience" updated today.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2013, 03:41:52 PM »

The obedience topic continues. When it is through there will be a download which will contain all the parts plust a bit more. The next subject due to come up is persecution. Thanks for visiting. God bless.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2013, 04:31:45 PM »

Taken from the library sub-forum

This is the only treatise on obedience anyone ever needs to read.

Sedes run in fear of it, since it contradicts their idiotic "If you say he is pope, you must obey him" mantra.

On the Doctrine of Necessity: Part 1
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2013, 04:36:16 PM »

And Part 2: On the Doctrine of Necessity (Solution to the Pope's "No"):

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

Run sedes run!!!

You know, find reasons to avoid addressing the substance of it, since you won't be able to acknowledge it and continue to be a schismatic at the same time.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2013, 04:42:19 PM »

Quote from: John Lane on FE

My suspicion is that the points hit home and you prefer not to take any hits, but only to give them.

The facts above prove that there was much more than argument ad hominem in my post. There are several facts there, inconvenient facts. Here's another. Bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. The Archbishop loved him and cooperated with him at every stage. Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about in 1988 at the consecrations telling everybody that "We have no pope." This was reported at the time by Bill Morgan, another sedevacantist friend of the Archbishop, and the father of Fr. Paul Morgan, SSPX District Superior for the UK and Scandinavia. I asked Fr. Schmidberger a few years ago if he could confirm this, and he said yes, it's exactly what happened. Fr. Schmidberger used to be a sedevacantist himself, of course, when he joined the SSPX, and was welcomed and never expelled. He later changed his mind

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:24:48 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: John Lane on FE
My suspicion is that the points hit home and you prefer not to take any hits, but only to give them.

The facts above prove that there was much more than argument ad hominem in my post. There are several facts there, inconvenient facts. Here's another. Bishop de Castro Mayer was a sedevacantist. The Archbishop loved him and cooperated with him at every stage. Bishop de Castro Mayer was walking about in 1988 at the consecrations telling everybody that "We have no pope." This was reported at the time by Bill Morgan, another sedevacantist friend of the Archbishop, and the father of Fr. Paul Morgan, SSPX District Superior for the UK and Scandinavia. I asked Fr. Schmidberger a few years ago if he could confirm this, and he said yes, it's exactly what happened. Fr. Schmidberger used to be a sedevacantist himself, of course, when he joined the SSPX, and was welcomed and never expelled. He later changed his mind

Yes, Bishop Williamson told us in the seminary when Campos was selling out, that Abl always had to talk Bishop Castro out of that foolishness.

It is the same foolishness that caused his progeny to sellout: "If he is pope, we must obey."

Ignorant.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:30:02 PM »

I think it's fairly evident the problem wasn't with Bishop Castro Mayer.

It is inanity to blame the Campos sellout on Bishop Castro Mayer's "foolishness."

It is really impudent talk from you, but unfortunately people who've been through too much SSPX indoctrination can't think very clearly.

It's quite apparent that you resemble the +Fellay SSPX far more than the SSPX of the Archbishop, in your intolerance of sedevacantism.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:42:05 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I think it's fairly evident the problem wasn't with Bishop Castro Mayer.

It is inanity to blame the Campos sellout on Bishop Castro Mayer's "foolishness."

It is really impudent talk from you, but unfortunately people who've been through too much SSPX indoctrination can't think very clearly.

It's quite apparent that you resemble the +Fellay SSPX far more than the SSPX of the Archbishop, in your intolerance of sedevacantism.

I will let Bw know you think he resembles the fellay sspx.

Im sure he will find that humorous.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:54:54 PM »

You're putting words in his mouth, Seraphim. You know he was refering to you, not Bishop Williamson.

His Excellency does not have the same paranoia of sedevacantism that you and Bishop Fellay have. Tele is right that your mindset resembles Bishop Fellay's Neo-SSPX more than the Resistance. You have been shown that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism, it has been proven to you by his own words, yet you continue to dismiss it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2013, 05:59:19 AM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

You're putting words in his mouth, Seraphim. You know he was refering to you, not Bishop Williamson.

His Excellency does not have the same paranoia of sedevacantism that you and Bishop Fellay have. Tele is right that your mindset resembles Bishop Fellay's Neo-SSPX more than the Resistance. You have been shown that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to sedevacantism, it has been proven to you by his own words, yet you continue to dismiss it.

The words are Bw's.

Apparently one who opposes sede's is a fellayite?

In that case he has been right to accuse his opposition of being sedes?

See how contorted your reasoning is?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2013, 06:11:46 AM »

Oh yeah:

As i predicted, no sedes are addressing the article on necessity i posted here.

Lame liberals; you have to run to preserve your position.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 01, 2013, 07:35:03 AM »

There is nothing in the article that a sedevacantist has to respond to.

If you had a point you'd try to make it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2013, 07:46:41 AM »

Dogmatic anti-sedevacantism seems to be typical of the very pushy people who get into these chapels and cause endless problems. I don't think traditionalism can really afford to have people who refer to Bishop Castro Mayer's words as "foolishness." Whether its questioning a man's orders, stating "there is no resistance," continually hijacking threads in order to attack sedevacantism, it never seems to end with this person.