Quote from: Seraphim

Then I accept your having conceded the argument.

The way you paint this way of thinking is where you're going to get the disagreement. You paint it as if people are schismatic by your own definition if they don't exactly agree with your way of thinking on this specific cloudy issue.

This is a mess, and like Bishop Williamson said, in order for this to be fixed in any meaningful way, is for there to be a chastisement first.

You can go ahead pointing fingers at everyone else, sitting on your high horse, but when it really comes down to it, you don't really know.

Do I believe BXVI is the pope? The answer is: I don't know. Do you know? I doubt it. Some shenanigans happened in 1958, and I'm not about to say that I know the full extent of the "diabolical disorientation," that Sister Lucy spoke of. I did as much exhaustive research on the topic as I could, and I couldn't come to a definite conclusion one way or the other. I'm sure people that are more learned, or schooled in this area than I am might make a definite statement one way or the other, but I can't. I'm not going to condemn someone if they do, but they can't force feed that way of thinking to me, just as you can't force feed your way of thinking to me. If I agree with you, it's by accident only.

I pray for the pope, whoever he is. If it's BXVI, my prayers go to him. If he's not, then they go to whoever that is.

People during the middle ages didn't know who the pope even was, they just knew there was one, and they prayed for him. I do similarly.

Condemn me for it, saying I should know, but there's altogether too many things that leave me questioning his authenticity or his credentials to hold that office.

No.

I accept the pope is pope.

Nobody has authority to say otherwise except a future pope.

Until then your duty is to accept the same.

You presume to know his internal forum?

You presume to know his internal forum?

You presume to know it, obviously.  

I don't think anyone here believes Archbishop ever embraced the sedevacantist thesis, Nishant. The point is that he considered it a possibility.

Yes, SSS, but the Archbishop also gave several reasons as to why he thought sedevacantism was not correct, and those reasons have not ceased to exist, in some cases they have intensified.

Moreover, one cannot base one's decisions or actions merely on a remote possibility, but on what is at least morally certain. Would you disagree? So, the mere possibility of sedevacantism would prove nothing.

And there are other things you are not taking into consideration at all. Pope Alexander VI for instance was accused of the same by Savonarola, of not being Pope at all, but Cardinal Billot (an outstanding theologian raised to the Cardinalate by Pope St.Pius X) says in commenting on this case that the very unanimous consent given to Pope Alexander VI at this time proves for certain he was not a formal heretic. Other theologians say similarly, universal acceptance is a sign and an effect of a valid election. The Church is a divine society, even when she is "ill", so things happen in her that are beyond what we may expect.

The Society knows all this, and has written about it, but probably prefers not to have to explain it to every one of its chapel attendees and so follows a simpler policy, just asking the faithful to trust their priests.

Anyway, I never said that sedevacantists are schismatics, just mistaken, so there at least your disagreement is not with me. Not every incorrect opinion puts one in schism.

It does not matter that Sedevacantism is not doctrinal per se.

It breaks.communion with the pope, and places men outside the church.

As pft said, the devil is laughing in hell.

Seraphim,

How does one break communion with the Pope, when there is no Pope at present?  We are not breaking with a certain Pontiff, but one whose claim is rejected by many in the Church.

Your position, whether you admit it or not, also is a rejection of the Vatican II "Popes."  If you truly believed they were Popes, you would accept their teaching and law, and would remain in communion with them and the bishops in union with them.  

When one remains in communion with the Pope, they do not just give him primacy of honor, they submit themselves with docility to him as their Supreme Teacher and lawgiver.  Catholics learn from the Pope as their teacher, and they trust the Pope as they know he could not lead them astray. There is no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope.  (St. Pius X)

So, when you say that Benedict XVI or John Paul II were popes, what does that mean for you?   Did you learn from them?  Do your trust the sacramental rites that they have approved or allowed to continue i.e. the Novus Ordo for example?  Do you trust all of their canonizations?  Do you believe that the Church is irrevocably committed to ecuмenism, as John Paul II has taught?  Do you believe that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation as Vatican II and Benedict XVI have taught?

If you say no to any of the above, then you are not learning from the "Pope," or are not trusting in the laws given by the "Pope," to the universal Church.  If you say "no" then you are disagreeing with the "Pope."

If you are disagreeing with the Pope as your Supreme Teacher as the rule of Faith, then what are these Popes to you?  What is the point of a Pope if Catholics cannot trust his teaching given to the universal Church?  What is the point of a Pope, when lay Catholics and priests can refuse to be taught by him and ignore his laws, and operate chapels outside of his jurisdiction?  

  FATHER HEWKO MUST GO BACK TO HIS PRIORY AND CONTINUE TO PREACH THE TRUTH FROM THERE. THIS WILL MAKE HIS EVENTUAL REMOVAL INVALID AND IS ALSO WHAT BISHOP WILLIAMSON DID.  RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS WITH HE AND THE OTHERS HAVING ESTABLISHED A PRIORY WITHOUT IT BEING CANONICALLY ERECTED THEIR PUNISHMENTS ARE BINDING. NOT FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH BUT FOR ESTABLISHING A PRIORY. THIS IS GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY!

  As it stands we cannot throw all our weight into the success of these priests. Especially knowing the prophecies of our Lady. God save us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the chapel of the Pfeifer family has been there for decades and the SSPX listed it on their Holy Masses as a legitimate chapel.

Reverend Father Ringrose's chapel, is it canonically erected? Probably not. But is it illigitimate? I don't think so. And what about other independent chapels friendly with the SSPX?

Perhaps a priory is not like a chapel, I just don't know the precise requirements. But in the present times what makes a chapel legitimate is in my opinion: true valid Holy Mass, true valid ordained priest, true Traditional doctrine preached and true non conciliar Traditional Catholic faithful. That's good enough for me and my family.

Oh yes, and I must add: a true Traditional Catholic altar, not like "the one" we know.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the chapel of the Pfeifer family has been there for decades and the SSPX listed it on their Holy Masses as a legitimate chapel.

Reverend Father Ringrose's chapel, is it canonically erected? Probably not. But is it illigitimate? I don't think so. And what about other independent chapels friendly with the SSPX?

Perhaps a priory is not like a chapel, I just don't know the precise requirements. But in the present times what makes a chapel legitimate is in my opinion: true valid Holy Mass, true valid ordained priest, true Traditional doctrine preached and true non conciliar Traditional Catholic faithful. That's good enough for me and my family.

Oh yes, and I must add: a true Traditional Catholic altar, not like "the one" we know.

Archbishop Lefevbre consecrated the original altar at Saint Michael's. It's an independent Church too.