Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Ambrose

When a narrative forms, whether it is true or false it has real power, and it is not easy to see through it, once one embraces it.  

I agree if the text began: "When a narrative is formed..." passive mood not active.

Thanks got the correction.  If I only had a proper Catholic school in my youth, how much better I would have been at so many things.  

I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.

The fact I support and promote traditional liturgy and devotions does not make me a sede. Nor does one person--and there is only one of me--constitute and invasion.

 

643. Kinds of Certitude.--Judgments may be certain in a greater or less
degree.

(a) They are metaphysically certain, when error is absolutely
impossible, the opposite of what is held by the mind being a
contradiction in terms which omnipotence itself could not make true.
Example: The judgments that the same, identical act cannot be both good
and bad, that good is to be done and evil to be avoided, that God is to
be honored, are metaphysically certain, since they result immediately
from the very concepts of being, of goodness, and of God.

(b) Judgments are physically certain, when error is impossible
according to the laws of nature, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being unrealizable except through intervention of another cause.
Example: The judgments that he who takes poison will destroy life, that
he who applies fire to a house will destroy property, are physically
certain. because natural agencies, like poison and fire, act infallibly
when applied to suitable matters and under suitable conditions and left
to their course, unless they are overruled by superior power.

(c) Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according
to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the
mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.
Examples: One is morally certain that what a reputedly truthful and
competent person relates to one is true. A person is morally certain
that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance
is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching
the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and
fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have
the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part
reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such.

...

644. As to the certainty that is required in the judgment of
conscience, the following points must be noted:

(a) Metaphysical certainty is not required, since conscience does not
deal with primary propositions, but with deductions about particular
acts. The first moral principles, which are the object of synderesis,
and at least some of the general conclusions, which are the object of
moral science, are metaphysically certain (see above 145, 300), as they
are based on necessary relations; but the particular conclusions, which
are the object of conscience, are concerned with the contingent and the
individual.

(b) Physical certainty is not required for the judgment of conscience,
since conscience is not concerned with the activities of natural
agents, but with the activities of moral agents that act with freedom
and responsibility.

(c) Moral certitude, therefore, is sufficient for the conclusions drawn
by conscience. That a higher kind of certitude is not necessary should
not surprise us, for it would be unreasonable to expect that the same
degree of assent be given to judgments that are concerned with
particular and contingent cases as to those that are concerned with
universal and necessary principles.

...

646. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe
conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently
the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be
free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in
a maze of scruples and perplexities.

Quote from: curioustrad

The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !

All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote

June 30, 1988

Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

 After the Consecration Sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, the co-consecrating bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, gave a short allocution which was very warmly applauded. He read it in Portuguese and it was translated afterwards into French and then into German and English.

My presence here at this ceremony is caused by a duty of conscience: that of making a profession of Catholic Faith in front of the whole Church and more particularly in front of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and in front of all the priests, religious, seminarians and faithful here present.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a profession of faith at every moment. But when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even if it be at the risk of one’s own life.

Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We live in an unprecedented crisis of the Church, a crisis that attacks her inner essence, in her very substance which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Catholic priesthood, two mysteries essentially united because without priesthood there is no sacrifice of the Mass and therefore no form of worship. It is also on this foundation that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is built.

For this reason, because the conservation of the priesthood and the Holy Mass is at stake, and in spite of the requests and pressures of many, I am here in order to accomplish my duty: to make a public profession of faith.

It is painful to witness the deplorable blindness of so many confrères in the episcopate and in the priesthood who do not see or do not want to see the present crisis nor the necessity to resist the reigning modernism in order to be faithful to the mission entrusted to us by God.

I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

May the Most Holy Virgin Our Mother, who at Fatima has warned us in her motherly love with regard to the gravity of the present situation, give us the grace to be able by our attitude to help and enlighten the faithful in such a way that they depart from these pernicious errors of which they are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost.

May God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and his work!

Thanks for this - despite the other allegations this is the public record of his intention.

Great that you posted this, but there is nothing in the speech contra sedevacantism.

Neither is there anything in favor - seems like the Archbishop R & R to me.

If there is nothing for and against, to which I agree, it is not relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: curioustrad

The sedes have invaded ! OR (pardon the Paul VI moment) the smoke of sedevacantism has filled the resistance movement ! The autodemolition has begun !

All joking aside, you seem surprised that the Resistance movement appears to have one foot in sedevacantism. Why?

Cleverly put.

No the sede shock troops have both feet in the resistance to prop up their emptying chapels and tired and worn thin arguments. I deal with ex-sedes quite frequently and the hogwash with which they have been brainwashed is amazing ! (Speaking as an ex sede myself - that is)

You are obviously out of sync with CMRI.  Their chapels are growing all over, and the priests cannot keep up with the demand for new locations.  

The CMRI situation is the exact opposite of emptying chapels as you assert. I cannot speak of SSPV and would not recommend them anyway.  

Btw, we are not shock troops.  I do not report to anyone, and I am in no army but the Church militant.  Your analysis of us is grossly biased.  I say and do what I do, because I love the Church and the truth.

If CMRI sold out to the Conciliar church, I would drop them immediately.  I am a Catholic not a member of any group.  Your assertions against us are unjust.

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Mithrandylan

And the last ten pages have been devoted almost entirely to proving that dCM was not a sedevacantist, as if that corrolary has any bearing on the issue at hand.  Perhaps if dCM is proven to not be a sedevacantist, sedevacantism becomes false?  I don't know.  Sure seems like a weird thing to spend ten pages on.  

Um....Mith...why would you consider this weird? Especially from your vantage point as a sede? Try putting yourself in R&R shoes for a moment: What does it say about Mgr Lefebvre and his so-called principled no-compromise stand against sedevacantism if it can be proven that his co-consecrator at the defining moment of the R&R resistance was in fact a sedevacantist?

But the Archbishop himself was not an anti-sedevacantist.  The quotes have circulated through here umpteen times-- quotes that span many years, indicating that while ABL was not a sedevacantist, neither was he opposed to it in principle, on the contrary he publicly addressed his own seminarians in 1986 and said that if things continue as they are (so, thirty years ago) we could be OBLIGED to be sedevacantists.

Heck, I don't even say anyone is OBLIGED to be a sedevacantist.

The Archbishop worked with other sedes anyways, so it's just a moot point.  

Quote from: hollingsworth

PV:

Quote

For the umpteenth time, Sean, I am not a sedevacantist.

 I recognize Francis as the valid pope, the Novus Ordo as both a valid and licit liturgy, and the Second Vatican Council as a valid ecuмenical council.

I must make at least one more contribution to this exceedingly dull and unenlightened thread.  I am not a sedvacantist either.  But I do consider the NO as intrinsically evil.  V2 was the greatest evil, so much so, in fact that it makes little difference whether it was "valid" or not.  Like ABL, I believe the conciliar church to be an illegitimate parallel church, overseen and run by "anti-Christs" and clerics who have "left the Faith."   But in order to avoid the possiblility of not going to Heaven, I must reluctantly concede that Francis is the pope and do my best to "unite" myself to him.  This is an insane declaration, I know, but then, we live in an insane period.  Traditional Catholicism, IMO, is on life supports.

Thanks hollingsworth. As self-contradictory as I find your position expressed above, I can respect you for being honest in recognizing these contradictions. I am sure you are someone who in real life, like Sean Johnson, I would enjoy riding and drinking beer with.