Quote from: Mithrandylan

The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist.  Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.

Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.

So, dear Hollingsworth,
   To save your soul, you consciously adhere to a man who is an  anti-Christ, who with other anti-Christs, is running an intrinsically evil conciliar church, just because, at the same time, the same person is also in charge of the Catholic Church--to which you wish to belong?
     What you are saying, it appears, is that, Monday through Saturday "your man" Francis has "left the Catholic faith," but on Sunday morning, he and the rest of the conciliar bishops, come crawling back into the Catholic Church from their conciliar perches, long enough to celebrate an invalid , protestant mass, and this makes them Catholic in your book?
   If Brogoglio is, as you say, an anti-Christ head of a false conciliar church; He Cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. The same person cannot at once be both the devil AND the Vicar of CHRIST.
 

Our religion is in God.  Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven.  It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."

Totally agree Hollingsworth. Fathers position and the position of the entire SSPX is absurd!

Our religion is in God.  Our truth is is God, and therefor we can be united to a wicked Francis; not only that, but unless we are united to him, we cannot go to Heaven.  It matters whether or not we accept him as pope, it really does."

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The speech couldn't contradict "the narrative" unless dCM actually says within it that he is not a sedevacantist.  Anything less than that would not disprove the eyewitness testimony.

Well, if in the speech he states that he recognizes the papacy of JPII, I think that is equivalent to stating he is not a sede.

Agreed. Provided the speech was given the day of the episcopal consecrations.

It should also be noted (if it hasn't been already) that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist himself - does that make him always one ? He confirmed this to me when I reminded him of this point in a private discussion with him in 1993.

I have known that Fr. Schmidberger was once a sedevacantist.  I did not mention it, as I did not see how it would relate to his account of what happened at Écône, 30 June 1988.

It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case.  Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so.  I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people has to rely on witnesses and testimony.

Quote from: Ambrose (May 8, 2014, 11:46 pm)

It seems to me that when numerous reliable witnesses independent of each other all say the same thing, that makes for a compelling case.  Apparently Sean Johnson does not think so.  I wonder how he would have gotten by if he lived in another age when there was no audio and video recordings, and people have to rely on witnesses and testimony.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful now.

Imagine a church before a wedding.   2 members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time".  The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements.  While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other: "I hope I'm wrong, but I have a really bad feeling about this.  I fear that the bride is a really bad choice: She's behaved like a self-centered b####--not even bothering to hide that--waaay too often since the family announced their engagement."

Later that day, at the wedding reception, the same family member offers an unreservedly optimistic toast to the newly married couple, which, like other toasts there, is videotaped.

Years later, as the marriage tumbles downhill, the originally fearful family member is accused of being unsupportive of the wedding, by the other family member who was also in the sacristy before the wedding.  (Whether or not the accused family member had any responsibility--of any kind--to act on his fears before the wedding is not the issue herein.)   But the accused repeatedly avoids any straightforward answers.

No problem: It'll be easy to set the record straight: Just replay the videotape of his toast at the wedding reception!  That'll prove whether he was really supportive of the wedding--or not.

Sooo, might there be any logical flaws in the insistence by recording-technology enthusiasts that that the videotape of the reception would provide conclusive proof one way or t'other?

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (May 9, 2014, 11:23 pm)

Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time".  The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements.  While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]

1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.

Same day.  Same event.

Quote from: AlligatorDicax

Quote from: SeanJohnson (May 9, 2014), 11:59 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (May 9, 2014, 11:23 pm)

Imagine a church before a wedding.   2  members of the groom's family are waiting in the sacristy for the not-yet-arrived groom and his chum--formally the 'best man'--to "get him to the church on time".  The celebrant priest departs briefly to check on some arrangements.  While waiting by themselves, 1 family member tells the other [....]

1) The testimony of 2--5 people asserting + CDM  [...] +DCM said " The  There is no Pope"
vs
2) Audio recording of him saying the opposite.

You're haggling over the number of witnesses available from a traditional Catholic family?  So add in cousins if need be, and we can count 2--5 male family members waiting in the sacristy, all attentive listeners, and all unequipped with audio recorders.  And maybe, years later, 'twas the once-snot-nosed ring-bearing brat who ratted, and the family men present back then, remembering the conversations, declined to cover up the well-earned--but unflattering--comments from 1 or more of their members.

Quote from: SeanJohnson (May 9, 2014), continued)

Same day.  Same event.

Perhaps it's done differently in countries outside the U.S.A., but weddings and their receptions here are "same day".  The reception is practically a continuation of the wedding itself: Same principals, pretty much the same guests, altho' sometimes with intervening vehicular travel to a near-by venue.

Would 100,000,000 so-called witnesses be able to overcome contradictory audio?

Some of your allies have already conceded it would not.