CathInfo.com

hugeman:

Quote

So, dear Hollingsworth,
   

My earlier comments were a bit tongue in cheek, Huge.  In fact, I was playing off the words of Fr. Pfeiffer in the sermon topic at hand.  He said, and I repeat:

Quote

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."

Fr. P said that Francis was "wicked," and if pressed, would probably concede that the pope is basically an anti-Christ.  However, he cautions, you must nevertheless be "united to him."  I you are not, you "cannot go to Heaven."  Obviously what I'm getting at is this: If we reject the New Order on every other level; if we argue that those who run the conciliar church are evil, apostate and no longer have the Catholic faith, as did ABL; if we agree that the crimes of the NO church cry out to Heaven for vengeance: even so, we must remain united to pope Francis.  Otherwise, we are practical sedes, and as a consequence, entrance into Heaven is automatically cut off.  I think that position is all pretty silly on the face of it, don't you?
 

WHEW !  Thanks, Hollingsworth! I must have been getting bleary-eyed!
God Bless You!

Hugeman

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.

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?