Making sedevacantism a dogma and denying BOD is what is deranged
While one can believe in a BoD, what's truly deranged and inexplicable is that ...
NO TRAD GROUP OR SECT actually understands the true nature of the doctrinal shift at Vatican II. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
+Williamson actually did come the closest, when he characterized the fundamental problem as "subjectivism", but for some reason he inexplicably failed to apply that analysis to the tectonic ecclesiological and soteriological shift at Vatican II, emphasizing mostly the philosophical underpinnings of the problem, and focusing on some of its symptoms, i.e. religious liberty.
In fact, I owe my being a "Feeneyite" TO the teaching of Bishop Williamson, and I know of exactly one other privationist Feeneyite (strangely, there are probably like 2 of us in existence and we live not far from one another ... and we both consider Bishop Williamson to be a spiritual and intellectual father). So, the way I look at it, I'm a pigmy who stands on the shoulders of the giant that was +Williamson, but on account of his heroic efforts, and my taking advantage of my own starting point, I can see a bit farther than he could. In other words, to extend the metaphor, if there's a 6-foot wall, and +Williamson is 6 feet tall, and I stand on his shoulders and am 3 feet tall, then I can see over the wall, because he put me in that position.
If there's anything that he hammered into our young brains it was objective truth, objective truth, objective truth, objective reality, objective reality ... no subjectivism, no subjectivism, no subjectivism, and ideas matter, ideas matter, ideas matter. He was our drill sergeant in terms of objective truth and the rejection of subjectivism, and that is why I'm a "Feeneyite", because I see that it was subjectivist soteriology that in turn undermined Catholic ecclesiology, turning being "inside the Church" into a subjectively determined condition.
If he didn't come to this realization himself, it was only due to a single flaw that His Excellency had ... where he was excessively reliant upon and credulous of private revelation, and along those lines he considered Archbishop Lefebvre THE oracle of our day, the rule of faith in modern times, and could simply not entertain the idea that Archbishop Lefebvre may have been mistaken about anything. So that, when +Lefebvre wrote his version of "Anonymous Catholic" in "Letter to Confused Catholics", +Williamson adhered to it as it it were an infallble teaching. Absent this mental block, I'm certain that he would have reasoned it out long ago.
At the same time, Traddie-land have all been trained in Pavlovian fashion to practically begin foaming at the mouth with the mere mention of Father Feeney or Baptism of Desire, where they consider Father Feeney as worse heretic than Cardinal "No Salvation Outside the Church? Nonsense" Cushing, and even far worse than Prevost or Bergoglio.
In fact, if you believe that non-Catholics can be saved, then you have zero theological basis to oppose Vatican II, since you believe the same things that the Conciliar Modernists believe.
If you can articulate a "version" or "form" of BoD that does not gut Traditional Catholic ecclesiology, then I have better things to do than to argue with you. Problem is that 98%+ of you do not in fact hold to such an articulation of BoD, and I've only ever run into a single poster on CI here who believed in BoD but did not at the same time embrace Pelagian heresy and deny Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary (with Baptism by absolute necessity of means) for salvation. ONE ... in all my 16+ years of activity here at CathInfo. With that poster, I had zero problems.
You also continue to lie in your repeated assertion that all sedevacantists are dogmatic sedevacantists, and I'll say nothing of your continued and unrepented grave slander against not only Archbishop Thuc but also against all the bishops and priests who have received their Holy Orders from him.
While dogmatic SVs err, so the the dogmatic R&R, and the latter far worse ... as the former merely elevate the theological note of their conclusion to the level of dogma, but otherwise their principles are sound. Dogmatic R&R, however ... which +Lefebvre, BTW, never was ... deny the indefectibility of the Church (which is the Major of the SV conclusion). Dogmatic SVs forget about the Minor(s) involved, and fail to realize that the Minors lack dogmatic certainty, and that therefore their conclusion cannot have it either, but the dogmatic R&R actually do deny the Major, and are therefore heretics who deny the indefectibility of the Church. There again, there is an articulation of "R&R" that isn't actually R&R but "Doubt & Resist", what +Lefebvre actually held that isn't heretical, but increasingly more "R&R" types adhere to the heretical version and have become thinly veild Old Catholics.
Last but not least, I find your hubris beyond the pale in denouncing others for being dogmatic, when you're about the most dogmatic nutcase I have ever run into on the so-called R&R side, bar none, so much so that the most dogmatic of the dogmatic SVs look moderate and tame compared to the trash that you're slinging here, that there's no salvation outside of Williamson, that (in so many words) SSPXers are outside the Church and are damned unless they join the Resistance.
By contrast, I, whom you have labeled a dogmatic sedevacantists do believe that SSPXers, Resistance, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, and even very many who still belong to the Conciliar Church can in fact be saved and are in material error only. But, yeah ... I'm the dogmatic one, and you're the non-dogmatic one, right?
Get off the internet, Satan ... before you damn yourself by your posting.
Topic: Rain on Consecrations - Our Lady's anger (Read 2874 times)