Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 21, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
-
I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.
I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).
Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).
But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.
For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.
It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).
It will be organizing for the resistence.
It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.
It will not be becomming a schismatic.
-
I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.
I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre say sedevacantism was impossible?
In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).
No, it doesn't. Most people don't take the decision to go to a sede chapel lightly. I'm still not sure about the one's in the area. If you don't like sedevacantist priests then you have a problem because many priests in the SSPX are closet sedes.
But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.
Did he say it was intolerable to hold the sedevacantist position, or did he acknowledge it was a possibility?
For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.
It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).
No salvation outside the SSPX remnant?
It will be organizing for the resistence.
It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.
It will not be becomming a schismatic.
You can't really believe that people who do not recognize Benedict XVI because of his modernism are schismatics simply for that reason.
-
I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.
I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre say sedevacantism was impossible?
In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).
No, it doesn't. Most people don't take the decision to go to a sede chapel lightly. I'm still not sure about the one's in the area. If you don't like sedevacantist priests then you have a problem because many priests in the SSPX are closet sedes.
But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.
Did he say it was intolerable to hold the sedevacantist position, or did he acknowledge it was a possibility?
For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.
It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).
No salvation outside the SSPX remnant?
It will be organizing for the resistence.
It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.
It will not be becomming a schismatic.
You can't really believe that people who do not recognize Benedict XVI because of his modernism are schismatics simply for that reason.
I am listening to a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he refers to the sedevacantist position as schismatic.
There has never been any doubt on this matter.
-
I am listening to a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he refers to the sedevacantist position of schismatic.
There has never been any doubt on this matter.
"On the other hand, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one. In this obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a sovereign pontiff."
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Interview-with-Archbishop-Lefebvre-in-Le-Figaro-August-4-1976
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
-Archbishop Lefebvre
-
I am listening to a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he refers to the sedevacantist position of schismatic.
There has never been any doubt on this matter.
"On the other hand, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one. In this obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a sovereign pontiff."
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Interview-with-Archbishop-Lefebvre-in-Le-Figaro-August-4-1976
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
-Archbishop Lefebvre
See previous comment.
Sermon available in English from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary audio.
-
See previous comment.
non-responsive.
Sermon available in English from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary audio.
It's obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre suggested the sedevacantist position could be correct.
In which case, having such a position could not make one automatically a schismatic.
-
Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.
-
Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.
Actually, I take that back, because I just realized that the comments you originally quoted from 1986 envisage a future pope declaring that the current (and recent) popes lost the chair (i.e, "Perhaps one day they will say...").
That is what he considered theoretically possible.
But what you are suggesting is that Archbishop Lefebvre considered possible that simple clergy and laymen could declare it themselves.
These he considered schismatic.
It is clear in the sermon.
-
Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.
No, unfortunately you've been taught to stonewall by SSPXers.
If he says he does not say you cannot say the pope is not the pope, then he is allowing the possibility of sedevacantism as a legitimate position.
There is no other logical conclusion.
-
Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.
No, unfortunately you've been taught to stonewall by SSPXers.
If he says he does not say you cannot say the pope is not the pope, then he is allowing the possibility of sedevacantism as a legitimate position.
There is no other logical conclusion.
Perhaps you were typing when I submitted my previous post, which followed upon the comment you here responded to.
-
But what you are suggesting is that Archbishop Lefebvre considered possible that simple clergy and laymen could declare it themselves.
These he considered schismatic.
It is clear in the sermon.
You obviously have trouble reading:
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
If it is impossible to cast doubt on the papacy of a supposed Pope without being a schismatic then it would be impossible for any council to declare one has been deposed.
St. Robert Bellarmine said the deposition must be automatic because a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
It is schismatic for you to say that sedes are schismatic. They can be schismatic, but not by virtue of denying the papacy of a manifest heretic.
-
This is part of the problem with the SSPX - truth is what people believe the leaders say it is at the moment. They've now convinced themselves that sedevacantism is an impossible position, and claim the authority of the Archbishop for such a position.
When the Archbishop said it was possible, and that he does not say one may not say it's the current reality.
That's the problem with cult-like thinking that's spread throughout the SSPX and the reason we're seeing the emergence of Opus Fellay. It's why the SSPX is in this situation.
-
But what you are suggesting is that Archbishop Lefebvre considered possible that simple clergy and laymen could declare it themselves.
These he considered schismatic.
It is clear in the sermon.
You obviously have trouble reading:
"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
If it is impossible to cast doubt on the papacy of a reigning Pope without being a schismatic then it would be impossible for any council to declare one has been deposed.
St. Robert Bellarmine said the deposition must be automatic because a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
It is schismatic for you to say that sedes are schismatic. They can be schismatic, but not by virtue of denying the papacy of a manifest heretic.
You obviously have trouble understanding what you read, and lack the ability to put such comments within the greater context of Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion on the subject.
(As a digression, I might add that it is precisely this defect which leads sedevacantists to become sedevacantists in the first place: the narrowness of their view, and inability to think outside of what is contained between the front and back cover of whatever tome they happen to be reading).
If you know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre, and have read/heard his other opinions on the matter, all he is saying in the quote you provide, is that we are allowed to wonder.
Otherwise, he would be contradicting himself in his other works, in which he plainly declares sedevacantists schismatics.
If that is a pill you choose not to swallow, I certainly shant stop you from spitting it out.
-
You obviously have trouble understanding what you read,
No Seraphim, I don't, but that's very typical for SSPX indoctrinated people to make such accusations.
and lack the ability to put such comments within the greater context of Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion on the subject.
Such comments can only be interpreted in one way. That is, he did not reject the possibility of sedevacantism.
(As a digression, I might add that it is precisely this defect which leads sedevacantists to become sedevacantists in the first place: the narrowness of their view, and inability to think outside of what is contained between the front and back cover of whatever tome they happen to be reading).
Wrong, it's a lack of logical thinking that allows SSPX followers to constantly shift between contradictory positions. Which is why Bishop Fellay is getting away with these things he's attempting.
If you know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre, and have read/heard his other opinions on the matter, all he is saying in the quote you provide, is that we are allowed to wonder.
No, he said "I do not say either that one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope"
Otherwise, he would be contradicting himself in his other works, in which he plainly declares sedevacantists schismatics.
He is referring to some sedevacanstist perhaps. Perhaps his own positions shifted from time to time. The fact is he said it was possible. He said he did not say one could not say it. Now perhaps you have learned in the SSPX to disregard the plain meaning of words - as I said, that's why Bishop Fellay can get away with this, because people have subordinated their reason to the SSPX cult mentality.
If that is a pill you choose not to swallow, I certainly shant stop you from spitting it out.
He didn't say:
One cannot say the Pope is not the Pope.
He said:
I do not say either one cannot say that the pope is not the pope.
If you can read, if you aren't totally stultified and made an idiot by SSPX cultism, you can see the difference of those two statements.
-
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
-
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
A quotation:
When we review the various texts in which Archbishop Lefebvre appeared not only to reject the sedevacantist solution himself, but to condemn it, we find that in each case he was reacting to the pressure of circuмstances, and almost in every case he was referring to concrete cases of sedevacantist individuals rather than to the theoretical question itself. Thus when he stated that sedevacantism is “schismatic” he clearly meant that the mentality of the specific sedevacantists he was then addressing or reacting to had a schismatic mentality – that is, they valued their opinions more than the unity of the faithful. And this interpretation is confirmed by consideration of the various statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre over the years – those presented above as well as of those which will follow below. If he really thought that the notion that Paul VI or John Paul II was not a true pope was essentially schismatic, then how could he possibly have honestly permitted many of his seminarians and priests to hold it, and a fortiori to consider adopting it himself?
-
One must remember there has been a lot that happened since Archbishop Lefebvre passed away, during this crisis, it is important to note YOU are not to follow Archbishop Lefebvre; follow Jesus Christ. He is the head of His Church, always has been, the Pope is His Vicar on earth, but we still have a head and His name is Jesus Christ.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
-
SS, I wouldn't go so far. Look at your quotations carefully in their context
Read the pdf from John Lane.
-
One must remember there has been a lot that happened since Archbishop Lefebvre passed away, during this crisis, it is important to note YOU are not to follow Archbishop Lefebvre; follow Jesus Christ. He is the head of His Church, always has been, the Pope is His Vicar on earth, but we still have a head and His name is Jesus Christ.
Right Myrna, but it's also important to understand the plain meaning of Archbishop Lefebvre's words when considering the current trajectory of the SSPX.
Archbishop Lefebvre approved sedevacantists as seminarians if they held the position privately. Now how could he do that if he believed the position was schismatic?
-
You're right Tele. I edited the post.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Nor did he embrace it.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Neither did he embrace it.
True, but the bottom line is he never dismissed it. He said it was quite possible. Read what Tele posted.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Neither did he embrace it.
True, but the bottom line is he never dismissed it. He said it was quite possible. Read what Tele posted.
Listen SS...I've been down that road. I don't advise it....nor did ABL...
-
This isn't about whether or not one should become a sede, bernadette. Seraphim claimed that ABL thought sedes were schismatics, whereas ABL's quotes show quite the contrary. All I'm saying is he thought it was a POSSIBILITY. He never condemned the position. He disagreed with it, but thought of it as a possibility.
-
This isn't about whether or not one should become a sede, bernadette. Seraphim claimed that ABL thought sedes were schismatics, whereas ABL's quotes show quite the contrary. All I'm saying is he thought it was a POSSIBILITY. He never condemned the position. He disagreed with it, but thought of it as a possibility.
I understand what you are saying...but the reality is, that it doesn't matter what ABL thought...if he thought that sedes were not necessarily schismatic..that was his opinion, but the if the pope says sedes are schismatic, that is what they are....in other words, people will not listen to a deceased "renegade" archbishop, but they will sure as hell listen to what the pope says...it has come down to being a matter of trying to win a losing battle.
-
For I think that many Traditional Catholics enjoy the traditions; they like the old Mass, they like the old sacraments, they like the old teaching of the Church, but they do not really believe in Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour, God and Creator. (certainly Benedict XVI does not believe that - Tele) That is the bad influence of all the modern errors coming through television and the media - they are so bad, so pagan, so opposed to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith that few people remain true Catholics wholly faithful to Jesus Christ. That is why we can't be indifferent to these scandalous events in Rome, we must judge them in the light of our Faith and help Catholics, traditional Catholics, to see that this bad example of the Pope is a great scandal, very dangerous for their souls. It is very sad. Never in my life did I think I could be saying, the scandal of the Pope, but it is true. What can I do about it? I think we must pray, and pray, morning, noon and night and study our Catholic doctrine very deeply to stay true Catholics and keep the Faith. Someone may say, I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope, in order to consecrate a bishop. That is not true. They are two different problems. Ever since the Council, year after year, I have been praying to God that Providence by the facts and the unfolding of events should show us what we must do. I pray for it to be clear beyond doubt, wholly evident. And I think that now we are in this time, I think that it is the answer of God. I would much prefer Providence to be showing us the Vatican returning to Tradition, but instead we see the Vatican plunging into darkness and error. And so it is sure that now it is not as difficult to see as it was one or two years ago, it is more clear and evident that they are no longer truly Catholic. No persecution or revolution in all history has so destroyed the Church as these years since the Council, because today the Faith is being destroyed by men of the Church, by the Pope himself, by Cardinals, by bishops, priests and nuns. It is the wholesale, worldwide and radical destruction of the Faith. Yet it is a great grace for us to live in this time. From before the destruction, we were chosen by God to continue the Catholic Church. Even if we are condemned by Rome, even if we are persecuted by the bishops, that is not important. What is important is to stay Catholic, to keep the grace we received at baptism, to save our souls. Nobody can say we are heretics or schismatics for believing as the Popes, Saints and Church of old believed for twenty centuries.
-
And so it is sure that now it is not as difficult to see as it was one or two years ago, it is more clear and evident that they are no longer truly Catholic. No persecution or revolution in all history has so destroyed the Church as these years since the Council, because today the Faith is being destroyed by men of the Church, by the Pope himself, by Cardinals, by bishops, priests and nuns. It is the wholesale, worldwide and radical destruction of the Faith. Yet it is a great grace for us to live in this time. From before the destruction, we were chosen by God to continue the Catholic Church. Even if we are condemned by Rome, even if we are persecuted by the bishops, that is not important. What is important is to stay Catholic, to keep the grace we received at baptism, to save our souls. Nobody can say we are heretics or schismatics for believing as the Popes, Saints and Church of old believed for twenty centuries.
And fifty years on...has it really changed? No, to a traditionalist, it has worsened. Does anyone in the church concern themselves with the small minority of traditional Catholics? Not really. This makes the fact that the pope is even speaking with the sspx seem incredible...if you went to a NO church on any given Sunday and asked any Catholic person if they were familiar with the sspx...you'd get a blank stare. The problems in the church are HUGE in the eyes of traditionalists (and rightly so), but nothing in the eyes of the rest of the 1.2 billion Catholics, worldwide...but one thing those 1.2 billion Catholics do believe, is that the pope is the pope....do we wash our hands of them? Or do we not? Just keeping it in perspective.
-
Question:
Would the sedevacantists on this forum agree with the following statements?
""if the pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have the power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar."
"If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is from the devil… and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."
????
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Half right.
Half wrong.
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary sells his English sermon, in which he unambiguously says that sedevacantists are schismatics.
Sorry if you don't like to hear that.
There is nothing you or Tele can say that will change what he says in the sermon.
I suggest you buy it.
-
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
I had started searching for this link when I saw that you had already posted it.
I doubt seraphim, or many others, will read it. Anti-sedevacantists rarely read anything that questions their biases.
I understand what you are saying...but the reality is, that it doesn't matter what ABL thought...
You are right, ultimately, it really doesn't matter what he or any individual thinks. What matters is what is. Benedict 16 does not have the Catholic faith. He frequently tells us that he believes something else and he teaches others to believe what he says. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Conciliar hierarchy long ceased being shepherds. They have even ceased being hirelings. They are the cause of the problems in the Catholic Church, and they cannot be the solution.
-
One must remember there has been a lot that happened since Archbishop Lefebvre passed away, during this crisis, it is important to note YOU are not to follow Archbishop Lefebvre; follow Jesus Christ. He is the head of His Church, always has been, the Pope is His Vicar on earth, but we still have a head and His name is Jesus Christ.
Right Myrna, but it's also important to understand the plain meaning of Archbishop Lefebvre's words when considering the current trajectory of the SSPX.
Archbishop Lefebvre approved sedevacantists as seminarians if they held the position privately. Now how could he do that if he believed the position was schismatic?
Precisely because one who merely wondered was, to the mind of ABL, not a sedevacantist.
Those who declared it publicly, and could not be turned back, were asked to leave (or left on their own).
The reason for this is because ABL considered the position schismatic.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Neither did he embrace it.
True, but the bottom line is he never dismissed it. He said it was quite possible. Read what Tele posted.
The difference is between public and private opinions on sedevacantism.
A private opinion will not put you outside the Church, just as a private heresy will not put you outside the Church.
And for that reason, ABL did not consider such schismatics.
But those who declared publicly that the pope was not the pope, he considered schismatic.
Once again, the inability of Tele and other sedes to make these distinctions (which they consider clever evasions for the sake of protecting their opinions) is the cause not only of their sedevacantist position, but also their failure to properly understand the position of ABL on the subject.
-
This isn't about whether or not one should become a sede, bernadette. Seraphim claimed that ABL thought sedes were schismatics, whereas ABL's quotes show quite the contrary. All I'm saying is he thought it was a POSSIBILITY. He never condemned the position. He disagreed with it, but thought of it as a possibility.
Actually, you are saying 2 different things:
1) ABL said it was a possibility. Nobody disputes this.
2) You think the quote of ABL supplied by Tele shows that ABL was OK with clergy and laymen taking a publicly sedevacantist position. In this you are wrong (see my previous quote demonstrating that ABL considered private sedevacantists to remain within the Church; public sedevacantists as schismatics).
-
Here is the proper context within which to understand Tele's quote, asserting that it made the sedevacantist opinion OK in the eyes of ABL:
Taken from : http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10
"In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
"In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. Opinionism was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
-
Here is the proper context within which to understand Tele's quote, asserting that it made the sedevacantist opinion OK in the eyes of ABL:
Taken from : http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10
"In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
"In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. Opinionism was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
And there you have it.
-
Precisely because one who merely wondered was, to the mind of ABL, not a sedevacantist.
Wrong. They took the position. If the position is schismatic, you may not hold it.
Those who declared it publicly, and could not be turned back, were asked to leave (or left on their own).
Not wanting members to say publicly they are sedes is not the same thing as stating that being a sede is schismatic. You said he claimed sedevacantism was schismatic, when in fact he expressly said:
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
Now I know that people in the SSPX often have had their reasoning skills hobbled because of the cultish submission that is demanded. You cannot say a position is allowed to be said and is schismatic at the same time.
The reason for this is because ABL considered the position schismatic.
No, if one openly speculates that sedevacantism could be true, one cannot then claim that to hold that position is schismatic.
This is common sense. The truth can't be schismatic. If you say something could be true, you cannot call someone schismatic for holding that position. You can only call them schismatic for refusing communion with other Catholics.
-
Precisely because one who merely wondered was, to the mind of ABL, not a sedevacantist.
Wrong. They took the position. If the position is schismatic, you may not hold it.
Those who declared it publicly, and could not be turned back, were asked to leave (or left on their own).
Not wanting members to say publicly they are sedes is not the same thing as stating that being a sede is schismatic. You said he claimed sedevacantism was schismatic, when in fact he expressly said:
"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
Now I know that people in the SSPX often have had their reasoning skills hobbled because of the cultish submission that is demanded. You cannot say a position is allowed to be said and is schismatic at the same time.
The reason for this is because ABL considered the position schismatic.
No, if one openly speculates that sedevacantism could be true, one cannot then claim that to hold that position is schismatic.
This is common sense. The truth can't be schismatic. If you say something could be true, you cannot call someone schismatic for holding that position. You can only call them schismatic for refusing communion with other Catholics.
I fear you lack the intellectual aptitude to understand the subject you wish to debate, and therefore there is little point in continuing.
It appears you completely overlooked the last couple posts, simply to revert to your usual faulty argument.
That being the case, I do not think I can help you.
When you get the time, I would invite you to reflect upon them, as they contain your explanations according to the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
I fear you lack the intellectual aptitude to understand the subject you wish to debate, and therefore there is little point in continuing.
If you say something can be said, could be true, you can't possibly say that to hold that position makes someone a schismatic. Unless you think it's okay to be schismatic.
It appears you completely overlooked the last couple posts, simply to revert to your usual faulty argument.
No. I think your brain shuts down.
That being the case, I do not think I can help you.
You can't explain how one can refuse to say that one can say "the pope is not the pope" (ie, affirm sedevacantism) and at the same time say it's schismatic.
If sedevacantism is schismatic, you may not say the pope is not the pope.
So when the Archbishop said "I do not say either you may not say the pope is not the pope" - it is a necessary consequence that one does not hold sedevacantism to be schismatic.
This is basic logic, but SSPX indoctrination can cause some SSPXers to be incapable of using basic logic.
-
I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.
I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).
Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).
But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.
For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.
It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).
It will be organizing for the resistence.
It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.
It will nt be becomming a schismatic.
.
I fully agree with this post. We start again as we did in the 70's. At least this time we won't be isolated. The internet will make the difference.
The sedevacante position is a position of despair. As long as we have the promise of O L of Fatima, we have hope. The "conservatives" (retarded liberals) who have infiltrated the SSPX can follow + Fellay into the "reform of the reform". The new (SP) 1962 Missal is ready and will be put into effect this coming Advent which by the way will coincide (?) with the "Year of the Faith" declared by the pope for the 50th Anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. That is the reason why the pope "needs" + Fellay now! To lead the "reform of the reform". Bishop Fellay knows that. If he delivers, he will be made a cardinal in no time. If you don't believe this, look at the French reform of the reform bishop Ouillet. He was leading the RR in the Community of St. Martin In France and went from priest to bishop to now cardinal within 5 years or so.
What you have to figure out is that the 1962 missal is a dead end indulge. You must forget that and claim your right to the missal before Bugnini. (1955 or earlier) because the 1962 will be obsolete.
-
To comment the thread's title: Indeed the SSPX leadership capitulation does not mean we have to embrace the sedevacantist hypothesis.
However, this massive SSPX crisis (where Bp Fellay publicly embraces the satanic Vaticanum II, and publicly wants to join New-Rome without a previous conversion of the New-Pope and his New-Church) does strengthen the sedevacantist thesis in practice -- motto: "We knew it all along..."
The wisest statement for me is the one of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was a nice rhyme in its French original words:
I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope.
If both sides here -- those being pro and contra sedevacantist hypothesis -- would stop to claim that their position is a dogmatic one, we could end this pointless discussion. Because clearly this hypothesis will be decided by a future orthodox pope or council.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf (http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf)
Thanks, very nice docuмent.
Usually I really appreciate Seraphim's comments, but his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility that the hypothesis of a sedevacantist situation could be true, is illogical.
Of course I accept that possibility, and so do my SSPX priests. But since I'm not sure if the New-Pope is a real pope or not, I'll have to wait until a future orthodox pope decides. I don't loose anything in waiting. Patience!
By the way, neither Seraphim nor Telesphorus "lack the intellectual aptitude" to discuss this matter in a non-dogmatic way.
But the real problem now is how to avoid the SSPX capitulation...
Let's pray for the three bishops Williamson, Tissier, Galarreta, so that they continue to be united in their fight against the sellout. New-Rome with its extremely intelligent but non-catholic New-Pope will try to separate the three bishops and pocket them one by one (of course with the massive help from Menzingen).
-
correction in my last post:
You can't explain how one can refuse to say that one cannot say "the pope is not the pope" (ie, affirm sedevacantism) and at the same time say it's schismatic.
-
To comment the thread's title: Indeed the SSPX leadership capitulation does not mean we have to embrace the sedevacantist hypothesis.
However, this massive SSPX crisis (where Bp Fellay publicly embraces the satanic Vaticanum II, and publicly wants to join New-Rome without a previous conversion of the New-Pope and his New-Church) does strengthen the sedevacantist thesis in practice -- motto: "We knew it all along..."
The wisest statement for me is the one of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was a nice rhyme in its French original words:
I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope.
If both sides here -- those being pro and contra sedevacantist hypothesis -- would stop to claim that their position is a dogmatic one, we could end this pointless discussion. Because clearly this hypothesis will be decided by a future orthodox pope or council.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf (http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf)
Thanks, very nice docuмent.
Usually I really appreciate Seraphim's comments, but his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility that the hypothesis of a sedevacantist situation could be true, is illogical.
Of course I accept that possibility, and so do my SSPX priests. But since I'm not sure if the New-Pope is a real pope or not, I'll have to wait until a future orthodox pope decides. I don't loose anything in waiting. Patience!
By the way, neither Seraphim nor Telesphorus "lack the intellectual aptitude" to discuss this matter in a non-dogmatic way.
But the real problem now is how to avoid the SSPX capitulation...
Let's pray for the three bishops Williamson, Tissier, Galarreta, so that they continue to be united in their fight against the sellout. New-Rome with its extremely intelligent but non-catholic New-Pope will try to separate the three bishops and pocket them one by one (of course with the massive help from Menzingen).
For clarification:
I have always acknowledged the possibility of sedevacantism, and have said so countless times.
The debate here is whether ABL considered public sedevacantists schismatic.
Tele has said his quote demonstrates this is not the case.
I on the other hand have supplied the explaanation/historical background behind the quote to put it in context, showing that ABL's opinion depended on whether the sedevacantist was public or private.
I leave it to you all to decide which argument is persuasive.
-
Seraphim, Archbishop LeFebvre did not think that sedevacantists were schismatic, nor did he ever dismiss the possibility that the position could be true.
Nor did he embrace it.
The truth is, IF the sedevacantist position is correct, and the Chair of Peter is empty from a Catholic Pope, YOU are all sedevacantist, whether you admit it or not.
A sedevacantist is not a new religion as Vatican II IS.
-
I have always acknowledged the possibility of sedevacantism, and have said so countless times.
If you believe it could be true it can't be schismatic to merely assert one believes it to be true.
If you do not say someone cannot say it, you cannot say it's schismatic to say it. To say a is position schismatic is to say one must not assert it.
-
I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.
I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).
Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).
But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.
For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.
It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).
It will be organizing for the resistence.
It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.
It will nt be becomming a schismatic.
.
I fully agree with this post. We start again as we did in the 70's. At least this time we won't be isolated. The internet will make the difference.
The sedevacante position is a position of despair. As long as we have the promise of O L of Fatima, we have hope. The "conservatives" (retarded liberals) who have infiltrated the SSPX can follow + Fellay into the "reform of the reform". The new (SP) 1962 Missal is ready and will be put into effect this coming Advent which by the way will coincide (?) with the "Year of the Faith" declared by the pope for the 50th Anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. That is the reason why the pope "needs" + Fellay now! To lead the "reform of the reform". Bishop Fellay knows that. If he delivers, he will be made a cardinal in no time. If you don't believe this, look at the French reform of the reform bishop Ouillet. He was leading the RR in the Community of St. Martin In France and went from priest to bishop to now cardinal within 5 years or so.
What you have to figure out is that the 1962 missal is a dead end indulge. You must forget that and claim your right to the missal before Bugnini. (1955 or earlier) because the 1962 will be obsolete.
Excuse me, I made a big mistake in my post above. I was thinking of Bishop Marc Aillet. not Marc Ouillet. Bishop Aillet is the one I was reffering to, he's the author of "The Old mass and the New" sold by Ignatius Press. He is not yet a cardinal.
-
It appears you completely overlooked the last couple posts, simply to revert to your usual faulty argument.
No. I think your brain shuts down.
Seraphim has hit upon a Crime Stop. A forbidden thought has been expressed and, rather than confront the thought, Saraphim retreats to a safe thought and simply declares that the other person is just unable to comprehend.
I have always acknowledged the possibility of sedevacantism, and have said so countless times.
If you believe it could be true it can't be schismatic to merely assert one believes it to be true.
If you do not say someone cannot say it, you cannot say it's schismatic to say it. To say a is position schismatic is to say one must not assert it.
Telesphorus is correct here. Seraphim charges Telesphorus with what he himself is guilty of. (By the way, I don't know if Seraphim is a man or woman, so I use the generic English pronoun here.) Telesphorus has not, at least in this topic, declared that anyone who is not a sedevacantist is outside the Church. On the other hand, Seraphim has declared that anyone who is a sedevacantist is outside the Church (i.e., schismatic). Yet she wants to believe two mutually exclusive truths: That sedevacantism could be true and that sedevacantism is necessarily schismatic.
Your position, Seraphim, is irrational.
-
It seems to be an inverted argument...regarding who is schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a schismatic from the Catholic truth...the modernist/conciliarist is the real schismatic ( :devil2:), if we must point a finger.
The question isn't 'is the seat empty?' but rather it is 'how can the seat be empty repeatedly for 50+ years?'...that really changes the entire argument. So the sspx continues to hold and push forward what they believe to be the most logical position to the second question...a Catholic cannot openly declare that a pope is not the pope, but wait for another day when a true pope will do so.
To me, it appears that +Fellay believes that standing on the outside looking in will not help or speed up any traditional restoration in the church...and remaining separate year in and year out, develops a schismatic 'mentality'...I stress 'mentality'.
-
Those who declared it publicly, and could not be turned back, were asked to leave (or left on their own).
I take it you refering to the instance in 1983? They left because they wouldn't agree to use the 1962 Missal, I believe.
-
Seraphim, as TKGS wisely noted, your position is irrational. You say you believe the sede position is possible but that it's also schismatic. A true Catholic position cannot be schismatic, so in order for your statement to make any sense, you'll need to either say the sede position is NOT possible and is schismatic, or that it IS possible and is not schismatic.
Don't take my comments the wrong way, I don't have anything against you personally, and completely agree with you on which side to take regarding the situation amongst the four Bishops in the SSPX. But your statement that sedevacantism is possible but is also schismatic doesn't make any sense.
-
It appears you completely overlooked the last couple posts, simply to revert to your usual faulty argument.
No. I think your brain shuts down.
Seraphim has hit upon a Crime Stop. A forbidden thought has been expressed and, rather than confront the thought, Saraphim retreats to a safe thought and simply declares that the other person is just unable to comprehend.
I have always acknowledged the possibility of sedevacantism, and have said so countless times.
If you believe it could be true it can't be schismatic to merely assert one believes it to be true.
If you do not say someone cannot say it, you cannot say it's schismatic to say it. To say a is position schismatic is to say one must not assert it.
Telesphorus is correct here. Seraphim charges Telesphorus with what he himself is guilty of. (By the way, I don't know if Seraphim is a man or woman, so I use the generic English pronoun here.) Telesphorus has not, at least in this topic, declared that anyone who is not a sedevacantist is outside the Church. On the other hand, Seraphim has declared that anyone who is a sedevacantist is outside the Church (i.e., schismatic). Yet she wants to believe two mutually exclusive truths: That sedevacantism could be true and that sedevacantism is necessarily schismatic.
Your position, Seraphim, is irrational.
Take it up with Archbishop Lefebvre.
It is his position, and you are free to buy the sermon from STAS.org to hear it for yourself.
Your beef is not with me, but with Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
It seems to be an inverted argument...regarding who is schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a schismatic from the Catholic truth...the modernist/conciliarist is the real schismatic ( :devil2:), if we must point a finger.
Except Bishop Fellay is seeking communion with modernists and conciliarists, and the SSPX is indoctrinating people to believe sedevacantism is schismatic, even protestant.
-
Ahem....
Regarding the statement quoted by Tele:
Taken from : http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10
"In the autumn of 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre issued a declaration in which he stated that he would not tolerate in the Society of Saint Pius X those who refused to place the name of John Paul II in the canon of the Mass. He dismissed a number of priests in Europe for refusal to observe the dictum. In the spring of 1980, he came to America with the same agenda: to dismiss those who would not say the name of John Paul II in the canon.
"In the course of the negotiations with the American priests, however, Archbishop Lefebvre came to a compromise, of sorts. He would not throw out the priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, if they would agree to keep their sedevacantism to themselves. They could leave out John Paul's name from the canon, as long as they did not make a public issue out of it. Opinionism was born. The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."
Conclusion: If you have a problem with this (i.e., "You cannot say it is OK to acknowledge sedevacantism privately and avoid schism, but fall into schism if you admit it publicly"), your beef is not with me, but with Archbishop Lefebvre.
Are you ready to take HIM on?
-
It seems to be an inverted argument...regarding who is schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a schismatic from the Catholic truth...the modernist/conciliarist is the real schismatic ( :devil2:), if we must point a finger.
Except Bishop Fellay is seeking communion with modernists and conciliarists, and the SSPX is indoctrinating people to believe sedevacantism is schismatic, even protestant.
Which is perfectly true.
A Protestant who held his doubts or objections privately was not expelled from the Church for heresy (i.e., he was a privsate material heretic).
A Protestant who did so publicly lost membership.
Perfect aanalogy to sedevacantism: Harboring the doubt privately does not make one a schismatic; declaring it publicly does.
Sorry you don't like to hear that.
-
I think comparing sedevacantism to Protestantism is sheer insanity.
-
Which is perfectly true.
Time to use the cult alarm.
A Protestant who held his doubts or objections privately was not expelled from the Church for heresy (i.e., he was a privsate material heretic).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that Protestantism could be true? Did he say we could be obliged to be Protestant? You yourself said sedevacantism could be true. Do you also say Protestantism could be true?
A Protestant who did so publicly lost membership.
A private protestant is a heretic. The Archbishop wouldn't have let confessed Protestants in the society.
Perfect aanalogy to sedevacantism: Harboring the doubt privately does not make one a schismatic; declaring it publicly does.
Only in a cult mind!
Sorry you don't like to hear that.
Sorry that your basic logical faculties were destroyed by SSPX indoctrination.
-
This isn't about whether or not one should become a sede, bernadette. Seraphim claimed that ABL thought sedes were schismatics, whereas ABL's quotes show quite the contrary. All I'm saying is he thought it was a POSSIBILITY. He never condemned the position. He disagreed with it, but thought of it as a possibility.
I understand what you are saying...but the reality is, that it doesn't matter what ABL thought...if he thought that sedes were not necessarily schismatic..that was his opinion, but the if the pope says sedes are schismatic, that is what they are....in other words, people will not listen to a deceased "renegade" archbishop, but they will sure as hell listen to what the pope says...it has come down to being a matter of trying to win a losing battle.
What exactly is this battle you're talking about?
-
This isn't about whether or not one should become a sede, bernadette. Seraphim claimed that ABL thought sedes were schismatics, whereas ABL's quotes show quite the contrary. All I'm saying is he thought it was a POSSIBILITY. He never condemned the position. He disagreed with it, but thought of it as a possibility.
I understand what you are saying...but the reality is, that it doesn't matter what ABL thought...if he thought that sedes were not necessarily schismatic..that was his opinion, but the if the pope says sedes are schismatic, that is what they are....in other words, people will not listen to a deceased "renegade" archbishop, but they will sure as hell listen to what the pope says...it has come down to being a matter of trying to win a losing battle.
What exactly is this battle you're talking about?
The battle against modernism.
-
Sorry that your basic logical faculties were destroyed by SSPX indoctrination.
Sorry that your Christian charity was destroyed by sedevacantism.
-
Which is perfectly true.
Time to use the cult alarm.
A Protestant who held his doubts or objections privately was not expelled from the Church for heresy (i.e., he was a privsate material heretic).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that Protestantism could be true? Did he say we could be obliged to be Protestant? You yourself said sedevacantism could be true. Do you also say Protestantism could be true?
A Protestant who did so publicly lost membership.
A private protestant is a heretic. The Archbishop wouldn't have let confessed Protestants in the society.
Perfect aanalogy to sedevacantism: Harboring the doubt privately does not make one a schismatic; declaring it publicly does.
Only in a cult mind!
Sorry you don't like to hear that.
Sorry that your basic logical faculties were destroyed by SSPX indoctrination.
I get it that each side is passionate, and I'm not telling either side to back down, but could we please refrain from being disrespectful toward one another????
Let's keep it charitable and be charitable one towards another. Enough of this "you lack the mental acuity" or "you have a cult mentality"... If the other side doesn't seem to get it, then explain it again using different terms or analogies.
-
Seeing as this thread was created in reaction to something I said in another thread, I suppose I should say something.
Where I'm currently living, my options for Mass are extremely limited. There are two TLMs that are offered once a month, one by a visiting SSPX priest and one by a visiting independent (sede) priest. Both are over a three-hour drive from where I live, and I'm currently living at home and have no means of transportation. I'm hoping that when I finish the courses I'm taking (which should be in a few months) that I can move to the city where they are being offered and find employment. The only other non-NO option available is an eastern Ukrainian Mass, which is 1 1/2 hours away, but even if I was able to take the bus there, I've already been forbidden by my parents to go there, and seeing as I'm currently living under their roof, I have no choice but to comply.
Now, given the scarcity of options available to me to receive the Sacraments, it would appear wiser not to limit myself on the basis of a priest's personal opinions on the current papacy, even with the absence of the una cuм in the Canon (something which goes by so fast that, practically speaking, most parishioners probably don't even notice it anyway). Besides, I've talked to the above-mentioned sede priest in the past via e-mail, and he seemed like a sensible enough priest who is devoted to the salvation of souls. And as far as I'm concerned, that's enough for me.
Now, with all of the confusion surrounding the status of the SSPX and whether it will be 'reconciled' with Rome or not, there seems to be even less reason to maintain the position of refusing to go to Masses offered by sedevacantist priests. It's becoming increasingly apparent that the SSPX is no longer the impenetrable refuge for traditionalists it may have once been. The shepherd has been struck, and the sheep are scattering. Now it is up to each of us to find a faithful priest on our own in order to help us work out our salvation (and that of our families). We can no longer depend on the safety of traditional(ist) 'brands' (SSPX, SGG, etc.) like we may have in the past.
-
I think comparing sedevacantism to Protestantism is sheer insanity.
Then compare it to Orthodoxy, if it is easier for you.
A man who held private doubts regarding the Petrine Primacy is not ousted from the Church for that fact.
One who publicly declares his rejection of the Primacy is.
Sorry you don't like to be told, but.....
-
It seems to be an inverted argument...regarding who is schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a schismatic from the Catholic truth...the modernist/conciliarist is the real schismatic ( :devil2:), if we must point a finger.
The question isn't 'is the seat empty?' but rather it is 'how can the seat be empty repeatedly for 50+ years?'...that really changes the entire argument. So the sspx continues to hold and push forward what they believe to be the most logical position to the second question...a Catholic cannot openly declare that a pope is not the pope, but wait for another day when a true pope will do so.
To me, it appears that +Fellay believes that standing on the outside looking in will not help or speed up any traditional restoration in the church...and remaining separate year in and year out, develops a schismatic 'mentality'...I stress 'mentality'.
As far as I know, there is no teaching on how long the Chair will/can be empty.
Fifty years in Our Lords eyes would no doubt be a wink of His eye.
Sedevacantist does not mean you are judging a pope, it means you recognize that a Freemason can not be a pope to begin with. Or if you prefer... an enemy of God can not be a pope to begin with, if the intention is evil, (destroy the Church) there you will find a sheep in wolves clothing. Never a pope to judge, no matter who "elected" him.
Also consider Our Lord did not leave us orphans in the sense we do not have a Catholic Pope in the Chair. We have all the encyclicals, writings, teachings, explanations from true popes throughout the history of the Church. His timing is perfect when He allowed this to happen. All we have to do now is be faithful to the teachings we have learned from the BEGINNING.
Proof that we have NO POPE is seen all over the world, as here, Catholics pointing fingers at each other saying "schismatic".
-
It seems to be an inverted argument...regarding who is schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a schismatic from the Catholic truth...the modernist/conciliarist is the real schismatic ( :devil2:), if we must point a finger.
The question isn't 'is the seat empty?' but rather it is 'how can the seat be empty repeatedly for 50+ years?'...that really changes the entire argument. So the sspx continues to hold and push forward what they believe to be the most logical position to the second question...a Catholic cannot openly declare that a pope is not the pope, but wait for another day when a true pope will do so.
To me, it appears that +Fellay believes that standing on the outside looking in will not help or speed up any traditional restoration in the church...and remaining separate year in and year out, develops a schismatic 'mentality'...I stress 'mentality'.
As far as I know, there is no teaching on how long the Chair will/can be empty.
Fifty years in Our Lords eyes would no doubt be a wink of His eye.
Sedevacantist does not mean you are judging a pope, it means you recognize that a Freemason can not be a pope to begin with. Or if you prefer... an enemy of God can not be a pope to begin with, if the intention is evil, (destroy the Church) there you will find a sheep in wolves clothing. Never a pope to judge, no matter who "elected" him.
Also consider Our Lord did not leave us orphans in the sense we do not have a Catholic Pope in the Chair. We have all the encyclicals, writings, teachings, explanations from true popes throughout the history of the Church. His timing is perfect when He allowed this to happen. All we have to do now is be faithful to the teachings we have learned from the BEGINNING.
Proof that we have NO POPE is seen all over the world, as here, Catholics pointing fingers at each other saying "schismatic".
What concerns me is not so much how long a chair can be empty, but the fact that throughout church history, when referring to an empty chair or sedevacante...it has always been limited to one pope, not a string of them...
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
As Telesphorus says, the history of Vatican II and its aftermath, and the consequent near-total apostasy of the visible Church, is unprecedented in Church history. Indeed, if we didn't know better, one would have to conclude that the gates of hell had in fact prevailed against the Church, and that's not something to be said lightly!
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Not sure we are living in the end times, but know for sure we are living in the Great Apostasy.
What do you imagine the Great Apostasy is?
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
As Telesphorus says, the history of Vatican II and its aftermath, and the consequent near-total apostasy of the visible Church, is unprecedented in Church history. Indeed, if we didn't know better, one would have to conclude that the gates of hell had in fact prevailed against the Church, and that's not something to be said lightly!
This is precisely why the sedevacantist position is untenable. On the one side you have a tortuted, mutilated Church, but with an intact, visible hierarchy - this is the view of the Society. On the other side you have a Church without a pope for 50 years, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, therefore an invisible Church with no visible hierarchy - this is the sedevacantist view.
Which of these is compatible with Our Lord saying that the gates of hell will not prevail?
Has there ever been a time since Our Lord founded the Church that it was without a pope and without any ordinary bishops?
It is actually quite simple. The Catholic Church is both visible and indefectible. By holding to the sedevacantist position, a person is denying both of these dogmas, which makes the position not only schismatic (refusing submission to the Pope) but also heretical. Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law. No SSPX priest would tell you that it was fine. The Venerable Archishop called the sedevacantist position "imposible", "insane" and "schismatic" (e.g. see the quote in Bishop Fellay's letter).
-
This is precisely why the sedevacantist position is untenable. On the one side you have a tortuted, mutilated Church, but with an intact, visible hierarchy
The Church cannot be contaminated with error. Yet the Society has pointed out very clearly in the past the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass are contaminated, and that the "hierarchy" are largely modernists.
If this is your "visible Church" - the gates of Hell have prevailed.
-
Bishop Fellay has said that the Church has cancer. Here is what Pius XI said:
. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
-
I did not say the Church was "contaminated", but mutilated, as the Most Holy Face of Christ was during His Passion.
Archbishop Lefebvre used this comparison with regards to the sedevacantists. He compared them to the Arian heretics, who were scandalized that Christ was so humiliated and disfigured on the Cross that they said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this cannot be God". In the same way the sedevacantists see the Church in this, Her Passion, and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this cannot be the Church!".
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics, who saw the same and said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this was just an illusion and Christ did not die on the cross". In the same way the neo-cons see the Passion of the Church and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this is actually an illusion and the Popes are actually teaching Tradition"
The Venerable Archbishop condemned both.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_67.htm
-
I did not say the Church was "contaminated", but mutilated, as the Most Holy Face of Christ was during His Passion.
Archbishop Lefebvre used this comparison with regards to the sedevacantists. He compared them to the Arian heretics, who were scandalized that Christ was so humiliated and disfigured on the Cross that they said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this cannot be God". In the same way the sedevacantists see the Church in this, Her Passion, and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this cannot be the Church!".
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics, who saw the same and said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this was just an illusion and Christ did not die on the cross". In the same way the neo-cons see the Passion of the Church and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this is actually an illusion and the Popes are actually teaching Tradition"
The Venerable Archbishop condemned both.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_67.htm
If you want to see a suffering Church, as Christ was on the Cross, look to the sedevacantist. Here you will find ordinary people simply wanting to keep the Faith. Yet they are the outcast of their families and friends as Christ was outcast by His nation.
Just as the crowd yelled "Crucify Him" the mainstream church and now SSPX uniting with them, want to crucify the sede. Humiliation, the sede knows very well what that is. Persecution, what else is new. So if you want to see a suffering Church, become a sede, instead of trying to straddle the fence.
Our sede priests struggling just to bring the sacraments to their flock, yet they drop everything to attend a dying soul when called by relatives after being dissed by their own novus parish. Just as Jesus left His flock to save the one who wandered off. Want to see an imitation of Christ; become a sede.
-
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics
That is a delirium on your part.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
Benedict XVI prays with female Lutheran "bishop"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD53KzHx-2Q
-
The Church cannot be contaminated with error. Yet the Society has pointed out very clearly in the past the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass are contaminated, and that the "hierarchy" are largely modernists.
If this is your "visible Church" - the gates of Hell have prevailed.
Typical sedevacantist claptrap, no doubt inspired by the devil. You willl not m ake the distinction between the Church as a divine and as a human institution. As a divine institution, the Church cannot err. However, there are human members of the Church that can and do err, sometimes grieviously. We happen to live in a time when the human members of the Church are heavily infected by modernist ideas.
If you want to see a suffering Church, as Christ was on the Cross, look to the sedevacantist. Here you will find ordinary people simply wanting to keep the Faith. Yet they are the outcast of their families and friends as Christ was outcast by His nation.
I've known sedes. If you want to see an arrogant, illogical, hypocritical, pharisaical fanatic, look to the sedevacantist. If you want to see a man who tells his children not to listen to any priests at all because they you never know if they might be modernist or not-look to the sede! They are outcast out of the Church because they are in schism-not the fake "schism" that people accused the great Archbishop of, but real schism. Schism that they happily admit by not praying for the Pope in the Canon.
Our sede priests struggling just to bring the sacraments to their flock, yet they drop everything to attend a dying soul when called by relatives after being dissed by their own novus parish.
blah blah blah. I've seen the exact same thing happen with SSPX and even Indult priests. It's hardly a "unique" mark of holiness restricted to sedes.
I did not say the Church was "contaminated", but mutilated, as the Most Holy Face of Christ was during His Passion.
Archbishop Lefebvre used this comparison with regards to the sedevacantists. He compared them to the Arian heretics, who were scandalized that Christ was so humiliated and disfigured on the Cross that they said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this cannot be God". In the same way the sedevacantists see the Church in this, Her Passion, and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this cannot be the Church!".
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics, who saw the same and said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this was just an illusion and Christ did not die on the cross". In the same way the neo-cons see the Passion of the Church and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this is actually an illusion and the Popes are actually teaching Tradition"
The Venerable Archbishop condemned both.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_67.
Good to see ya EM! Been a lurker at IA a long time and liked your stuff. You know you're on a sede website when practically your whole post is one long quote of the great Archbishop and you get nothing but dislikes. Despite the lip service they pay to the great man, they actually can't stand him because he knew that we still had a Pope!
Cue Telesphorus' broken record out of context quote from the Archbishop....
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
As Telesphorus says, the history of Vatican II and its aftermath, and the consequent near-total apostasy of the visible Church, is unprecedented in Church history. Indeed, if we didn't know better, one would have to conclude that the gates of hell had in fact prevailed against the Church, and that's not something to be said lightly!
This is precisely why the sedevacantist position is untenable. On the one side you have a tortuted, mutilated Church, but with an intact, visible hierarchy - this is the view of the Society. On the other side you have a Church without a pope for 50 years, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, therefore an invisible Church with no visible hierarchy - this is the sedevacantist view.
Which of these is compatible with Our Lord saying that the gates of hell will not prevail?
Has there ever been a time since Our Lord founded the Church that it was without a pope and without any ordinary bishops?
It is actually quite simple. The Catholic Church is both visible and indefectible. By holding to the sedevacantist position, a person is denying both of these dogmas, which makes the position not only schismatic (refusing submission to the Pope) but also heretical. Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law. No SSPX priest would tell you that it was fine. The Venerable Archishop called the sedevacantist position "imposible", "insane" and "schismatic" (e.g. see the quote in Bishop Fellay's letter).
:applause:
-
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
One of the best refutations of sedevacantism. Well worth the read.
-
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics
That is a delirium on your part.
How is it delirium? You are saying that the Archbishop's words are "delirium"?
How typical. Anyone who does not agree with Pope Telesphorus must be sick, or insane!
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
-
A sedevcantist considers theological distinctions (e.g., the doctrine of necessity as a cause excusing from obedience to superiors) "fence straddling."
Interesting.
-
Against Tele (and all sedevacantists), here follows evidence that:
1) A Pope can fall into heresy and remain Pope;
2) It is legitimate to resist such a Pope (i.e., Because sedes deny necessity can apply against a Pope).
Here follow the words of the 3rd Council of Constantinople against Pope Honorious:
"Having found that (Honorius' letters) are in complete disagreement with the apostolic dogmas and the definitions of the holy councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to the souls… We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had been also rejected from the God's Holy Catholic Church and is being anathemized, on account of the writings he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles."
Commentary from Fr Boulet (SSPX) on this passage:
"Also, no matter what kind of judgment can be passed on Pope Honorius, it is a matter of fact that we have an official pontifical docuмent which admits that a pope could possibly fall into heresy. Such docuмent is from Pope Adrian II, more than 200 years after the death of Honorius: "After his death, Honorius was anathemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resistance of inferiors to the orders of their superiors, and the refusal of their malicious doctrines."
(Note: These passages are taken from the excellent article linked previously by Ecclesia Militans)
-
From the same excellent article:
"Can a pope be heretic? It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)." Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and "teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him". He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)."
-
From the same excellent article:
"Can a pope be heretic? It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)." Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and "teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him". He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)."
I find this quote particularly humorous when I think about sedevacantists babbling about the alleged "inconsistency of the SSPX position" and how we are illogical in defying someone we recognize as pope.
:roll-laugh2:
-
You people just cast aside the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine on this subject and pretend not to hear what the Archbishop himself said about the sedevacantist position being something that could explain the current situation and that might have to be accepted.
It really is insane, dragging Popes who made errors through the mud in order to compare them to the conciliarists who have systematically wrecked Church teachings.
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
It's absurd to pretend a flagrant non-Christian is Pope. This really is the issue. This isn't a matter of a scandalous error, this is about everything in the religion. This is another major reason for the imminent fall of the SSPX. Sedevacantism has been demonized and put on par with conciliarism, and in order to reach such an absurd conclusion, and to pretend the Archbishop shared such an opinion, disregarding his plain words that allowed the possibility, shows the fundamental intellectual weakness that fundamentally undermines the integrity of the SSPX.
-
them to the conciliarists who have systematically wrecked Church teachings.
They haven't "wrecked" Church teachings, I mean they have tried to twist them and corrupt them in the minds of the Faithful.
-
You people just cast aside the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine on this subject and pretend not to hear what the Archbishop himself said about the sedevacantist position being something that could explain the current situation and that might have to be accepted.
It really is insane, dragging Popes who made errors through the mud in order to compare them to the conciliarists who have systematically wrecked Church teachings.
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
It's absurd to pretend a flagrant non-Christian is Pope. This really is the issue. This isn't a matter of a scandalous error, this is about everything in the religion. This is another major reason for the imminent fall of the SSPX. Sedevacantism has been demonized and put on par with conciliarism, and in order to reach such an absurd conclusion, and to pretend the Archbishop shared such an opinion, disregarding his plain words that allowed the possibility, shows the fundamental intellectual weakness that fundamentally undermines the integrity of the SSPX.
This post borders upon mental retardation:
1) You clearly did not read the article, since it is St. Bellarmine who makes many of our arguments.
2) The problem is that you pick through his works looking for supportive citations (like you do with ABL), without having the wherewithal to read them all to see where he stands generally on the subject.
3) Hence, you open yourself up to embarassing defeats like this one.
-
[..]
The wisest statement for me is the one of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was a nice rhyme in its French original words:
I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope.
If both sides here -- those being pro and contra sedevacantist hypothesis -- would stop to claim that their position is a dogmatic one, we could end this pointless discussion. Because clearly this hypothesis will be decided by a future orthodox pope or council.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf (http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf)
Thanks, very nice docuмent.
Usually I really appreciate Seraphim's comments, but his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility that the hypothesis of a sedevacantist situation could be true, is illogical.
Of course I accept that possibility, and so do my SSPX priests. But since I'm not sure if the New-Pope is a real pope or not, I'll have to wait until a future orthodox pope decides. I don't loose anything in waiting. Patience!
By the way, neither Seraphim nor Telesphorus "lack the intellectual aptitude" to discuss this matter in a non-dogmatic way.
[..]
For clarification:
I have always acknowledged the possibility of sedevacantism, and have said so countless times.
The debate here is whether ABL considered public sedevacantists schismatic.
Tele has said his quote demonstrates this is not the case.
I on the other hand have supplied the explaanation/historical background behind the quote to put it in context, showing that ABL's opinion depended on whether the sedevacantist was public or private.
I leave it to you all to decide which argument is persuasive.
Thank you Seraphim for your clarification.
May I suggest you read the short PDF file named Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis (http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf), which Telesphorus and others linked to?
The PDF is a chapter from a book by Mr John Lane edited in 2010 I think. The chapter is just 17 pages long, and a big part of it are long quotes from our much-valued Archbishop Lefebvre.
The author puts the quotes very sensibly into context, as well as the dates when the good Archbishop said it. A very fine and smart work from a faithful catholic, I think. He really appreciates the Archbishop, as do we.
I'm sure you won't regret reading it, Seraphim. I even liked the Archbishop more after having read it. And I'm sure most of this thread's participants including you and me would agree with what Mr Lane writes.
-
Ethelred-
I have not yet read this tract.
Mr. Lane, to me, is the most convincing of the sedevacantist authors.
When I read it, it is against the tract supplied by Ecclesia Militans (which I just posted in the library subforum "Against the Sedevacantists") that I will weigh the arguments, since I consider that work the best one coming from the SSPX camp.
After I have done that, I will post a new thread with my own subjective impressions of how the two arguments stack up.
I would say I will not post the new thread until Saturday.
Pax Tecuм,
Seraphim
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
As Telesphorus says, the history of Vatican II and its aftermath, and the consequent near-total apostasy of the visible Church, is unprecedented in Church history. Indeed, if we didn't know better, one would have to conclude that the gates of hell had in fact prevailed against the Church, and that's not something to be said lightly!
This is precisely why the sedevacantist position is untenable. On the one side you have a tortuted, mutilated Church, but with an intact, visible hierarchy - this is the view of the Society. On the other side you have a Church without a pope for 50 years, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, therefore an invisible Church with no visible hierarchy - this is the sedevacantist view.
Which of these is compatible with Our Lord saying that the gates of hell will not prevail?
Has there ever been a time since Our Lord founded the Church that it was without a pope and without any ordinary bishops?
It is actually quite simple. The Catholic Church is both visible and indefectible. By holding to the sedevacantist position, a person is denying both of these dogmas, which makes the position not only schismatic (refusing submission to the Pope) but also heretical. Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law. No SSPX priest would tell you that it was fine. The Venerable Archishop called the sedevacantist position "imposible", "insane" and "schismatic" (e.g. see the quote in Bishop Fellay's letter).
:applause:
What is insane is to believe that a true pope can be pope of truth and error at the same time, that a pope can be pope of a new Catholic church and traditional Catholic church at the same time. Also many SSPX are closet sedevacantist anyway, just too comfortable where they are to speak out. Time will tell the truth!
-
This post borders upon mental retardation:
1) You clearly did not read the article, since it is St. Bellarmine who makes many of our arguments.
I've read enough SSPX articles. There is no reason to go in circles, and that's the inevitable result of trying to engage an SSPX stonewaller. I'm not even debating with you.
2) The problem is that you pick through his works looking for supportive citations (like you do with ABL), without having the wherewithal to read them all to see where he stands generally on the subject.
You don't understand logic. What St. Robert Bellarmine says about manifestly heretical Popes losing office has to be answered. Your claims of Papal heresy are just brushing aside his conclusion. What Archbishop Lefebvre said about sedevacantism has necessary implications that contradict your views.
3) Hence, you open yourself up to embarassing defeats like this one.
I'm always amused at the way those indoctrinated as you have been claim to win a debate when they cannot answer a single question posed to them.
-
Yes
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
As Telesphorus says, the history of Vatican II and its aftermath, and the consequent near-total apostasy of the visible Church, is unprecedented in Church history. Indeed, if we didn't know better, one would have to conclude that the gates of hell had in fact prevailed against the Church, and that's not something to be said lightly!
This is precisely why the sedevacantist position is untenable. On the one side you have a tortuted, mutilated Church, but with an intact, visible hierarchy - this is the view of the Society. On the other side you have a Church without a pope for 50 years, without any bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, therefore an invisible Church with no visible hierarchy - this is the sedevacantist view.
Which of these is compatible with Our Lord saying that the gates of hell will not prevail?
Has there ever been a time since Our Lord founded the Church that it was without a pope and without any ordinary bishops?
It is actually quite simple. The Catholic Church is both visible and indefectible. By holding to the sedevacantist position, a person is denying both of these dogmas, which makes the position not only schismatic (refusing submission to the Pope) but also heretical. Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law. No SSPX priest would tell you that it was fine. The Venerable Archishop called the sedevacantist position "imposible", "insane" and "schismatic" (e.g. see the quote in Bishop Fellay's letter).
:applause:
What is insane is to believe that a true pope can be pope of truth and error at the same time, that a pope can be pope of a new Catholic church and traditional Catholic church at the same time. Also many SSPX are closet sedevacantist anyway, just too comfortable where they are to speak out. Time will tell the truth!
Ecclesia Militans has posted an excellent article quoting Pope Adrian stating explicitly that which you deny: That a Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy.
I have just posted that article in the library subforum under the title "Against the Sedevacantists."
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
-
Thank you Sereaphim for your calm reply, and for intending to read the PDF.
I'm glad you say Mr. Lane's rather convincing, because that was my impression with his PDF, too.
I didn't know that he's a sedevacantist. But it doesn't matter. His chapter is pretty good. Reading it didn't make me a sedevacantist. However I got assured that we can have grave doubts whether the New-Popes are true popes. I'm on edge for a future orthodox pope to decide that. (And I'm sure we won't have to wait years for this to happen!)
The following quote of Mr. Lane is a nice summarise of the problem:
In 1998, as part of his reflections on the tenth anniversary of the episcopal consecrations, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais summarised the Archbishop's thinking as follows:
[Archbishop Lefebvre] said more than once about these popes – about Paul VI from 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 – that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been popes. But for himself, he preferred to consider them as popes.
(Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in an interview published in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29. May-June 1998), marking the tenth anniversary of the episcopal consecrations of June 1988.)
-
Mr. Lane, to me, is the most convincing of the sedevacantist authors.
Mr. Lane is the only one that sounds like he does not believe he is the pope.
More power to him for that.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
Burned..... :roll-laugh2:
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
So then what is the Intent of John XXIII , Paul VI , JPI , JPII , Benedict?
I see SSPX defending them as legitimate no matter how many defections of the Faith they engender by their embrace of Modernism - We do not see that in St Peter and likewise one thing you didnt mention - St Peter really didnt become St Peter the POPE until Pentecost when the Holy Ghost came upon St Peter and the Disciples. Prior to Pentecost the Apostles acted like Scared Rabbits including the time St Peter Denied Christ - AFTER Pentecost - St Peter and every Apostle (Save St John) gladly accepted Martyrdom as did every Pope right up until Liberias.
So your argument is flawed
-
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
One of the best refutations of sedevacantism. Well worth the read.
I agree 100%...this is the refutation that changed my downward course and prevented me from adopting the sede position. It was sent to me by a woman in similar situation as I...for that I am grateful.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
Tele...I am sorry if it seemed my post was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. Listen, there was a time when I was obsessed with prophecy and I hung on every word written by +Williamson. Soon I became aware of the gloomy pall that hung over me. I was angry most of the time, and I noticed an anger and an uncharitable tendency in the people I was associating with. I am not saying that I don't believe in prophecy or private revelation, but when people begin to focus largely on it and fit the challenges and the problems of the church today into biblical prophecy, they are asking to be diverted from being a Catholic in the true sense...and diverted from practicing faith, hope and charity, and their faith in general.
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
It's obvious, when you read the secret plan of the Alta Vendita.
-
The intentions of Paul VI certainly were not good:
Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."
Of course, even good intentions don't make up for destruction of the Faith.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
Tele...I am sorry if it seemed my post was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. Listen, there was a time when I was obsessed with prophecy and I hung on every word written by +Williamson. Soon I became aware of the gloomy pall that hung over me. I was angry most of the time, and I noticed an anger and an uncharitable tendency in the people I was associating with. I am not saying that I don't believe in prophecy or private revelation, but when people begin to focus largely on it and fit the challenges and the problems of the church today into biblical prophecy, they are asking to be diverted from being a Catholic in the true sense...and diverted from practicing faith, hope and charity, and their faith in general.
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
Hostile is probably the wrong word but I'm not a follower of the Grunerite Fatimism so widespread even among SSPX. There was a well intentioned conference held in Ireland last year and whilst I believe in Fatima, I do think Bernadatte makes sense here. It's easy to get distracted. I made the point to somebody the other day is Fr Gruner even validly ordained?
-
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
The teachings of the Church about eschatology are not merely a matter of private revelation. Nor is it a matter that I obsess about. It is part of the Faith. So when people denigrate those concerned with eschatology, it often (I'm not saying in your case) indicates creeping indifferentism.
What has been happening to the Church in this time is something worthy of special consideration. Claiming that those talking about the prophecy are just like all others in the past who have predicted the imminent end of the world is a mistake.
Obsession is bad, but to dismiss the question at this time in history, is surely a mistake.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
It's obvious, when you read the secret plan of the Alta Vendita.
I have read the permanent instruciton of the Alta Vendita. It makes no mention of Benedict XVI or his intentions.
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
Tele...I am sorry if it seemed my post was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. Listen, there was a time when I was obsessed with prophecy and I hung on every word written by +Williamson. Soon I became aware of the gloomy pall that hung over me. I was angry most of the time, and I noticed an anger and an uncharitable tendency in the people I was associating with. I am not saying that I don't believe in prophecy or private revelation, but when people begin to focus largely on it and fit the challenges and the problems of the church today into biblical prophecy, they are asking to be diverted from being a Catholic in the true sense...and diverted from practicing faith, hope and charity, and their faith in general.
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
Well to that I say simply - The Blessed Virgin Mary Provided the Miracle of the Sun witnessed by 70000 people at Fatima and approved by the Lawful Authority of Holy Mother the Church.
Now - does one have to be a sedevacantist to save ones soul? No - they have to be a CATHOLIC to save their soul. Sedevacantists merely retreat into a theological position to preserve orthodoxy. SSPX have valid sacraments. The Novus Ordo has questionable validity due to the Changes of Paul the VI.
Being a better Catholic is the answer. But Praying the Holy Rosary - practising the Virtues of Faith Hope and Charity 24 /7 and conforming ones will to the will of GOD is what the Holy Mother of GOD requested at Fatima. Making reparation. Offering sacrifice and penance. Offering Holy Mass and partaking of the Sacraments. These requests are not unreasonable in light of the many heresies and attacks on the Church and on Christian Morality that have come since. But lets face it - when the President of the United States boldly claims that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs can and should be allowed to marry - then that evokes images of Sodom and Gomorrah in my view. We live as Catholics in the world. But since we are in the world - we cannot ignore nor can we live as though there are no Commandments of GOD , nor should we expect to continue to obtain his grace when sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments of GOD are broken with impunity up to and including their support by the Leader of the Free World. People do not want to hear about prophesy and yet - how blind can we all be?
This type of thing will not go one without a chastisement sooner or later and perhaps because of the remnant Church - the number hasnt reached the ten just men level just yet.
So yes - I agree - we do need to be better Catholics - all of us - whether Sedevacantists or SSPX and in my view - if we hope to win - the only place to unite the entire Remnant Church is under the mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Pax
-
Consider the fact that never before in the history of the Church have we live in the Great Apostasy!
This is totally different, otherwise it would not be predicted in the Bible.
Every age believed they were living in the end times....
Bernadette, not every age lived in this sort of situation. In fact it's unprecedented. It's rather tiresome your condescension towards those who are interested in prophecy.
Tele...I am sorry if it seemed my post was condescending...it wasn't meant to be. Listen, there was a time when I was obsessed with prophecy and I hung on every word written by +Williamson. Soon I became aware of the gloomy pall that hung over me. I was angry most of the time, and I noticed an anger and an uncharitable tendency in the people I was associating with. I am not saying that I don't believe in prophecy or private revelation, but when people begin to focus largely on it and fit the challenges and the problems of the church today into biblical prophecy, they are asking to be diverted from being a Catholic in the true sense...and diverted from practicing faith, hope and charity, and their faith in general.
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
Well to that I say simply - The Blessed Virgin Mary Provided the Miracle of the Sun witnessed by 70000 people at Fatima and approved by the Lawful Authority of Holy Mother the Church.
Now - does one have to be a sedevacantist to save ones soul? No - they have to be a CATHOLIC to save their soul. Sedevacantists merely retreat into a theological position to preserve orthodoxy. SSPX have valid sacraments. The Novus Ordo has questionable validity due to the Changes of Paul the VI.
Being a better Catholic is the answer. But Praying the Holy Rosary - practising the Virtues of Faith Hope and Charity 24 /7 and conforming ones will to the will of GOD is what the Holy Mother of GOD requested at Fatima. Making reparation. Offering sacrifice and penance. Offering Holy Mass and partaking of the Sacraments. These requests are not unreasonable in light of the many heresies and attacks on the Church and on Christian Morality that have come since. But lets face it - when the President of the United States boldly claims that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs can and should be allowed to marry - then that evokes images of Sodom and Gomorrah in my view. We live as Catholics in the world. But since we are in the world - we cannot ignore nor can we live as though there are no Commandments of GOD , nor should we expect to continue to obtain his grace when sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments of GOD are broken with impunity up to and including their support by the Leader of the Free World. People do not want to hear about prophesy and yet - how blind can we all be?
This type of thing will not go one without a chastisement sooner or later and perhaps because of the remnant Church - the number hasnt reached the ten just men level just yet.
So yes - I agree - we do need to be better Catholics - all of us - whether Sedevacantists or SSPX and in my view - if we hope to win - the only place to unite the entire Remnant Church is under the mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Pax
Indeed.It reminded me of this thread. It is available in the Cath Info library. Our faith without works is dead.Catholics need to avoid falling in to the trap of adopting Quietism.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Catholic-Action-Uses-Abuses-and-Excuses
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
It's obvious, when you read the secret plan of the Alta Vendita.
I have read the permanent instruciton of the Alta Vendita. It makes no mention of Benedict XVI or his intentions.
If you read the Alta Vendita consider yourself warned, its obvious he is an instrument of destruction as was his predecessors during Vatican II. As Our Lord said, a sheep in wolves clothing. BEWARE!
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
The difference IS, Peter denied out of weakness, not with the intention to destroy the Church, and that is a big difference in the eyes of God.
INTENTION!
I presume you do not pretend to know BXVI's intentions, since these are matters of the internal forum.
It's obvious, when you read the secret plan of the Alta Vendita.
I have read the permanent instruciton of the Alta Vendita. It makes no mention of Benedict XVI or his intentions.
If you read the Alta Vendita consider yourself warned, its obvious he is an instrument of destruction as was his predecessors during Vatican II. As Our Lord said, a sheep in wolves clothing. BEWARE!
I still fail to see how this docuмent, legitimate though it may be, proves that Benedict XVI is not the Pope.
-
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
The teachings of the Church about eschatology are not merely a matter of private revelation. Nor is it a matter that I obsess about. It is part of the Faith. So when people denigrate those concerned with eschatology, it often (I'm not saying in your case) indicates creeping indifferentism.
What has been happening to the Church in this time is something worthy of special consideration. Claiming that those talking about the prophecy are just like all others in the past who have predicted the imminent end of the world is a mistake.
Obsession is bad, but to dismiss the question at this time in history, is surely a mistake.
I never accused you of obsessing, Tele....my point is to say that extreme focus is dangerously distracting.
It is true that Protestant religions put too much emphasis on eschatology, and Protestants seem to think that each individual can and should interpret scripture for themselves.
-
Saint Peter was not Pope yet when he denied Christ.
He became Pope when Christ asked him to feed His lambs and sheep before he ascended.
Peter, who became the visible head of the Church on earth after Christ ascended feared being killed for it whereas the anti-Catholic false popes go into to false places of worship most willingly.
The Church does not claim they are not Popes because of "sin" but because they are/were not Catholic, one of the basic requirements to be electable for the Papacy. Nor can a valid Pope give us a stones when we ask for bread such as a heretical council, invalid Sacraments, the new anti-mass, heretical canon law, all official acts of the false-popes who head the new Church built on the shifting sands of modernism.
We must flee the heretics as saint John says and embrace the true Popes who would die rather than do any of the official acts of the new “popes” of the new Church mentioned above.
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
Let's see if I got this straight, Seraphim.
Claiming that you don't know "this man", as St. Peter did is the same kind of denial of Christ as worshipping Satan?
Surely this is not official SSPX teaching?
-
Did I mention the new watered down version of the exorcism (so as to be more ecuмenical with the Devil I suppose).
The approval of a consecration with no consecration formula (yes I worded that correctly). A new stations of the cross and a new rosary.
The time for sitting on the fence is coming to an end. Use your minds instead of your emotions. Get out of your comfort zone if that is where the Truth leads.
Can someone rephrase all that in a charitable way, you know the honey instead of vinegar thing that I have trouble doing.
I don't want to get Dimondish on anyone.
-
What's sad is that the SSPX has spent many years cultivating this positive horror of sedevacantism. For some it was about trying to monopolize the "trad brand" - for others - it was about this very moment. When they would be able to call people loyal to the principles of the founder of the order "sedevacantists." Because the first shift in SSPX principles came when they started making sedevacantism into something to be fanatically opposed. With far more obduracy than the opposition they show to conciliarism.
Such an emphasis on opposition to sedevacantism necessarily involved learning to rationalize and excuse in as many ways possible the current situation among the conciliarists. It meant trying to find ways to exculpate the hierarchy of heresy.
Is it any wonder, that now, after all these years, a large section of SSPXers see sedes as the enemy and Benedict XVI as a friend?
And even those who know Benedict XVI is still the enemy, still show vehement opposition to sedes?
The belief of some sedes that the SSPX has been a trad holding tank is being sadly vindicated. And the reaction of many SSPXers, even those opposed to the new orientation of Bishop Fellay, seems to show that the long term indoctrination against sedevacntism is the tool needed to shut out those faithful to the Archbishop's position.
And it is logical after all. Because the implications of the Archbishop's position strongly tend towards sedevacantism. For that reason, the long period of anti-sede indoctrination would be the natural prelude to a decisive break with the Archbishop's principles, that is, a decisive break with Catholic Tradition in movement towards masonic modernism.
-
No Catholic is bound to believe in private revelation...I believe that obsessing on end time scenarios is unhealthy and distracting.
The teachings of the Church about eschatology are not merely a matter of private revelation. Nor is it a matter that I obsess about. It is part of the Faith. So when people denigrate those concerned with eschatology, it often (I'm not saying in your case) indicates creeping indifferentism.
What has been happening to the Church in this time is something worthy of special consideration. Claiming that those talking about the prophecy are just like all others in the past who have predicted the imminent end of the world is a mistake.
Obsession is bad, but to dismiss the question at this time in history, is surely a mistake.
I never accused you of obsessing, Tele....my point is to say that extreme focus is dangerously distracting.
It is true that Protestant religions put too much emphasis on eschatology, and Protestants seem to think that each individual can and should interpret scripture for themselves.
They are very influenced by Fr Gruner
www.catholictruthscotland.com
Cork Conference - Huge Success...
The question: What’s happening to the Catholic Church in Ireland? was addressed during a landmark conference in County Cork on Saturday 24th September, 2011.
Despite the remote location, Catholics, both lay and ordained, traveled from various parts of Ireland and from the countries of the U.K to attend. Notwithstanding the serious tenor of the day there was no shortage of laughter and new friendships were formed. “A great day” said one attendee after another. See below for a brief synopsis of the talks...
Father David Sherry SSPX delivered a brief and informative talk during which he defined the key problem of Modernism in the Church and the teachings of popes on the subject, prior to the Second Vatican Council, most notably Pope Saint Pius X. This proved to be a very helpful introduction to the day and set the stage for the Conference talks to come. Father was also able to set the record straight for those attendees who mistakenly thought that the SSPX are not in full communion. “Impressive” said one member of the audience while another remarked on the priestly deportment and behaviour of SSPX priests in general. Yet another (with a dash of sarcasm) “And these are the ones in schism?”
Tommy Price, the leader of the Fatima Centre in northern Ireland, spoke on the subject of The Money Question addressing the current economic crisis in the context of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr - “a difficult subject made simple” as one attendee affirmed. Next up, Joe O’Connell who heads the Fatima Centre in Cork discussed Ecuмenism and the U.N. Agenda ~V ~ Our Lady of Fatima. Joe made a huge impact on the audience - to the
point where one young man asked to keep in touch with him for the purpose of receiving instruction in the Faith. That says it all.
From Scotland, Patricia McKeever outlined the work of Catholic Truth, and highlighted some current problems in the Church in Ireland to answer the question: What can the laity do?
Afterwards, members of the audience said they were motivated to act on some of the scandals highlighted - notably the dissident priests of the Association of Catholic Priests and the forthcoming RE Congress in Kerry, to be addressed by the laicised priest, Professor Tom Groome.
Keynote Speaker, The Reverend Father Paul L. Kramer focused on what is known about the Third Secret and “joined up the dots” to show how - in the title of his talk - The Mystery of Iniquity (is) Revealed in the Secret of Fatima. An expert on both Fatima and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, Father Kramer’s input to the Conference was both educative and illuminating.
The Conference was held in the beautiful setting and comfortable
environment of The Westlodge Hotel, Seafield, Bantry. Sincere thanks to Hotelier, Eileen, and her wonderful staff for their invaluable help in making the day a huge success. Well beyond the call of duty, Eileen ensured that the day went smoothly and comfortably - there was no shortage of tea, coffee and biscuits throughout the day. Lunches - and for those staying overnight, breakfasts and dinners - were delicious. A more detailed report will be published in the November newsletter but this brief overview serves to signal that the fight-back in Ireland is alive and well - and set to intensify. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
-
Therefore, to assist Mass in sedevacantist chapels is communicatio in sacris, forbidden by divine law.
Which is exactly why Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, et al. are heretics and not popes!
Communicatio in sacris with Eastern Orthodox? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Lutherans? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Muslims? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Jews? Check.
Communicatio in sacris with Animists? Check.
To sin is not the same as denying the Faith.
Worshipping with people of other faiths is not merely a sin. It is a denial of Christ. I thought this lesson had been taught by the martyrs of the first centuries.
Peter denied Christ, and did not lose membership in the Church on that account.
St Peter didnt worship a Golden Calf either.
Let's see if I got this straight, Seraphim.
Claiming that you don't know "this man", as St. Peter did is the same kind of denial of Christ as worshipping Satan?
Surely this is not official SSPX teaching?
What are you talking about? :confused1:
-
So.....
Anyone here care to attempt a refutation of the arguments contained in the SSPX article submitted by Ecclesia Militans?
(Didn't think so).
-
So.....
Anyone here care to attempt a refutation of the arguments contained in the SSPX article submitted by Ecclesia Militans?
(Didn't think so).
He was banned anyway, so what's the point?
-
So.....
Anyone here care to attempt a refutation of the arguments contained in the SSPX article submitted by Ecclesia Militans?
(Didn't think so).
He was banned anyway, so what's the point?
The article he supplied, and the arguments contained therein were not banned.
I would like to see someone attempt a refutation of them.
-
A couple of things:
I have been extremely busy and haven't seen or read the article you speak of, and even if I did I am not a theologian, therefore not qualified to refute whatever it is you want refuted. Perhaps there is someone here who can give you a good argument.
Not that you would believe anything anyone said anyway; reminds me of a story I read somewhere; a Saint was asking Our Lord for a miracle, and He said, I have sent many miracles and they go unnoticed, resulting with consequences now having to be much more severe.
I can't remember the entire story and admit I am paraphrasing but the point of what I am trying to say is there.
-
So.....
Anyone here care to attempt a refutation of the arguments contained in the SSPX article submitted by Ecclesia Militans?
(Didn't think so).
I don't think the sspx article can be refuted...it is an excellent argument against SV....everyone should read it.
By the way...if a person holds the SV position, he or she is a self appointed theologian and should take the time and effort to read arguments presented contrary to their position.
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Does St. Thomas Aquinas sell her sermon?
I do not mean to be a jerk in asking these rhetorical questions, only to underscore that people of good will can reach different conclusions on the matter of sede vacantism.
The most basic catechism is worth considering. One may not commit mortal sin except by an act of the will. If a person agonizes over the sede or not question, one is clearly trying to do their best, clearly not willing to sin.
The situation is chaotic and getting worse, just as we were warned.
Charity is warranted on both sides if the sede issue.
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Does St. Thomas Aquinas sell her sermon?
I do not mean to be a jerk in asking these rhetorical questions, only to underscore that people of good will can reach different conclusions on the matter of sede vacantism.
The most basic catechism is worth considering. One may not commit mortal sin except by an act of the will. If a person agonizes over the sede or not question, one is clearly trying to do their best, clearly not willing to sin.
The situation is chaotic and getting worse, just as we were warned.
Charity is warranted on both sides if the sede issue.
There is some truth in what you say, Diego...in particular the agonizing over the sede/anti-sede position of many people, and in these confusing times, they can be forgiven.
-
The arguments against sedevacantism are incredibly weak given the circuмstances.
They depend really on not understanding (or simply refusing to accept) the implications of accepting the conciliar Popes as Popes.
If you must resist the Pope for 50 years because he's spreading heresy and destroying the religion and that those who follow him have largely lost the Faith, then the gates of Hell have prevailed far more surely than if you are without a Pope for 50 years.
A visible Church that is corrupted is not the Church Christ promised.
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
It should be pointed out that the teachings and example of Benedict XVI flagrantly contradict this encyclical.
-
The arguments against sedevacantism are incredibly weak given the circuмstances.
They depend really on not understanding (or simply refusing to accept) the implications of accepting the conciliar Popes as Popes.
If you must resist the Pope for 50 years because he's spreading heresy and destroying the religion and that those who follow him have largely lost the Faith, then the gates of Hell have prevailed far more surely than if you are without a Pope for 50 years.
A visible Church that is corrupted is not the Church Christ promised.
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
It should be pointed out that the teachings and example of Benedict XVI flagrantly contradict this encyclical.
Funny they can be so weak, yet you lack the ability to address or refute them.
Hmm...Yet another gratuitous assertion followed by a swift evasion.
-
Hmm...Yet another gratuitous assertion followed by a swift evasion.
I tried to read the article before and my computer froze. I'm not sure it's a good thing to visit the SSPX site.
Needless to say, if the article were so strong the points it makes could be recapitulated.
There are no arguments that can refute the fact of an apostate hierarchy.
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
You completely missed the thrust of my comment.*
Catholics of good will reach different conclusions on the matter.
Each side quotes their favored Doctors and theologians, so the evidence is not as clean as either side argues.
Nobody on this site has the authority to have a dispositive opinion either way.
* (She did say that the apostasy would start "at the top." Is an apostate Catholic? Can an apostate be Pope? She didn't say either way. Her silence on that specific point neither validates nor refutes your position.)
-
Hmm...Yet another gratuitous assertion followed by a swift evasion.
I tried to read the article before and my computer froze. I'm not sure it's a good thing to visit the SSPX site.
Needless to say, if the article were so strong the points it makes could be recapitulated.
There are no arguments that can refute the fact of an apostate hierarchy.
After you have read it, we can talk again.
I have agreed to read the countervailing argument posted in the library by John Lane, and publish my thoughts on a comparison between the two articles (FWIW) on Saturday in a new thread.
-
By the way...if a person holds the SV position, he or she is a self appointed theologian and should take the time and effort to read arguments presented contrary to their position.
Neither side can be accused of being a "self appointed theologian" for reaching a conclusion on the issue.
-
By the way, what is the article in question that Seraphim is asking someone to refute? I can't find it.
-
By the way, what is the article in question that Seraphim is asking someone to refute? I can't find it.
It is posted in the library subforum, titled "Against the Sedevacantists."
Last time I checked, it was the 1st or 2nd article on page 1.
-
By the way, sorry to burst the bubble of those here who claim ABL opposed the sede thesis, but these quotes show otherwise (credit goes to Gregorio Sarto for posting these quotes on Ignis Ardens):
Abp. Lefebvre (at the famous Mass in Lille, August 29, 1976)
If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.
Abp. Lefebvre (quoted in Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.
...
Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.
...
While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.
Abp. Lefebvre, Écône, February 24, 1977
The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.
Abp. Lefebvre, 1984
The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.
Abp. Lefebvre, in The Angelus, July 1986
Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church. Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
...
Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
-
No, SS, you have to put it in context of the fact that Bishop Fellay took over the SSPX!
Just as you have to put Archbishop Lefebvre's comments about the Rome of the "antichrists" and the "masonic lodge" of the Vatican in context!
You can't just quote the Archbishop! That obscures the the hermeneutic of continuity with Archbishop Lefebvre that bridges the positions of the SSPX with those of Benedict XVI!.
-
By the way, what is the article in question that Seraphim is asking someone to refute? I can't find it.
It is posted in the library subforum, titled "Against the Sedevacantists."
Last time I checked, it was the 1st or 2nd article on page 1.
No wonder no one can refute it, anything in the library, according to the rules here cannont be replied too. No wonder I couldn't find it either.
-
It was also posted earlier in this thread, and you may post-away!
I did not say the Church was "contaminated", but mutilated, as the Most Holy Face of Christ was during His Passion.
Archbishop Lefebvre used this comparison with regards to the sedevacantists. He compared them to the Arian heretics, who were scandalized that Christ was so humiliated and disfigured on the Cross that they said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this cannot be God". In the same way the sedevacantists see the Church in this, Her Passion, and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this cannot be the Church!".
The Archbishop proceeded, comparing the neo-cons to the monophysite heretics, who saw the same and said: "No, God cannot suffer and be humiliated like this. So, this was just an illusion and Christ did not die on the cross". In the same way the neo-cons see the Passion of the Church and say "The Popes seem to be teaching novelties contrary to Tradition. So, this is actually an illusion and the Popes are actually teaching Tradition"
The Venerable Archbishop condemned both.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_67.htm
-
By the way, what is the article in question that Seraphim is asking someone to refute? I can't find it.
It is posted in the library subforum, titled "Against the Sedevacantists."
Last time I checked, it was the 1st or 2nd article on page 1.
No wonder no one can refute it, anything in the library, according to the rules here cannont be replied too. No wonder I couldn't find it either.
I've skimmed over it and it's very typical of SSPX rigmarole.
It relies on attacking personalities like the Dimonds (characteristically it fails to answer there arguments, or any other serious sedevacantist argument), it utterly fails to acknowledge or explain the quotes of the Archbishop which show he considered sedevacantism a possibility, and it creates an absurd and impossible test for determining whether a Pope is a heretic.
Of course a Pope cannot be named a heretic by a superior authority - he has no superior authority. Such reasoning, taken to its logical conclusion, means that a Pope could publicly deny every article of Faith and could still not be recognized as a heretic. Still not be ipso facto deposed. Such a test is absurd.
-
By the way, what is the article in question that Seraphim is asking someone to refute? I can't find it.
It is posted in the library subforum, titled "Against the Sedevacantists."
Last time I checked, it was the 1st or 2nd article on page 1.
No wonder no one can refute it, anything in the library, according to the rules here cannont be replied too. No wonder I couldn't find it either.
I've skimmed over it and it's very typical of SSPX rigmarole.
It relies on attacking personalities like the Dimonds (characteristically it fails to answer there arguments, or any other serious sedevacantist argument), it utterly fails to acknowledge or explain the quotes of the Archbishop which show he considered sedevacantism a possibility, and it creates an absurd and impossible test for determining whether a Pope is a heretic.
Of course a Pope cannot be named a heretic by a superior authority - he has no superior authority. Such reasoning, taken to its logical conclusion, means that a Pope could publicly deny every article of Faith and could still not be recognized as a heretic. Still not be ipso facto deposed. Such a test is absurd.
Thank you for this scholarly response.
Now would you like to get serious?
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
-
I read part of the article, haven't read the entire thing yet, but one thing it keeps talking about is Popes falling into heresy. Sedes don't believe that John XXIII through Benedict XVI FELL into heresy. Sedes believe they were heretics before election, thus they couldn't have been Popes. There is also strong evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason.
Seraphim, do you believe a Freemason can be Pope?
-
Thank you for this scholarly response.
The article makes reference to the Dimonds (without refuting anything they say) right away, it's hardly scholarly in any sense of the word.
Now would you like to get serious?
If the argument the article makes were coherent and easily stated you could repeat it.
In fact it's a collection of specious claims. The claims about St. Peter's denials of Christ and the Scribes and Pharisees are particularly egregious, since they have absolutely nothing to do with Church teaching on the office of the Papacy.
The most critical part is this:
As much as the concepts of Notorious and Pertinacious are clear in theory, nevertheless, their concrete application is extremely difficult, especially in the case of the pope. The main reason is that such pertinacity is finally determined by the public acknowledgement of the heresy coming from the legitimate authority.
Where is the authority for stating that the heresy must be Notorious and Pertinacious? How can a "legitimate" authority be constituted if the Pope has no superior and no one is allowed question the office of the Pope until a "legitimate" authority authorizes?
This is the typical "heads I win, tails you lose" apologetics style of the Fellay-SSPX.
Topped off with a heavy dose of invective against sedevacantists.
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
Bernadette, with all due respect, I think you base your opinion of sedevacantism on your personal interaction with members of sedevacantist chapels.
You even returned to Novus Ordo mass briefly.
Being a sedevacantist in and of itself doesn't save anyone. However, the demonization of sedevacantism has a sinister purpose, and we are seeing how this demonization has given the pro-conciliar wing of the SSPX (since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council) a wedge and a rhetorical device for hammering opposition.
Certainly many of those who hammered sedes had this end game in mind a long time ago.
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
Bernadette, with all due respect, I think you base your opinion of sedevacantism on your personal interaction with members of sedevacantist chapels.
You even returned to Novus Ordo mass briefly.
Being a sedevacantist in and of itself doesn't save anyone. However, the demonization of sedevacantism has a sinister purpose, and we are seeing how this demonization has given the pro-conciliar wing of the SSPX (since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council) a wedge and a rhetorical device for hammering opposition.
Certainly many of those who hammered sedes had this end game in mind a long time ago.
It is true that the sspx began a crusade to drive out and rid themselves of the sedes...they have no tolerance for them...it wasn't about trying to reason and work with those who were going that way (caring for straying sheep)...they would not even try, not even with their own priests that toyed with SVism. That bothered me. Let's face it...it's always about money anyway...pay, pray, and obey...they don't have time for the upstarts...real Catholic behavior, isn't it? You see, that is why I (and others like me), turned on the sspx, and ended up with feelings of detestation towards them...and why going back to the NO seemed preferable than going back to the sspx...so I hope they reconcile, they'll be where they belong...otherwise, they're nothing but a cult, and that is exactly where they were heading....I think +Fellay realized this.
Even after saying all of this...I do believe that the SV position is a dead end...from my own experience.
-
.otherwise, they're nothing but a cult, and that is exactly where they were heading....I think +Fellay realized this.
The cultishness doesn't come from being against the world or being opposed by Benedict XVI.
On the contrary, the cultishness comes from the lust for control, power, and of course, money.
Opus Dei remains a cult, it is approved by the Vatican.
-
As Tele said, bernadette, they weren't a cult previously. What makes them come off as a cult now is their control-freak mindset, and their desire for power and money. "Opus Fellay" is the perfect name. It's not about Archbishop LeFebvre anymore, or the other three Bishops. It's about Fellay. He's basically made himself the poster boy of the Society.
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
:applause: :applause:
-
.otherwise, they're nothing but a cult, and that is exactly where they were heading....I think +Fellay realized this.
The cultishness doesn't come from being against the world or being opposed by Benedict XVI.
On the contrary, the cultishness comes from the lust for control, power, and of course, money.
Opus Dei remains a cult, it is approved by the Vatican.
I don't know about that...there are many sspx'ers who enjoy their 'renegade' status, they begin to think they are better than 'the world' they are so against..that's dangerous ground, and it warrants the cry...CULT ALERT! I was there for 6-7 years, some of the women walked around looking like they belonged on the compound with Jim Jones.
And just look at the cult like behavior of the suddenly anti-Fellay crowd over on IA...those leading the rebellion were once staunch +Fellay defenders...you know, Sarto and his ilk....
-
since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council)
Where did he say this?
-
I was there for 6-7 years, some of the women walked around looking like they belonged on the compound with Jim Jones.
That's a preposterous comparison. You know that sort of thing about devout Catholics was always said in the past in various forms. There have always been enthusiasts, but I think what it comes down to is that those who are attached to modern ways and social status are put off by some expressions of piety.
And just look at the cult like behavior of the suddenly anti-Fellay crowd over on IA...those leading the rebellion were once staunch +Fellay defenders...you know, Sarto and his ilk....
Well, I'm glad they've turned around. Unfortunately a lot of SSPX followers became very complacent and allowed themselves to be taken in. Perhaps I would have been one of them if it weren't for the way I was treated, if it weren't for the revelations about Krah. I give the ones who've seen the light in recent days credit. More credit than those who simply want to liberalize the society. Which I suspect is the motivation for a substantial percentage of the laity who want an agreement. Particularly the laity who have a lot of money.
-
I've read a bit more into the article Seraphim referenced, and there are way too many problems with it.
The main difficulty of Sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner, while being deprived from her head.
Christ is the Head of the Church. Let's keep in mind that there have been certain lengthy "gaps" in-between Popes over the years. Sure, none of those "gaps" have been as long as the one the sede thesis would propose (50+ years), but no Pope doesn't mean no Church. I understand the point the article is attempting to make here, but it doesn't bear much weight.
Hence, even if John XXIII and Paul VI had been subject to excommunications for any reasons whatsoever, due to heresy or Masonic membership or whatever, they would still have been validly elected to the papacy.
I'm scratching my head here. Masons can't be valid Popes. Nor can manifest heretics.
At this point, I would like to give a diagnosis of the Sedevacantist attitude. "Sedevacantists are truly obsessed by the question of the papacy. One may well wonder if in many of them this is not due to some psychological trauma. Their understandable ancestral veneration for the pope seems to unleash a veritable panic at the idea of contrasting their cherished, idealized image of the papacy with such popes as Paul VI and John Paul II. Sedevacantism appears to be more of a psychological than a theological problem…
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. It seems more like an ad hominem attack to accuse sedevacantists of having a psychological problem. That is just totally uncalled for. ABL would have never gone that far. Also, there are certain non-sedes out there (*cough* John Salza) who are obsessed with the issue of sedevacantism. It can swing both ways.
Sorry, but I didn't see what was so great about the article. That's not to say everything in it was bad, but some of it was just plain crazy.
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
:applause: :applause:
....you're applauding a post that suggested NOT to become a sedevacantist? Are you now an SSPXer, Emerentiana?
-
And just look at the cult like behavior of the suddenly anti-Fellay crowd over on IA...those leading the rebellion were once staunch +Fellay defenders...you know, Sarto and his ilk....
How is it "cult like" to side against Fellay? I, for one, think Sarto is spot-on. I'll take a supporter of the other three Bishops over a supporter of Fellay any day.
Yes, they used to support Fellay, because Fellay hasn't always been the liberal minded person he is today. Or at least if he was, he didn't show it.
-
I am of the opinion that it is not worthwhile to discourage others from dabbling in SVism...usually, that will send them even further down the road. People need to go there themselves...once they hit bottom, then they can begin the long struggle back.
:applause: :applause:
....you're applauding a post that suggested NOT to become a sedevacantist? Are you now an SSPXer, Emerentiana?
Ive read and reread the post.
not worthwile to discourage others from dabbling in sedevacantisn to me means that you should not discourage them from dabbling in sedevacantism.
-
As Tele said, bernadette, they weren't a cult previously. What makes them come off as a cult now is their control-freak mindset, and their desire for power and money. "Opus Fellay" is the perfect name. It's not about Archbishop LeFebvre anymore, or the other three Bishops. It's about Fellay. He's basically made himself the poster boy of the Society.
I think it is just the opposite of what you are saying...they have been very cult-like...renegades, really...in all of their splendid disobedience to the pope they pray for at every mass and the church they claim to be a part of...the mentality of the faithful was cult-like...there are many sspx'ers who don't know what it means to stop with the theological opinions that they shouldn't be opining on...the Catholic church has always taught that the faithful are obedient to the Holy Father...the sspx has been resisting so long that the resistance is becoming dangerous...now, when asked to put their faith in the church and their will to be in union with the pope, there is an uproar...there then is the truly cult-like behavior....especially if they believe the pope is the pope. That middle road fence-sitting position is so unsound.
-
since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council)
Where did he say this?
Fellay's recent interview with CNS:
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said.
-
That middle road fence-sitting position is so unsound.
Then which position is right Bernadette?
You reject sedevacantism.
You reject the "fence sitting position"
You reject the Novus Ordo and you recognize the problems with the theology of the post-Vatican II Church.
Is there some other option?
-
since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council)
Where did he say this?
Fellay's recent interview with CNS:
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said.
He also said that what was previously condemned by the SSPX in the Council wasn't actually from the Council, but from a common understanding of it.
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
[/u]
Our Lady said "Rome will loose the faith, and become the SEAT of Antichrist!
What part of that simple phrase dont you understand, Seraphim?
Interesting that Outr Lady used the word "seat".
Sedia in Latin is SEAT
If Antichrist is on the seat, then for us the seat is EMPTY! Sedevacante!
-
since now Bishop Fellay accepts the Vatican II Council)
Where did he say this?
Fellay's recent interview with CNS:
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said.
He also said that what was previously condemned by the SSPX in the Council wasn't actually from the Council, but from a common understanding of it.
Yes, precisely.
-
Tele is right, bernadette. You reject sedevacantism, the "middle-road" position, and the Novus Ordo position. What's left?
And by saying the Society has been cult-like for years, that's a bit of a dangerous statement. It didn't become cult-like until Fellay exploded. Or do you think it's been a cult since the days of ABL?
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
[/u]
Our Lady said "Rome will loose the faith, and become the SEAT of Antichrist!
What part of that simple phrase dont you understand, Seraphim?
Interesting that Outr Lady used the word "seat".
Sedia in Latin is SEAT
If Antichrist is on the seat, then for us the seat is EMPTY! Sedevacante!
It is a great pity the council ever happened for many reasons, but one of the most painful has to be seeing theological proofs such as this one .
As Bishop Williamson has wisely said, sedevacantism and liberalism are flip sides of the same coin.
And they both lead to muddled thinking!
Pax tecuм Christi
-
That middle road fence-sitting position is so unsound.
Then which position is right Bernadette?
You reject sedevacantism.
You reject the "fence sitting position"
You reject the Novus Ordo and you recognize the problems with the theology of the post-Vatican II Church.
Is there some other option?
I have had to reformulate my opinion after being disillusioned with the sspx...going down the SV road...and jumping right back to the church...the Church that is run by apostates...they really need help, and the only choice is to attempt to help them...what other alternative is there? I can't find one....(oh, pardon, I forgot, there have been moments when I have wanted to abandon religion altogether)
-
they really need help, and the only choice is to attempt to help them...what other alternative is there?
Rome does not want help, nor will the Society be large enough to change everything. The SSPX isn't the first group that thought it could march into Rome and make everything better... has anyone else been successful? No.
-
Tele is right, bernadette. You reject sedevacantism, the "middle-road" position, and the Novus Ordo position. What's left?
Catholicism.
Simply living the Faith as best you can without getting oneself tangled up in things you don't understand, like trying to pass judgment on the Pope.
Reality is far more complex then any of us can possibly imagine, but the way we conduct our lives should be simple. Yes Yes and No No.
Is what this prelate is saying the same as has been handed down by the Tradition? If yes, the accept it. If it seems not to be, ask for clarification. If it is still wrong, then do not accept the lie and move on. Don't start judging the intentions of the prelate, or his Catholicity, because ultimately you will not find a satisfactory answer.
Just be Catholic. No more, and no less.
-
And by saying the Society has been cult-like for years, that's a bit of a dangerous statement. It didn't become cult-like until Fellay exploded. Or do you think it's been a cult since the days of ABL?
There are always going to be unhealthy tendencies in any social group.
Obviously there was something very wrong with the priests and bishops in the Church in the lead up to Vatican II. But what happened at Vatican II was that these anarchic elements got out of control and essentially wrecked the priesthood and the religion.
Fully ten percent of the priests ordained in 1970 had accusations made against them.
Now I don't doubt the SSPX has always had some elements of excessive rigorism, authoritarianism, etc. That's bound to happen among a group of traditional Catholics.
However, what happened with the nine is very instructive. Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly a very trusting man who delegated authority. Otherwise, the splintering of the SSPX in the USA would never have happened. It wouldn't have been possible for the Archbishop to trust the men who stole the churches if he had tried to keep things under excessively tight control.
The reaction to that splintering seems to have been excessive. And seems to have intensified over time.
The use of charges of mental illness against laity, of habitual arrogance among priests towards laity, and towards each other, the fact that priests can be readily kicked out. That priests are overworked and tightly controlled. These factors seem to have become more and more obnoxious.
Over time it's clear that authority has become more and more centralized in the SSPX, so that now the other bishops are marginalized.
Money seems to have become the primary consideration. Money and marketing.
Not the Catholic Faith.
-
As Bishop Williamson has wisely said, sedevacantism and liberalism are flip sides of the same coin.
Unfortunately, that is an absurd statement.
To say a position that the Archbishop conceded was possible is the flip-side of liberalism. I'm sorry that's not a rational statement. It's a very dangerous statement.
It's the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" that you commonly hear out of the SSPX. I support Bishop Williamson, but I cannot respect that statement.
-
they really need help, and the only choice is to attempt to help them...what other alternative is there?
Rome does not want help, nor will the Society be large enough to change everything. The SSPX isn't the first group that thought it could march into Rome and make everything better... has anyone else been successful? No.
Have any of the other groups been as large as the sspx?
Well...there you go then...so, where do we go from here? In my opinion...the sspx will never be the same when all is said and done with Rome...so what does the future for a non-reconciled sspx look like? Can anyone answer that?
-
As Bishop Williamson has wisely said, sedevacantism and liberalism are flip sides of the same coin.
When did he say that? I'd like to see the actual quote.
Of course, I agree with Tele that it is an absurd statement.
-
Tele is right, bernadette. You reject sedevacantism, the "middle-road" position, and the Novus Ordo position. What's left?
Catholicism.
Simply living the Faith as best you can without getting oneself tangled up in things you don't understand, like trying to pass judgment on the Pope.
Reality is far more complex then any of us can possibly imagine, but the way we conduct our lives should be simple. Yes Yes and No No.
Is what this prelate is saying the same as has been handed down by the Tradition? If yes, the accept it. If it seems not to be, ask for clarification. If it is still wrong, then do not accept the lie and move on. Don't start judging the intentions of the prelate, or his Catholicity, because ultimately you will not find a satisfactory answer.
Just be Catholic. No more, and no less.
That is just what I am trying to do....great advice.
-
To say a position that the Archbishop conceded was possible is the flip-side of liberalism. I'm sorry that's not a rational statement. It's a very dangerous statement.
What is irrational about it?
Both ultimately hold that private conscience is the ultimate authority (whether sedes admit it or not, that is the logical result of their belief. The individual sede is the arbiter of who and what is Catholic).
Or should we simply accept that it is on your authority, pope Telesphorus?
-
they really need help, and the only choice is to attempt to help them...what other alternative is there?
Rome does not want help, nor will the Society be large enough to change everything. The SSPX isn't the first group that thought it could march into Rome and make everything better... has anyone else been successful? No.
Have any of the other groups been as large as the sspx?
Well...there you go then...so, where do we go from here? In my opinion...the sspx will never be the same when all is said and done with Rome...so what does the future for a non-reconciled sspx look like? Can anyone answer that?
The other three Bishops will be following the Archbishop's mission (and more importantly, be doing God's Will) if they oppose a deal. That alone would make them split even if it meant their future would be to endure much hardship.
-
What is irrational about it?
An integral Catholic who believes it is impossible for these men to be Popes is not in any way "the flip side of liberalism." The fact of the matter is the Archbishop said that sedevacantism was a possible explanation - it is totally outrageous to then say such a position is the flip-side of liberalism.
Both ultimately hold that private conscience is the ultimate authority
The SSPX holds that their private conscience gives them permission to disobey. So long as they only disobey the Pope, not the superior general. It's just ludicrous. Unfortunately the SSPX has a tendency of convincing people by making fatuous statements with an air of authority.
(whether sedes admit it or not, that is the logical result of their belief. The individual sede is the arbiter of who and what is Catholic).
No, that really is not the logical consequence of their beliefs at all.
Or should we simply accept that it is on your authority, pope Telesphorus?
Typical SSPX invective. In lieu of rational argument.
I think it's almost impossible to discuss with many of them, because they've really been hobbled by the "apologetics" they've been taught.
-
they really need help, and the only choice is to attempt to help them...what other alternative is there?
Rome does not want help, nor will the Society be large enough to change everything. The SSPX isn't the first group that thought it could march into Rome and make everything better... has anyone else been successful? No.
Have any of the other groups been as large as the sspx?
Well...there you go then...so, where do we go from here? In my opinion...the sspx will never be the same when all is said and done with Rome...so what does the future for a non-reconciled sspx look like? Can anyone answer that?
The other three Bishops will be following the Archbishop's mission (and more importantly, be doing God's Will) if they oppose a deal. That alone would make them split even if it meant their future would be to endure much hardship.
Something tells me the three bishops won't be leading any charge against a deal...the split, if there is one, will show the majority will go with +Fellay....of course if you listen to Fr. Moderator...the revolutionaries in the sspx are winning the day...
alright...who thumbed down my post?!
-
I support Bishop Williamson, but I cannot respect that statement.
Tele...if you're anything like me (which I'm sure you'll say you aren't), over time you'll find more little gems from +Williamson popping up that you won't be able to respect....
-
I support Bishop Williamson, but I cannot respect that statement.
Tele...if you're anything like me (which I'm sure you'll say you aren't), over time you'll find more little gems from +Williamson popping up that you won't be able to respect....
No one is perfect, the important thing is seeing the big picture.
I think a problem a lot of SSPXers have is that they've confused the issue of the Novus Ordo versus the Tridentine Rite with the mission of the Society.
There really is only one issue at stake, and that's the Catholic Faith.
If the SSPX no longer actively questions the Faith of men like Benedict XVI, they cannot possibly be acting in good faith.
-
Now we have John Lane making his presence known over on IA...that's quite interesting, this never would of been tolerated just four or five months ago as IA has never been sede-friendly...they've tolerated them, but never encouraged them...here's a thread he just started refuting the article we had been discussing earlier.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9556
-
The sky is falling...
-
I read part of the article, haven't read the entire thing yet, but one thing it keeps talking about is Popes falling into heresy. Sedes don't believe that John XXIII through Benedict XVI FELL into heresy. Sedes believe they were heretics before election, thus they couldn't have been Popes. There is also strong evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason.
Seraphim, do you believe a Freemason can be Pope?
Yes, and the article explains why the reasons you would use to disqualify that possibility no longer apply.
-
Thank you for this scholarly response.
The article makes reference to the Dimonds (without refuting anything they say) right away, it's hardly scholarly in any sense of the word.
Now would you like to get serious?
If the argument the article makes were coherent and easily stated you could repeat it.
In fact it's a collection of specious claims. The claims about St. Peter's denials of Christ and the Scribes and Pharisees are particularly egregious, since they have absolutely nothing to do with Church teaching on the office of the Papacy.
The most critical part is this:
As much as the concepts of Notorious and Pertinacious are clear in theory, nevertheless, their concrete application is extremely difficult, especially in the case of the pope. The main reason is that such pertinacity is finally determined by the public acknowledgement of the heresy coming from the legitimate authority.
Where is the authority for stating that the heresy must be Notorious and Pertinacious? How can a "legitimate" authority be constituted if the Pope has no superior and no one is allowed question the office of the Pope until a "legitimate" authority authorizes?
This is the typical "heads I win, tails you lose" apologetics style of the Fellay-SSPX.
Topped off with a heavy dose of invective against sedevacantists.
Pffft...
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
[/u]
Our Lady said "Rome will loose the faith, and become the SEAT of Antichrist!
What part of that simple phrase dont you understand, Seraphim?
Interesting that Outr Lady used the word "seat".
Sedia in Latin is SEAT
If Antichrist is on the seat, then for us the seat is EMPTY! Sedevacante!
Please underline the part where it claims that the Pope will lose the Papacy.
-
When The Blessed Mother said that Rome would lose the Faith and be the seat of the antiChrist was she schismatic?
Did she say the Pope would lose the Papacy?
[/u]
Our Lady said "Rome will loose the faith, and become the SEAT of Antichrist!
What part of that simple phrase dont you understand, Seraphim?
Interesting that Outr Lady used the word "seat".
Sedia in Latin is SEAT
If Antichrist is on the seat, then for us the seat is EMPTY! Sedevacante!
The counter-church will be the seat of the anti-Christ, NOT the Seat of Peter. The Seat of Peter will either be vacant or filled with a true Pope during the time of the anti-Christ whom sits in the counter-church.
-
Yes, and the article explains ...
The article's been refuted.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Concerning_A_SSPX_Dossier_on_Sedevacantism.pdf
-
Yes, and the article explains ...
The article's been refuted.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/books/Concerning_A_SSPX_Dossier_on_Sedevacantism.pdf
Okay the article has been refuted, but not adequately...it is just a merry-go-round of opinion and bloviating designed to confuse and to cower the average layman...a skilled theologian would need to dissect it bit by bit and over a lengthy period of time to refute the refute...
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
-
I read part of the article, haven't read the entire thing yet, but one thing it keeps talking about is Popes falling into heresy. Sedes don't believe that John XXIII through Benedict XVI FELL into heresy. Sedes believe they were heretics before election, thus they couldn't have been Popes. There is also strong evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason.
Seraphim, do you believe a Freemason can be Pope?
Yes, and the article explains why the reasons you would use to disqualify that possibility no longer apply.
I already provided my refutation on certain parts of the article back on page 16 or 17. I really thought the article was a big yawn.
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
-
And I'm still asking Gertrude the Great this question:
<<<<<So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?>>>>>
For the record...when I say that those in the conciliar church are not to be saved, I am stressing what the sedes profess...no salvation outside of the Catholic Church...so is the "Conciliar Church" the true church or isn't it? And if it isn't...then where is the church?
-
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Archbishop LeFebvre believed everything you just listed (except for maybe believing Rome was the seat of the antichrist), so does Bishop Williamson. Believing that Rome has lost the Faith, that the modernists profess error and heresy, that the Church now teaches a new religion, etc. is not a sede mindset. SSPXers tend to believe that as well, they just don't go as far as to say the chair is empty.
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
No, there is no comparison between liberals and Traditional Catholics.
-
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Archbishop LeFebvre believed everything you just listed (except for maybe believing Rome was the seat of the antichrist), so does Bishop Williamson. Believing that Rome has lost the Faith, that the modernists profess error and heresy, that the Church now teaches a new religion, etc. is not a sede mindset. SSPXers tend to believe that as well, they just don't go as far as to say the chair is empty.
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
No, there is no comparison between liberals and Traditional Catholics.
ABL is no longer living, and to presume what position he would take today if he were alive is...well, presumptuous...the bottom line is, the sspx went to Rome for the Jubilee year...and began to dialogue with Rome...and the rest is history. +Fellay is the SG of the sspx, not +Williamson. The sspx will never say that the chair is empty...or that the church has been without a pope for 50 years...they say we have had bad popes and that the church must return to tradition. It has always been about recognizing and resisting.
-
ABL is no longer living, and to presume what position he would take today if he were alive is...well, presumptuous...
I was not talking about what position ABL would take, I was talking about what he believed. Although, discussing what position he would take if he were alive today regarding certain things such as the deal with Rome is not presumptuous. Not when you consult his quotes, which show very clearly that he wouldn't accept a deal unless Rome converted first.
-
ABL is no longer living, and to presume what position he would take today if he were alive is...well, presumptuous...
I was not talking about what position ABL would take, I was talking about what he believed. Although, discussing what position he would take if he were alive today regarding certain things such as the deal with Rome is not presumptuous. Not when you consult his quotes, which show very clearly that he wouldn't accept a deal unless Rome converted first.
I believe that ABL was hot and cold...his opinion on the apostasy and destruction happening in the church was almost desperate at times, and yet he was lovingly obedient at other times...in the end, he never categorically stated that the sede position was the correct one.
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
It's when you lose the Faith that you lose your soul. If someone is within the pit of Vatican II, because they do not understand what is going on but still have the Faith, God knows His own.
This is why Our Lady said, someday through the scapular and rosary the world will be saved. Notice she did not say, someday through the Mass and Sacraments the world will be saved, because she knew that only a pale light will shine from the Mass and Sacraments.
The problem is, especially with the younger souls, who are growing up with Vatican II, they are not taught the Faith. Which is why it is robber church, and a Vicar of Christ CAN NOT BE Pope of a robber church. Pure and simple! One does not have to be a theologian to know that. It is common sense, and it is these self taught theologians writing articles to refute sedevacatism that are in trouble, because they have no common sense.
-
ABL is no longer living, and to presume what position he would take today if he were alive is...well, presumptuous...
I was not talking about what position ABL would take, I was talking about what he believed. Although, discussing what position he would take if he were alive today regarding certain things such as the deal with Rome is not presumptuous. Not when you consult his quotes, which show very clearly that he wouldn't accept a deal unless Rome converted first.
I believe that ABL was hot and cold...his opinion on the apostasy and destruction happening in the church was almost desperate at times, and yet he was lovingly obedient at other times...in the end, he never categorically stated that the sede position was the correct one.
Well the problem with your constant attack on "the Sede Position" is that you overlook a couple important points.
1) Taking a theological Position for preservation isnt authoritative and binding on the entire Church. It is exactly that - taking a stand for preservation in the face of Heresy. Once you wrap your arms around that - then saying that Archbishop Lefebvre was just in what he did is simple for Sedevacantists as well. Because he took the stance he did for the very same reason - to Preserve orthodoxy in the face of Heresy.
Today I see people who want to unite with rome trying to sugar coat what the Novus ordo has done and is doing.
In that regard - ABL is a whole lot closer to the Sedevacantist camp than he is to people like you.
Pax
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
It's when you lose the Faith that you lose your soul. If someone is within the pit of Vatican II, because they do not understand what is going on but still have the Faith, God knows His own.
This is why Our Lady said, someday through the scapular and rosary the world will be saved. Notice she did not say, someday through the Mass and Sacraments the world will be saved, because she knew that only a pale light will shine from the Mass and Sacraments.
The problem is, especially with the younger souls, who are growing up with Vatican II, they are not taught the Faith. Which is why it is robber church, and a Vicar of Christ CAN NOT BE Pope of a robber church. Pure and simple! One does not have to be a theologian to know that. It is common sense, and it is these self taught theologians writing articles to refute sedevacatism that are in trouble, because they have no common sense.
You are precisely right in several points, Myrna....God knows his own even when they are within the pit of Vatican II, and those that have the faith won't lose it...even if they must now stand at the foot of the Holy Cross with Our Lady and suffer the painful times we live in and the bear the painful suffering of Holy Mother Church... to observe the complete loss of faith, and the total indoctrination of the youth in Catholic schools today is heart-wrenching...who will help them? They will not seek out tradition on their own, perhaps a very few may at some point in their lives, but most will not. Who will help them to learn the faith? Their parents? No. Their NO priests? No. The faithful won't make a sudden return to tradition when they have been formed in modernist theology...to get to the root of the problem, we need to change it from within, and from the very formation of the youth....it will not be easy and it will take generations but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
-
ABL is no longer living, and to presume what position he would take today if he were alive is...well, presumptuous...
I was not talking about what position ABL would take, I was talking about what he believed. Although, discussing what position he would take if he were alive today regarding certain things such as the deal with Rome is not presumptuous. Not when you consult his quotes, which show very clearly that he wouldn't accept a deal unless Rome converted first.
I believe that ABL was hot and cold...his opinion on the apostasy and destruction happening in the church was almost desperate at times, and yet he was lovingly obedient at other times...in the end, he never categorically stated that the sede position was the correct one.
Well the problem with your constant attack on "the Sede Position" is that you overlook a couple important points.
1) Taking a theological Position for preservation isnt authoritative and binding on the entire Church. It is exactly that - taking a stand for preservation in the face of Heresy. Once you wrap your arms around that - then saying that Archbishop Lefebvre was just in what he did is simple for Sedevacantists as well. Because he took the stance he did for the very same reason - to Preserve orthodoxy in the face of Heresy.
Today I see people who want to unite with rome trying to sugar coat what the Novus ordo has done and is doing.
In that regard - ABL is a whole lot closer to the Sedevacantist camp than he is to people like you.
Pax
That's great...but people like me would still like to know where you think you will get a true pope...maybe you'll pull him out of your sedevacante hat someday....
By the way...I'm not "constantly attacking" the sede position...I've been there and done that...its a dead end...so think about what the state of affairs for tradition will be like if the sspx is not reconciled and is then labelled excommunicated and schismatic...and then think about the state of affairs in an sspx where bishops have challenged bishop and the unity has been destroyed and marred...and then think about the state of affairs if the sspx is reconciled and there are only two positions left...in the church or the sedevacantes.
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
It's when you lose the Faith that you lose your soul. If someone is within the pit of Vatican II, because they do not understand what is going on but still have the Faith, God knows His own.
This is why Our Lady said, someday through the scapular and rosary the world will be saved. Notice she did not say, someday through the Mass and Sacraments the world will be saved, because she knew that only a pale light will shine from the Mass and Sacraments.
The problem is, especially with the younger souls, who are growing up with Vatican II, they are not taught the Faith. Which is why it is robber church, and a Vicar of Christ CAN NOT BE Pope of a robber church. Pure and simple! One does not have to be a theologian to know that. It is common sense, and it is these self taught theologians writing articles to refute sedevacatism that are in trouble, because they have no common sense.
You are precisely right in several points, Myrna....God knows his own even when they are within the pit of Vatican II, and those that have the faith won't lose it...even if they must now stand at the foot of the Holy Cross with Our Lady and suffer the painful times we live in and the bear the painful suffering of Holy Mother Church... to observe the complete loss of faith, and the total indoctrination of the youth in Catholic schools today is heart-wrenching...who will help them? They will not seek out tradition on their own, perhaps a very few may at some point in their lives, but most will not. Who will help them to learn the faith? Their parents? No. Their NO priests? No. The faithful won't make a sudden return to tradition when they have been formed in modernist theology...to get to the root of the problem, we need to change it from within, and from the very formation of the youth....it will not be easy and it will take generations but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
What is amazing to me is that there is this huge tract of common ground, yet Bernadette places a non-binding judgment on the status of the pope above all of these things mentioned that are not in question in the minds of traditionalists.
-
If John Lane has directly responded to the article I have mentioned, then I am excited to read it for a couple reasons:
1) I think he is the most eloquent and persuasive of the sedevacantist apologists;
2) He has saved me a lot of work: I will now be able to compare the best arguments from the SSPX camp versus the best arguments (in my opinion) from the sedevacantist camp.
Is there any reason John Lane does not post here?
-
So will you now explain to me how the sedes plan to get a valid pope, who he might be, when it might occur, and if the 1.6 billion Catholics on the face of the earth that the sedes believe are not to be saved, will come to think of it?
When did sedes say that non-sedes won't be saved? You're thinking of dogmatic sedes like Richard Ibranyi.
They don't have to say it...but isn't it rather hypocritical to think that the Church now teaches a new religion, that Rome has lost the faith and is the seat of the antiChrist, that the modernists profess error and heresy...yet one can be saved remaining in the conciliar church?
Liberals and sedevacantistes....two sides of the same coin.
It's when you lose the Faith that you lose your soul. If someone is within the pit of Vatican II, because they do not understand what is going on but still have the Faith, God knows His own.
This is why Our Lady said, someday through the scapular and rosary the world will be saved. Notice she did not say, someday through the Mass and Sacraments the world will be saved, because she knew that only a pale light will shine from the Mass and Sacraments.
The problem is, especially with the younger souls, who are growing up with Vatican II, they are not taught the Faith. Which is why it is robber church, and a Vicar of Christ CAN NOT BE Pope of a robber church. Pure and simple! One does not have to be a theologian to know that. It is common sense, and it is these self taught theologians writing articles to refute sedevacatism that are in trouble, because they have no common sense.
You are precisely right in several points, Myrna....God knows his own even when they are within the pit of Vatican II, and those that have the faith won't lose it...even if they must now stand at the foot of the Holy Cross with Our Lady and suffer the painful times we live in and the bear the painful suffering of Holy Mother Church... to observe the complete loss of faith, and the total indoctrination of the youth in Catholic schools today is heart-wrenching...who will help them? They will not seek out tradition on their own, perhaps a very few may at some point in their lives, but most will not. Who will help them to learn the faith? Their parents? No. Their NO priests? No. The faithful won't make a sudden return to tradition when they have been formed in modernist theology...to get to the root of the problem, we need to change it from within, and from the very formation of the youth....it will not be easy and it will take generations but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
What is amazing to me is that there is this huge tract of common ground, yet Bernadette places a non-binding judgment on the status of the pope above all of these things mentioned that are not in question in the minds of traditionalists.
elaborate please...
-
Bernadette - The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
The truth is, the Modernists you mention above have stolen the property from the Church of Christ. Stolen it with the help of the conciliar "popes", read the Alta Vendita http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/destroy_church.htm since you put so much emphasis on articles written about the crisis of the Church. This particular one is most interesting since it was thought up prior to Vatican II.
Vatican II is not the Church of Christ, therefore these guys, can not be pope of what is not the Church of Christ, they, the conciliar "popes" can be the Modernists pretend "popes", I will agree to that. Sitting in the Chair of Peter, pretending to be God. Sound familiar!
-
http://files.meetup.com/574112/Permanent_Instruction_of_the_Alta_Vendita.pdf
-
Bernadette - The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
The truth is, the Modernists you mention above have stolen the property from the Church of Christ. Stolen it with the help of the conciliar "popes", read the Alta Vendita http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/destroy_church.htm since you put so much emphasis on articles written about the crisis of the Church. This particular one is most interesting since it was thought up prior to Vatican II.
Vatican II is not the Church of Christ, therefore these guys, can not be pope of what is not the Church of Christ, they, the conciliar "popes" can be the Modernists pretend "popes", I will agree to that. Sitting in the Chair of Peter, pretending to be God. Sound familiar!
I'm still anxious to hear from the sede mind, where will the true pope come from...when...and where is the Catholic church if not in Rome?
Also...if the new rite of consecration is invalid...then a good portion of the 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are not Catholic...have not been given valid sacraments.
-
I'm still anxious to hear from the sede mind, where will the true pope come from...when...and where is the Catholic church if not in Rome?
It's where baptized Catholics preserve the true Faith.
Also...if the new rite of consecration is invalid...then a good portion of the 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are not Catholic...have not been given valid sacraments.
They would be validly baptized.
Bernadette, the fact of the matter is 1.6 billlion is a number with no correspondence to reality. How many do you think even attend mass, and of those, how many have not accepted so many errors as to make their faith almost unrecognizable?
You keep arguing that sedes have to explain how a new Pope can be found.
So how is a Pope with the Faith supposed to be elected when the Cardinals are without Faith?
Where is the Catholic Church if the Pope and hierarchy are not teaching the Catholic Faith but something else?
-
I'm still anxious to hear from the sede mind, where will the true pope come from...when...and where is the Catholic church if not in Rome?
It's where baptized Catholics preserve the true Faith.
Also...if the new rite of consecration is invalid...then a good portion of the 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are not Catholic...have not been given valid sacraments.
They would be validly baptized.
Bernadette, the fact of the matter is 1.6 billlion is a number with no correspondence to reality. How many do you think even attend mass, and of those, how many have not accepted so many errors as to make their faith almost unrecognizable?
You keep arguing that sedes have to explain how a new Pope can be found.
So how is a Pope with the Faith supposed to be elected when the Cardinals are without Faith?
Where is the Catholic Church if the Pope and hierarchy are not teaching the Catholic Faith but something else?
Those are the questions I'm asking the sedes...you stole them from me and turned them around!
I've been to the NO these last few months...the place is packed for every mass...the elementary school attached to the parish is gigantic...all of those NO Catholics believe the pope is the pope and that they have the faith...who's going to tell them the truth?
Baptized Catholics can preserve the faith IN the church...not OUTSIDE of it.
-
.who's going to tell them the truth?
In their hearts the most Novus Ordo Catholics know the truth about the situation and don't care, or they know something's wrong and they can't quite understand it.
My grandmother's parish (in Illinois) had a priest who attempted ѕυιcιdє.
On Father's Day the cover of the bulletin was a picture and a caption telling men to be "gentle" - such is the non-stop talk about domestic violence at that parish by feminists that even on Father's Day they are carping like cultural marxists about it.
The people who attend such parishes are for the most part not Catholics.
And the older ones know it. The younger ones typically figure it out and give up. The married couples with children might go for social reasons. Very few want the true religion.
-
The Novus Ordo (NO) "faith" is outside the Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is man-centered.
And let's not pretend that the NO Church is packed. Upwards of 70% of Catholics attended Mass weekly before Vatican II and now only approx 22% do. The "packed" "mass" you see is the one time each Sunday.
I grew up in a very banal, plain, no beauty whatsoever Catholic Church (shortly after Vatican II) and it offered four or five masses every Sunday. It did slowly trickle down as Catholics were becoming more or less bored with the banality of the NO services.
However, if you are a novus ordite and you are happy, well, more power to you. Isn't that what the subjectivists are supposed to say to each other?
A dwindling NO church can't stand up to modernism.
-
The Novus Ordo (NO) "faith" is outside the Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is man-centered.
And let's not pretend that the NO Church is packed. Upwards of 70% of Catholics attended Mass weekly before Vatican II and now only approx 22% do. The "packed" "mass" you see is the one time each Sunday.
I grew up in a very banal, plain, no beauty whatsoever Catholic Church (shortly after Vatican II) and it offered four or five masses every Sunday. It did slowly trickle down as Catholics were becoming more or less bored with the banality of the NO services.
However, if you are a novus ordite and you are happy, well, more power to you. Isn't that what the subjectivists are supposed to say to each other?
A dwindling NO church can't stand up to modernism.
I grew up in the same church as you, and the same statistics...but I'm telling you the church is packed on Sunday...so there is no danger that they aren't receiving the donations to keep it up...the student body is huge, and the children are being indoctrinated into the new theology....you can't deny facts...people in the NO lost the faith because they weren't teaching it and it was more important to be worldly...it was the lure of the modern age. I don't know about you, but I don't want my children's children and the future generations being deprived of their birthright by having the truth obscured with no one attempting to salvage the sorry state of the church today...by trying to restore the church of Her traditions...what do you propose? Letting them all go down the drain?
Make a visit to your local NO parish on any given Sunday and then tell me there aren't plenty of Catholics without a clue as to the struggle going on within the church, and the desperate need for traditional restoration.
-
The Novus Ordo (NO) "faith" is outside the Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is man-centered.
Oh wonderful...so 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are outside of the Catholic Church...where is the Catholic Church then? You know...the visible Church on earth...
-
Bernadette - The Church of Christ has not robbed them...the modernists have...they must go, but in the mean time...we cannot decide for ourselves whether the seat is empty or not.
The truth is, the Modernists you mention above have stolen the property from the Church of Christ. Stolen it with the help of the conciliar "popes", read the Alta Vendita http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/destroy_church.htm since you put so much emphasis on articles written about the crisis of the Church. This particular one is most interesting since it was thought up prior to Vatican II.
Vatican II is not the Church of Christ, therefore these guys, can not be pope of what is not the Church of Christ, they, the conciliar "popes" can be the Modernists pretend "popes", I will agree to that. Sitting in the Chair of Peter, pretending to be God. Sound familiar!
I'm still anxious to hear from the sede mind, where will the true pope come from...when...and where is the Catholic church if not in Rome?
Also...if the new rite of consecration is invalid...then a good portion of the 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are not Catholic...have not been given valid sacraments.
Now you are beginning to understand what the Great Apostasy IS, fortold to us in the Bible.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
-
Your right Capt McQuiqq, several years ago we had approx. 15 nuns leave to go back to the Vatican II church, "to save them" they said, now today some of them are seen on our local T.V. public channel receiving Communion standing and in the hand. In other words they have become "them"...
The Bible misses no words, it says, "leave the harlot". Apocalypse
-
The Novus Ordo (NO) "faith" is outside the Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is man-centered.
Oh wonderful...so 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are outside of the Catholic Church...where is the Catholic Church then? You know...the visible Church on earth...
Uh.... not all 1.6 billion Catholics in the world attend the NO, so saying they're all outside the Church because the NO faith is doesn't make sense.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
-
The Novus Ordo (NO) "faith" is outside the Catholic Church for the simple reason that it is man-centered.
Oh wonderful...so 1.6 billion Catholics worldwide are outside of the Catholic Church...where is the Catholic Church then? You know...the visible Church on earth...
Uh.... not all 1.6 billion Catholics in the world attend the NO, so saying they're all outside the Church because the NO faith is doesn't make sense.
I didn't say they were outside of the Catholic Church....Myrna did.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
Excellent post bernadette.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
Seek and you shall find, you found it, now what are you going to do with it?
I pointed out that those who lost their Faith, lose everything. There are many young people within Vatican II, that are SEEKING, and in God's time, they will FIND THE TRUTH. Pray that they will act on what they find. Not just throw up their hands and say, oh well this is the age we live in...lets deal with it.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
Seek and you shall find, you found it, now what are you going to do with it?
I pointed out that those who lost their Faith, lose everything. There are many young people within Vatican II, that are SEEKING, and in God's time, they will FIND THE TRUTH. Pray that they will act on what they find. Not just throw up their hands and say, oh well this is the age we live in...lets deal with it.
I didn't say throw up the hands and say "oh well this is the age we live in...let's deal with it". Why does everyone always have to react with emotions? I said we have to deal with living in this modern era...otherwise, we become eccentric, not fitting in and not able to cope...I didn't say you had to like it, but you sure do have to be able to deal with it.
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
Excellent post bernadette.
Thank you brainglitch...
-
Do you think Jesus Christ "fit in"?
-
Do you think Jesus Christ "fit in"?
Yes, as far as with the times he lived in, He certainly did....he didn't hole up by Himself and shun the world...He came to convert and save souls...
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
You're going to be the "exposure" these novus ordo zombies are going to see and then, magically, change their ways?
Come on now, Bernadette, how exactly are you going to do that? Seriously. How?
How is Bernadette going to bring tradition to the novus ordites?
-
Do you think Jesus Christ "fit in"?
Yes, with the times, He did.
Jesus was just a "man of his times"?
What do you mean by that?
-
Bernadette,
If you want to save someone from modernism, save yourself.
Do you have a traditionalist Catholic Church nearby?
As for your nice, friendly, vapid, novus ordites, only 21% of them believe in the Real Presence.
And, put aside your vanity, saving them is not your job.
Do you live near a traditionalist chapel?
I can be a traditional Catholic and still function normally in the modern world...unlike you, out of charity I'd like to see an effort made to restore tradition as opposed to remaining in a state of separation gnashing my teeth about the end times. You see, I didn't say anything about trying to save anyone's soul...I just understand that there must be exposure for the majority of NO Catholics to tradition, because it won't just materialize out of thin air for them...people have to present, it not hog it all for themselves in their smug little chapels hoping a few disgruntled Catholics will come their way...by the way...God put us here on earth in THIS period of history...let's deal with it.
You're going to be the "exposure" these novus ordo zombies are going to see and then, magically, change their ways?
Come on now, Bernadette, how exactly are you going to do that? Seriously. How?
How is Bernadette going to bring tradition to the novus ordites?
Bernadette is going to keep the faith and pray and support those that attempt to try...she knows that the slow road of restoration in the church begins within...not without.
-
Do you think Jesus Christ "fit in"?
Yes, with the times, He did.
Jesus was just a "man of his times"?
What do you mean by that?
Sorry Capt...I was editing when you replied:
Yes, as far as with the times he lived in, He certainly did....he didn't hole up by Himself and shun the world...He came to convert and save souls...
-
Oh...and Bernadette is going to try to keep an even keel, and avoid putting herself into the position of making declarations that she isn't supposed to make...
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
-
Bernadette,
Please don't view my posts as merely negative or combative. I just want to know how you think you would be able to bring tradition to your fellow novus ordites.
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
-
Bernadette,
Please don't view my posts as merely negative or combative. I just want to know how you think you would be able to bring tradition to your fellow novus ordites.
I don't....no problem...
Or should I of said..."Bernadette doesn't...no problem"?!
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
What! Bernadette can know the priest right intention, but a sede can't determine intention.
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
What! Bernadette can know the priest right intention, but a sede can't determine intention.
Myrna...I can tell, just as you would be able to...for example, when a certain NO priest says loud and clear in his sermon "it is a meal...a meal of commemoration of the death of Christ"...I know that this priest is a bleeding heart liberal, and I would doubt his intention...as would you, I believe. Trust me...this happened two weeks ago and the priest is an old Irish priest who should know better....
And Myrna...I haven't anything against sedes...in fact I like them quite a bit. I've sede friends and acquaintances...and in my opinion, the best priests in the world that I have ever had the good fortune to meet have been the sede priests of the CMRI...I just personally can't accept the theory...that is all.
-
I will now be able to compare the best arguments from the SSPX camp versus the best arguments (in my opinion) from the sedevacantist camp.
John Lane considers himself "in the SSPX camp" so there's a third category.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9389&view=findpost&p=22006186
The argument isn't between SSPXers and sedevacantists. The argument is between those who think that sedevacantism is a theologically lawful and probable opinion (whether they hold it or not) and those who claim it is morally wrong, theologically wrong, and "schismatic".
In the first group are many SSPX priests, three of the bishops, and many of the laity, and of course Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In the second camp at present are the General Council of the SSPX, many of the priests of the SSPX, and a whole bunch of fearful and ignorant laymen. :)
The reality of the current situation is that the real division between traditional Catholics is now being made clear. The second group - the dogmatising anti-sedevacantists - are joining their confreres in the Ecclesia Dei/Indult scene, even to the point of now saying that the texts of Vatican II have been misunderstood and misapplied, etc., and therefore throwing away the stance taken consistently by Archbishop Lefebvre.
But it isn't clear yet where this will end. It may well be that Bishop Fellay and his Council will reverse direction and once again maintain the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. Anything else will split the Society, which would be a tragedy.
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
What! Bernadette can know the priest right intention, but a sede can't determine intention.
Myrna...I can tell, just as you would be able to...for example, when a certain NO priest says loud and clear in his sermon "it is a meal...a meal of commemoration of the death of Christ"...I know that this priest is a bleeding heart liberal, and I would doubt his intention...as would you, I believe. Trust me...this happened two weeks ago and the priest is an old Irish priest who should know better....
And Myrna...I haven't anything against sedes...in fact I like them quite a bit. I've sede friends and acquaintances...and in my opinion, the best priests in the world that I have ever had the good fortune to meet have been the sede priests of the CMRI...I just personally can't accept the theory...that is all.
Not to worry Bernadette, I understand you can determine an intention, hopefully you can understand too, when the conciliar "pope" participate with interfaith worship, his intention is known to those who have eyes to see. A few pages ago, you couldn't understand the question I raised about intention. Thanks for seeing my point of view now.
-
Hey Gertrude, welcome back.
otherwise, we become eccentric, not fitting in and not able to cope
Traditional Catholics are going to be viewed by the modern world as eccentric. Not that Trads should give a rat's behind what the modern world thinks of them...
-
I agree SS, in fact Our Lord told us we would be persecuted for His sake.
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
What! Bernadette can know the priest right intention, but a sede can't determine intention.
Myrna...I can tell, just as you would be able to...for example, when a certain NO priest says loud and clear in his sermon "it is a meal...a meal of commemoration of the death of Christ"...I know that this priest is a bleeding heart liberal, and I would doubt his intention...as would you, I believe. Trust me...this happened two weeks ago and the priest is an old Irish priest who should know better....
And Myrna...I haven't anything against sedes...in fact I like them quite a bit. I've sede friends and acquaintances...and in my opinion, the best priests in the world that I have ever had the good fortune to meet have been the sede priests of the CMRI...I just personally can't accept the theory...that is all.
Not to worry Bernadette, I understand you can determine an intention, hopefully you can understand too, when the conciliar "pope" participate with interfaith worship, his intention is known to those who have eyes to see. A few pages ago, you couldn't understand the question I raised about intention. Thanks for seeing my point of view now.
I don't like a pope participating in interfaith worship either...I abhor the modernist mindset...but I also can't understand where the sedes think a true pope is going to come from...who will decide and who it will be...and the question of the new rite of ordination is very troubling...so to abandon it all and take refuge in sedevacantism has presented itself to me as a pretty dream, an easy exit from the problems in the church and not based on the reality of what it means to be a Catholic...a string of bad popes formed by modern theology/products of their own times who truly believing that they are right, can be dealt with easier and is in keeping with the true Catholic viewpoint...my opinion of course.
-
Hey Gertrude, welcome back.
otherwise, we become eccentric, not fitting in and not able to cope
Traditional Catholics are going to be viewed by the modern world as eccentric. Not that Trads should give a rat's behind what the modern world thinks of them...
Yeah...welcome back Gertrude...whoever you are...now would you mind answering my questions put to you about four pages back?
SS...if trads hope to increase their numbers...they sure as hell should give a rat's rear end about what the world thinks of them...it isn't advisable to become too self-assured, rather, keep some humility and some charity for those who aren't as 'fortunate' as you....
-
-
SS...if trads hope to increase their numbers...they sure as hell should give a rat's rear end about what the world thinks of them...it isn't advisable to become too self-assured, rather, keep some humility and some charity for those who aren't as 'fortunate' as you....
No, they shouldn't care what the modern world thinks of them. Now, if we're talking about the "Trad community", yeah, ok. But the modern world is not Catholic. The modern world is ruled by wicked ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.
-
SS...if trads hope to increase their numbers...they sure as hell should give a rat's rear end about what the world thinks of them...it isn't advisable to become too self-assured, rather, keep some humility and some charity for those who aren't as 'fortunate' as you....
No, they shouldn't care what the modern world thinks of them. Now, if we're talking about the "Trad community", yeah, ok. But the modern world is not Catholic. The modern world is ruled by wicked ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.
Hey...I gave you a thumbs up for your blank post...ain't I nice?!
-
SS...if trads hope to increase their numbers...they sure as hell should give a rat's rear end about what the world thinks of them...it isn't advisable to become too self-assured, rather, keep some humility and some charity for those who aren't as 'fortunate' as you....
No, they shouldn't care what the modern world thinks of them. Now, if we're talking about the "Trad community", yeah, ok. But the modern world is not Catholic. The modern world is ruled by wicked ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.
Hey...I gave you a thumbs up for your blank post...ain't I nice?!
It was blank because I messed up on the quote.
Now, putting that aside, do you agree with my statement or not?
-
I will now be able to compare the best arguments from the SSPX camp versus the best arguments (in my opinion) from the sedevacantist camp.
John Lane considers himself "in the SSPX camp" so there's a third category.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9389&view=findpost&p=22006186
The argument isn't between SSPXers and sedevacantists. The argument is between those who think that sedevacantism is a theologically lawful and probable opinion (whether they hold it or not) and those who claim it is morally wrong, theologically wrong, and "schismatic".
In the first group are many SSPX priests, three of the bishops, and many of the laity, and of course Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In the second camp at present are the General Council of the SSPX, many of the priests of the SSPX, and a whole bunch of fearful and ignorant laymen. :)
The reality of the current situation is that the real division between traditional Catholics is now being made clear. The second group - the dogmatising anti-sedevacantists - are joining their confreres in the Ecclesia Dei/Indult scene, even to the point of now saying that the texts of Vatican II have been misunderstood and misapplied, etc., and therefore throwing away the stance taken consistently by Archbishop Lefebvre.
But it isn't clear yet where this will end. It may well be that Bishop Fellay and his Council will reverse direction and once again maintain the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. Anything else will split the Society, which would be a tragedy.
When the day comes that +Williamson, +de Galleretta, and +Tissier categorically state that sedevacantism is a theologically lawful and probable opinion for all the sspx faithful and anyone else in the world interested to hear, then I might sit up and listen....
-
SS...if trads hope to increase their numbers...they sure as hell should give a rat's rear end about what the world thinks of them...it isn't advisable to become too self-assured, rather, keep some humility and some charity for those who aren't as 'fortunate' as you....
No, they shouldn't care what the modern world thinks of them. Now, if we're talking about the "Trad community", yeah, ok. But the modern world is not Catholic. The modern world is ruled by wicked ʝʊdɛօ-Masons.
Hey...I gave you a thumbs up for your blank post...ain't I nice?!
It was blank because I messed up on the quote.
Now, putting that aside, do you agree with my statement or not?
Okay SS-no sense of humor...I agree the modern world is ruled by wicked ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic evil doers...and the brunt of the modern world is not Catholic....
How come I can't thumbs up my own post?
-
Alright, thanks for clearing that up.
Okay SS-no sense of humor
For the record, I DO have a sense of humor. If you met me in real life, you'd find that I cut up a lot. I am usually serious on here, though.
I can be humorous when I want to, though. :alcohol:
-
Alright, thanks for clearing that up.
Okay SS-no sense of humor
For the record, I DO have a sense of humor. If you met me in real life, you'd find that I cut up a lot. I am usually serious on here, though.
I can be humorous when I want to, though. :alcohol:
Happy to hear it...everyone needs to keep a sense of humor in these troubling times...Now, where is Tele this evening?
-
But how are you going to do it, Bernadette?
By standing in line and taking communion in the hand?
By singing along with the choir as it sings "We Are the Bread of Life?"
The Novus Ordo church is the schismatic one because they claim to be catholic but act entirely different. They have ceased going along with the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church.
But, let's put that aside.
How exactly are you going to bring tradition to your fellow parishioners?
Why are you needling Bernadette? She already answered your questions sufficiently.
Bernadette has never taken communion in the hand since becoming a traditional Catholic...she doesn't join in and sing...in fact, she tries to go to the most traditional mass she can find if she doesn't go to the Latin Mass of the Diocese which is at a very inconvenient time and distance...and if the sspx is regularized she will go back right away....Bernadette also doesn't go to communion if she feels the priest does not have the right intention...
:dancing:
What! Bernadette can know the priest right intention, but a sede can't determine intention.
Myrna...I can tell, just as you would be able to...for example, when a certain NO priest says loud and clear in his sermon "it is a meal...a meal of commemoration of the death of Christ"...I know that this priest is a bleeding heart liberal, and I would doubt his intention...as would you, I believe. Trust me...this happened two weeks ago and the priest is an old Irish priest who should know better....
And Myrna...I haven't anything against sedes...in fact I like them quite a bit. I've sede friends and acquaintances...and in my opinion, the best priests in the world that I have ever had the good fortune to meet have been the sede priests of the CMRI...I just personally can't accept the theory...that is all.
Not to worry Bernadette, I understand you can determine an intention, hopefully you can understand too, when the conciliar "pope" participate with interfaith worship, his intention is known to those who have eyes to see. A few pages ago, you couldn't understand the question I raised about intention. Thanks for seeing my point of view now.
I don't like a pope participating in interfaith worship either...I abhor the modernist mindset...but I also can't understand where the sedes think a true pope is going to come from...who will decide and who it will be...and the question of the new rite of ordination is very troubling...so to abandon it all and take refuge in sedevacantism has presented itself to me as a pretty dream, an easy exit from the problems in the church and not based on the reality of what it means to be a Catholic...a string of bad popes formed by modern theology/products of their own times who truly believing that they are right, can be dealt with easier and is in keeping with the true Catholic viewpoint...my opinion of course.
My own opinion of what I bolded above for Bernadette is: Have a little Faith, it's not up to you or I to fix the crisis, its up to us to live and keep the faith right now. Just like when the apostles were in the boat and the storm came, Jesus was sleeping and the apostles were so scared woke Jesus and said: "Master we perish" and Jesus said: "Where is your faith?" Luke Chapter 8
-
I can understand that, Myrna...
-
Hmm... yeah, it appears Tele won't be joining us tonight. That's a shame.