Sedevicantist leanings around the SSPX

[Scipio_a]

Remember all I did not open this to become an argument for or against the sedevicantist thesis.  That is against the rules of the forum.

[Scipio_a]

The gates of Hell will not prevail because the Holy Spirit (Ghost) guides the Church and protects the papacy. The proof is that though recent Popes have surely spoken and taught heretical, Hegelian minded doublespeak, they have never been able to do so Ex-Cathedra. The Papacy is a dogma that we must believe in. The dogma does not mean that we must believe in the actual person if he shows himself to be a heretic.

Extraordinary, is it not?  I have often remarked on this point.  Ultimately the whole NO implodes due exactly to this sort of weakness.  But that is by design.  The devil shot himself it the foot .

Even the V2 council made itself completely illigit because of the way it treated it's constitutions -- first there was a set of rules that the modernists managed to throw out -- it was a really big to do.  The they made their own rules, and then ignored those.  So anything that was done has no authority.  Quite funny really, were it not so sad for the lose of so many souls and the fallout from that like broken homes etc.

[didishroom]

That is a somewhat dubious claim!

They can only be considered dubious on eahc individual case, based on how the officiator of the sacrament is doing it.

But in of themselves: The Church cannot approve an invalid Mass or sacraments.

[Scipio_a]

That is a somewhat dubious claim!

They can only be considered dubious on eahc individual case, based on how the officiator of the sacrament is doing it.

But in of themselves: The Church cannot approve an invalid Mass or sacraments.

You have hit the nail on the head although that is not what is at issue.  I would have used a word other than "dubious" were it not possible to have a vaild NO service.  But it is somewhat disingenuous to say "individual case by case basis", as if it would be possible.  The possibility that in the NO that there is at least one missing element out of three to make the thing valid becomes more and more an issue with each passing year.  Easier to avoid any of it rather than look for the one sharp needle in a 30 gallon trash bag of dull ones.
This was being said in the 80s and 90s...I don't think I stake much on it then since it has now been 40 years.

Barbossa -- "It's not possible!"
 Jack Sparrow -- "Not probable."

[Credo]

some SSPX's hold sede like views

I'm sure "some" SSPX folks hold any number of views on different points. We're

[Scipio_a]

some SSPX's hold sede like views

I'm sure "some" SSPX folks hold any number of views on different points. We're

That is not a quote from me...please edit.

[Telemaque]

some SSPX's hold sede like views

I'm sure "some" SSPX folks hold any number of views on different points. We're

That is not a quote from me...please edit.

If one takes a very restrictive view of Vatican I then there is no way out.  One is not allowed to be Sede, and yet one would be forced to docilely accept manifest errors.

I am not convinced Vatican I intends to say it is impossible for a Pope to defect.

That seems to eliminate the free will of a Pope.

If Pius IX warned a bishop not to follow a future Pope who departs from the Faith, how can that be reconciled with the overly strict interpretation of Vatican I we often see?

To me it sounds like interpreting the Council of Florence to say that unbaptized infants are thrown into the lake of fire reserved for the Devil and his Angels.

[joe17]

Didish, 7HolyCats, and all,

    Well, I hope you have no problem with non-Catholics(Protestants and Orthodox) being able to licitly, under certain conditons, receive Holy Communion without converting to the Catholic faith.  It is in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is binding on all those who accept JPII and Benedict XVI.  Remember what St Paul says about receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and being worthy(ie in the state of grace/within the Mystical Body of Christ). No wiggle room. 
    Also, the schismatic Assyrian Divine Liturgy that has no consecration but was approved of for Catholics to attend by JPII must be accepted by you all, even though it goes against what our Lord said in scripture.

   You must also accept the idea of partial communion, which has never been part of the Catholic teaching.

  If the great Western Schism had not occurred in the late 14th/early 15th century, most people would probably say that our Lord would not permit so many well intenitioned souls to be mislead for so long.  But, it was so for 40 years.  In 1882, Fr Edmund James O'Reilly, SJ  in his book "The Relations of the Church to Society"-Theological Essays spoke of the western schism and also alluded the hypothetical scenario of the Church being w/o a Pope for 30 or 40 yeas NOT going against the teaching of the indefectibility of the Church.  He wrote this a decade after Vatican I.  He never had to take that back.

  Vatican "Cardinal" Mario Francesco Pompedda, former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, stated in an interview found here http://www.zenit.org/article-12193?l=english February 8, 2005 "It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy."  Worth reading.  I don't think it would exist if it could not theoretically be applied.  And if these men were heretics before their election, then that just means that they have never held the office.  "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" says just that.  If the idea of a man known as Pope could somehow through heresy not be pope is not Catholic teaching, the Paul IV taught an error in an official document.  Why would he even broach it if it was beyond possibility?

   I hope you all reflect on the and read up on it.

  Joe 
  A man who has taught heresy-just the new Canon Law itself would suffice-cannot hold the office he purports.  What good would he be to the faithful.

[Scipio_a]

Didish, 7HolyCats, and all,

    Well, I hope you have no problem with non-Catholics(Protestants and Orthodox) being able to licitly, under certain conditions, receive Holy Communion without converting to the Catholic faith.  It is in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is binding on all those who accept JPII and Benedict XVI. 

I don't think they'd go there because that is the NO talking about the NO fellowship cookie which anyone CAN receive (except a true Catholic), you have to look at what the law giver intended.  They were certainly not thinking of the TLM, which they thought they had relegated to a kook archbishop and some irascible followers who would die out soon enough.

But don't get too joyous at our victory, the persecutions are coming (I think) and anyone who attends any kind of TLM will be a target if they do not recant and accept the new religion - this is precisely why trad caths should not have so much disdain for one another -- from indultarian to sedevicantist you will all get your chance to die for the faith, at which time it won't matter about a pope or not a pope since every one of you will be intending to die for the true faith.

Looking forward to the final battle, but I could do without the gnashing of teeth.

[Aviz]

Looking forward to the final battle, but I could do without the gnashing of teeth.

No pain, no gain.