@AmericanReform_@DTCory Good job keeping your cool. I was surprised at some of the slurs leveled against you. Particularly by a priest I know and respect personally.
I guess we all have our blind spots.
@HierB4TheAC@ultrajectensis Well, here’s where it gets dicey. Because the man they call pope is not, in fact, pope. However, they are, in fact, making new Catholic bishops with valid succession.
So it’s a mixed bag IMO.
What is the point of denouncing the errors while remaining under the authority of the one who promotes them? This position only confuses souls who sincerely seek the truth. The Catholic faith has always been clear and never permits such a contradiction: either His Holiness Leo XIV is there, to whom obedience is due, or Prevost is there, destroying the faith. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Let us pray that God may raise up ministers whose actions match their words, rather than continuing the Gallican, Jansenist, and schismatic tendencies that characterized Archbishop Lefebvre’s ambiguities.
@MartinSellner_ He’s not the pope, so there is that. While I’m glad that 4 valid bishops with actual apostolic succession will be consecrated, I’m sorry to see the contradictions which come out of the SSPX simply because they won’t admit the seat is vacant.
Tomorrow the SSPX will consecrate four new bishops. If the crisis in the Church is worldwide, why only four? If the goal were truly the good of the entire Church, one would expect a much larger number of bishops to meet the needs of all souls, especially since they possess valid apostolic succession. But four are enough to ensure the continuity of the Fraternity itself; not to respond to a universal crisis which, according to the Fraternity itself, would characterize a state of emergency. It is clear that the concern is the perpetuation of the group itself and not the restoration of the Church.
@Michael_J_Matt You lost me at principled debate when you refuse to deal with those who aren’t part of the “Trad Inc.” talking heads.
https://t.co/2gRPnDYLN2
To the defenders of the R&R position, who keep recurring to the absurd "a father is still a father even though he's abusive and mistreats his children" argument, we will remind them of the following:
1. At the biological/earthly level, this is true. Nevertheless, many children have been definitively separated from contact with those parents to preserve their physical and emotional integrity.
2. Many of those parents have lost their parental authority and have even been jailed for crimes committed against their kids.
3. The scandal that this sort of parent produces is limited in scope to their respective families.
In the case of the Catholic Church, whose ultimate mission entrusted by Christ the King is the salvation of souls, the issue is even more delicate.
It's impossible to say that a pope could be abusive and criminal to the souls of his spiritual children, and yet remain the Pope in spite of this. The scandal and the crime would not be limited to a family of four, six, or eight people. It would extend to ~1.5 billion souls, who would be separated from the way of salvation along with the billions of human beings still living in the darkness of paganism and atheism.
Either we have a true Pope or we don't!
It's impossible for the Vicar of Christ to lead the damnation of billions of souls around the world. Such a thing would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.
Christ the King promised that this would never happen! Thus it is that we are sure that we have not had a true Pope in over 60 years.
#SedeVacante #FightForTheChurch #UnamSanctam
https://t.co/gG4xoLtrnP