Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  Catholic_Truth on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:58 am

One of the Dimond brothers had challenged Brother Andre Marie to a debate on Sedevacantism. He never took up their offer.

I see many Vatican II supporters throwing stones from afar at Sedevacantists, but when the Sedevacantists challenges them to a debate, then most of them seem to scatter, run and hide. Why is that?

Posts : 116
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  Guest on Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:13 am

I think the reason is that the Dimond Brother's website looks kind of nuts and also the way the Dimonds present things looks kind of unprofessional and kooky not to mention uncharitable. They can't say two sentences without saying "utterly heretical" or "utterly devastating".

I think the Saint Benedict Center is trying to get an in with the local diocese and associating the Dimond brothers wouldn't help their image.

I am not saying I think it is right, I am just saying that is my take on it.


Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  Guest on Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:36 pm

I think the dimond brothers hold an excellent case.

CT Wrote:
I see many Vatican II supporters throwing stones from afar at Sedevacantists, but when the Sedevacantists challenges them to a debate, then most of them seem to scatter, run and hide. Why is that? .

The reason is, the dimond brothers hold an extremely strong case when it comes to the damage that has been done and the revolution that has occurred since Vatican II. They can prove without any shadow of a doubt that the men in Rome occupying the Seat of Peter since 1958 can be proven to be public heretics.

People are just not honest enough to admit this. They would rather offend God and defend evil. I do not understand how anybody can not see what is going on. Does people not realize that Benedict XVI knows exactly what he is doing, knows exactly what the Catholic Church teaches but, yet attacks these teachings every chance he gets.

How can the man in Rome today be our Lords True Vicar on earth when he attacks Him constantly in his books and public speeches. Next in line is the beatification of John Paul II then Assisi III. People seriously need to wake up, stand for the truth and defend our Lords Church, any way we possibly can.

I wouldn't like to be the soul brought before the Judgment seat of Christ who stands for this kind of apostasy that is about to take place in Assisi on October.

At present, if we consider it well, there is no one more despised than Jesus Christ. We make more account of a peasant than of God; because if we insult a peasant, we fear that, being offended beyond endurance, he may avenge himself; but as for God, we insult him, and heap insults freely on him, as if he could not avenge himself when He would: "They looked upon the Almighty as if He could do nothing." (Job 22:17). The Redeemer, therefore, has appointed a day, which will be the day of the general judgment (called emphatically in the Scriptures "the day of the Lord"), in which Jesus Christ will make Himself known as the all-powerful Lord which He is: "The Lord shall be known when He executeth judgments." (Psalms 9:17). Hence that day is no more called the day of mercy and of pardon, but the "day of wrath, a day of tribulation and distress, a day of calamity and misery." (Soph. 1:15). Yes, because the Lord will then justly redeem the honor which sinners have endeavored to rob Him of in this world. (St. Alphonsus, Preparation for Death).


Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  columba on Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:57 am

Simple Faith wrote:
Fatima for our times, (and others who doubt in our Pope).

I’ll have to include myself among the “those” you mention who doubt our Pope, but I don’t do so as a sedevacantist, I do so as one who acknowledges the precepts of Divine law and Church teaching down through the centuries while observing that our Pope and his most recent predecessors have deviated from these teachings both in word and deed in a public way both before and after their ascent to the Chair of Peter.

This is not a slight at the Pope but merely a matter of observed fact that if I was asked in a court of law to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I would be obliged in conscience to tell what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard from the Popes own deeds and words.
I will not list these here (as I believe they are well known to you all) but will provide the facts if anyone should want to dispute them or prove that they do not constitute heresy.

Does this mean that the Pope is not Pope?
I don’t think so, but it does mean that a Pope is capable of error and of promoting the error in a non-infallible way.

Does that mean I should hate the Pope?
No, I should love the Pope and pray for him all the more as I do for members of my own family who have deviated from the faith.

Does that mean I should follow him in His error?
Not at all. I should follow him in matters of discipline and teaching that do not contradict the faith or require me to commit sin in doing so.

Does that mean I’m less of a Catholic in adopting this position?
I don’t think so. My first duty is to save my soul and the souls of those entrusted to me by God. I can best do this by adhering to universal Church doctrine and infallibly pronounced teachings that are the sure norm and means for staying on the narrow road to salvation.

Elisa wrote:
That was so beautiful. Inspired even.

I agree with Elisa that this was beautiful and inspired but I believe the inspiration comes from human sentiment and a refusal to face a distasteful reality. I’m not being derogatory towards you SimpleFaith in saying that, because I myself have been quite prone to this way of viewing things and still am to a certain degree. It is every bit as abhorrent to me as it is to you and Elisa to concede that the Church in its highest office could promote beliefs contrary to the faith. I used to think this an impossibility but that was due also to sentimentality rather than true Church theological thinking on the matter.

Here are some questions to consider.

1) Is it possible for a Pope to fall into heresy?

2) Would it be possible for a Pope to promote heresy in an non-infallible way?

3) Could heresy thus promoted have a devastating effect on the faith of those who accept and follow it?

4) If one pope could deviate from the truths of the faith, could an unbroken succession of popes deviate in the same way?
5) If all the above were possible, what conditions would need to be present at any given time in history to facilitate such an occurrence?

6) Is it absolutely impossible (even in principle) that any of the above could happen?

The sedevacantists have been aided and abetted and given much more credibility by those who refuse to address such questions and act as if they don’t deserve any serious consideration. That stance would be fine if it weren’t so obvious that the Church is in crisis and we are facing a situation whereby the faith of the generation immediately following ours could be totally lost.
If that doesn’t shake one out of ones utopianism regarding certain perceived impossibilities, then what will it take to do so?

I am indeed sympathetic to the position of always defending the Pope. It's a kind of commendable loyalty that is part of being Catholic. But I propose that sometimes this can constitute a sort of self preservation when one fears that if all the above were possible or true, their own faith might take a hammering that it won't recover from.

My view is that error must always be resisted from no matter what quarter it emerges in the same way that physical illness must be confronted in order to be cured. Pretending that one isn't ill doesn't make one better. What makes one better is confronting the illnes with the proper remedy even when that be a distasteful one and a times almost worse than the illness itself. Those who say they love the Pope should be above all the very ones who contradict and expose his error in order to correct it. If it goes uncorrected it will spread from the head to the rest of the body
(see what St Pope Pius X has to say on this) and ultimately destroy the whole organism (even the elect if that were possible).
Thankfully we already know by or Lords own words that the Church will triunph in the end but our own personall triumph or fall will be according to how we defended the faith or accepted the errors.

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  simple Faith on Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:21 am

you wrote regarding a sense of loyality to the Pope: "'I myself have been quite prone to this way of viewing things and still am to a certain degree.,"

I suggest your inclination to do this does not come from "human sentiment and a refusal to face a distasteful reality" but does in fact comes from an inate knowledge and prompting of the Holy Spirit to do so, and is, "beautiful and inspired".

I have never heard nor interpeted anything the Pope has said that shows he has 'deviated' or 'could promote beliefs contrary to the faith' when he has instructed his flock. However I have no doubt that if I actively sought out reasons to be offended I could easily do so, but I would then most likely be using 'human sentiment' in so doing.
Therfore if it comes down to trusting in the words of the Pope (appointed by God) or trusting in the words of the Dimond brothers (sorry, I've forgotten who appointed them) guess who I hope to follow.

simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedevacantism and Schism- Brother Andre Marie

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum