Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3239
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,727
|
While I'm reading this thread, I can't help but think of the US Congress
overlooking all the cries of "Where's the birth certificate?" and the DNC pushing
the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama into the voting booth, without ever
answering the question. It was the responsibility of our elected officials in a
Representative Republic (not a "democracy!") to be sure that an inelligible
candidate was not put up for vote. That's just an aside, but it's not unique,
for so often problems in the secular world follow on the heels of problems in
the Church, according to history.
That being said, we have to think there was some kind of incursion of a
subversive element present in the College of Cardinals in 1958 that could have
given us two things:
1) A questionable election inasmuch as white smoke was seen, then black smoke,
then grey smoke, then black smoke and after many hours, white smoke, finally.
2) A pope who seems to have been beholden to Jews more than to Divine Law,
for he evoked a Council for no good reason at a time when Freemasons and
therefore Jews (another topic) were wont to do that very thing: something
unprecedented in the history of the Church, but perhaps something that had
taken place in the dusty pages of the Old Dispensation and we just don't know
about it because it was never written down.
And what did this questionable John XXIII do? The list is a lot longer than this,
I'm sure. Max Krah would say it's "including but not limited to" these things:
~ He gave us a stupid, evil, corrupt, destructive Council
~ He returned Montini to a position of prominence by giving him a Red Hat
~ He set us all up for the abominable reign of the so-and-so who would follow him
~ He did not "stop the Council," even though they say he cried for this on his death bed
~ He read the Third Secret of Fatima in front of witnesses, and said, "This is not for Our Pontificate," and put the identifiable message unceremoniously back into its legendary and identifiable envelope
~ He did not make any official statement regarding the Secret, but was satisfied to allow an obscure, Italian newspaper to announce that it "may never be released" (we'll just have to wait and see what Our Lady has to say about that!)
~ He promulgated a scathing indictment on homosexuals in the seminaries, but at the same time did not make it enforceable and effective as St. Pius X had done with his admonition against Modernism
~ He pretty much sat back in smug silence as immoral films became daily fare, the Legion of Decency suffered setback after setback to oblivion and Catholics worldwide became more and more into sex, drugs, rock 'n roll to their eternal ruin
~ He promoted the doctrine of Latin in the liturgy, but on the sly, cut it down
~ He began the Council with ostensibly solid foundation with good preparation by trustworthy authors, like +Lefebvre, but on the sly allowed it to be trashed -- we know this because it happened, and we know he could have stopped it dead in its tracks, but he did not: facts of history
~ He proclaimed from the Chair of Peter, effectively, in his Opening Speech, October 11th 1962, that the Church would cease to condemn error (forever???)
~ He made a huge show of setting up traditional figures in the forefront of the Council leadership, but then on the sly allowed for erstwhile condemned heretics to slip in under the radar and seize control of the Council, for he did not stop that, either, when he could have
~ He tolerated first the CHANGING of the "unchangeable Canon" of the Mass by allowing the name of St. Joseph to be continued in use, confirming this unnecessary accretion by promulgating the revised 1962 Missal, which also had other questionable things in it, like
~ He proclaimed from the official See of Peter that never again will the word, "perfidious" (which means unfaithful) Jews, be uttered inside the walls of any Roman Catholic Church -- but we know he was "wrong" on this point because it has, in fact, happened since then, and continues to happen every year in many places throughout the world, ETC....
THEREFORE, what, if anything, can we say about what might have been an
"incursion of a subversive element present in the College of Cardinals in 1958?"
Freemasonry?
That's my guess. Any others?
|
|
| Posted Jul 16, 2012, 3:32 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Malleus 01
Reputation: 370
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 455
|
| Nishant2011 said: | Hi Malleus. Well, I think it is you who want to have your cake and eat it too, because on the one hand you want to separate the election and its acceptance from what followed it, and on the other hand you do not when you say the election itself was invalid. To put it simply, given the universal assent to the election of such and such a person, all antecedent precluding conditions, at least as of that moment, are presumed not to exist.
Actually, there was a very detailed theological study that Archbishop Lefebvre made reference to that studied the question and that ended up by concluding that, yes, in the case of both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI the election having been accepted, it must be presumed that they were valid.
The Archbishop himself, as you saw above, would apply similar criteria to the election of Pope John Paul I and II. Hence the stance he took, which was not denying their authority, but disobeying what he saw as abuses of it.
I also think your historical examples could be more clear cut. One of the quotes I mentioned is talking about the possibility of a heretical pope. Lateran V uses language that would seem to indicate simony was an impediment to a Papal election by divine law. Pope Alexander VI was accused in his day that "the man is not a Christian. He does not even believe any longer that there is a God".
|
Malleus: I believe that this is the point where we will have to disagree. I do agree that this is exactly how Archbishop Lefebvre believed - that his opinion regarding the visibility of the Universal Church and acceptance of the Papal Election makes these Claimants Valid Popes. But does it if in fact these Claimants were Manifest Heretics Prior to Election - and since Election clearly demonstrate Heretical actions? Knowing that GOD the Holy Ghost guides the See of St Peter - we cannot agree that the Holy Ghost has anything to do with this pertinacity in so many errors. We can speak of Pope Alexander VI having impediments - but try comparing the actions of Pope Alexander VI with the Actions of the last 5 Claimants in the number of Errors , Actions , Omissions , Changes , and Demonstrated Departures from sound Catholic Doctrine and in many Cases DOGMA itself and it isnt even close. I simply cannot get around what Our LORD himself Warned in Matthew 7 in its entirety. How can we as Catholics - give allegiance to Wolves in Sheeps Clothing and overlook all these departures from the Catholic Faith as though nothing is amiss - or in the guise of saying we are doing what is right? How? The fruits are clearly evil. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Just because someone says Lord , Lord - that isnt enough. For 1927 years Our Faith was built on a Rock and suddenly we are to go build on sand? Beware of Wolves in Sheeps Clothing? What more are we to look for? Pedophiles masquerading as Priests? Popes co worshipping in Mosques openly denying the Divinity of Christ? There has to come a time where we have to be open about what we see. Lawful Authority is given so the Faithful will know to DO the WILL of GOD. When it says in Scripture : Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father, who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. We have to be able to Judge the Fruits - if they be holy or not. It is in the Doing that our Faith is Proven. Belief is proven by what we DO. When someone can tell me that Hiding Pedophiles - or Co worshipping with Jews and Islamics is what the Will of GOD is - then perhaps your argument regarding Lawful Authority will have merit - but until someone can point out where Aquinas or Bellarmine or Augustine or Chrysostom or and of the Great and Holy Popes Prior to Vatican II encouraged any of these things that we clearly can see with our very own eyes - then there is no need to have extensive debate. Lawful Authority ultimately comes from GOD. Jesus said as much to the Pharisees. The Pharisees had the power to speak on GOD's Behalf in Jesus day - but Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy in their ACTIONS , not in their Lawful Authority. So are we to be complicit in Our Actions and in our Consent merely because they purport to hold Lawful authority or are we to do the Will of GOD - for currently - no Catholic can do both. We choose to Serve GOD in the manner he said to serve him for 1927 years. Its as simple as that.
|
|
| Posted Jul 16, 2012, 7:48 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
theology101
Reputation: 111
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 333
|
I think that I have discovered I am Sedevacantist. If the pope teaches error, he can't be a pope, right? Seems pretty clear to me. I can even put it in Boolean form and see what I get.
If I assume that A equals the question, "Does the Church teach that a Pope cannot teach error?", and B equals the question, "Does the Pope (or any Pope) teach error?", and X equals the answer, "then the pope is not really a pope", I can create a simple logical equation.
X = AB
Or, The answer is true only if both questions are true, because if we look at the truth table for an AND gate (AB = A ANDed with B), we see that
AB | X
--------
00 | 0
01 | 0
10 | 0
11 | 1
The output X is true only when both inputs A AND B are true.
So if either A or B is false, X is false. So let's answer A and B to determine the proper input states.
A. Does the Church teach that a Pope cannot teach error?
B. Does the Pope, in fact, teach error?
If the answer to both questions is "Yes", then the answer X, "Then the Pope is not really a Pope" is resoundingly True.
I realize it's not quite as simple as all that- actual philosophical logic, which is much more complicated, would have to be used when considering all the various factors. But this logic suffices to give us a general idea of the answer we will arrive at. Does anyone disagree with this logic? Can anyone familiar with philosophical logic provide their opinions? (I believe Boolean logic actually comes almost directly from Stoic logic, as I think they were the ones to come up with logical concepts such as AND, OR, NOR, NOT, IFF, etc. - If A is true, NOT A must be false.)
LOL I've been tutoring so I am in a logical frame of mind.
|
|
| Posted Jul 17, 2012, 3:58 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
