Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 28475 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #180 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:14:37 PM »

My belief is this-- Gregory XVII was True pope( for better or for worse) until he died in 1989. NO OTHER CARDINAL FROM 1958 OR EVEN 1963 CAN MAKE THE CLAIM TO BEING LEGALLY ELECTED.

I do not know exactly what has happened since then but my institution tells me that there is a True pope somewhere.

Alexandria · « **Reply #181 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:19:59 PM »

Are you a "home-aloner" then?

And what is it that you have read that has convinced you that Cardinal Siri was in fact elected pope in 1958?

I ask these questions sincerely, as I am sure you know (at least I hope you do :wink:).

MyrnaM · « **Reply #182 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:33:04 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

My belief is this-- Gregory XVII was True pope( for better or for worse) until he died in 1989. NO OTHER CARDINAL FROM 1958 OR EVEN 1963 CAN MAKE THE CLAIM TO BEING LEGALLY ELECTED.

I do not know exactly what has happened since then but my institution tells me that there is a True pope somewhere.

The Church has said, "A doubtful pope is NO pope"

All I can say is, it is times like this when I read all this confusion, that I, a Roman Catholic, am happy that I understand the sedevacantist position, and furthermore
I doubt the SSPX teach what SS replied.

roscoe · « **Reply #183 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:36:18 PM »

I do not doubt the sincerity of Alexandra at all. There are some who will refer to me as a 'home aloner' but I do not think there is such a thing as that either. In addition to being ailing, I have no idea where to find a legal mass.

If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.

Could Myrna post a link to the Bulls of Clem V re: Templars as i would like to read them as well.

Alexandria · « **Reply #184 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:44:21 PM »

Quote

If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.

Thanks, Roscoe, I'll check that website out, and I will keep you in m prayers.

roscoe · « **Reply #185 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:44:59 PM »

If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.

roscoe · « **Reply #186 on:** October 15, 2010, 06:48:14 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote
If U will scour the TCW website, the evidence seems overwhelming that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and probably again in 1958.

Thanks, Roscoe, I'll check that website out, and I will keep you in m prayers.

U are in my prayers as well Alexandra-- I appreciate your sincerity.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #187 on:** October 15, 2010, 08:05:04 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.

:scratchchin:

roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.

roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.

BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!

roscoe · « **Reply #188 on:** October 15, 2010, 09:00:31 PM »

Is the Council of Constance where the GWS was settled or was that Basle?

roscoe · « **Reply #189 on:** October 15, 2010, 10:42:45 PM »

GWS was settled at Constance. This is where it is determined that one was left free to recognise either the Fr or It line of Popes as True Popes. This because( I may have posted this b4) it could not be determined who was legally elected and a compromise was reached.

As neither side was in heresy or any other form of defiance there were no further probs. Because one was left free to call either faction the Pope, Myrna continues to defy Constance and Martin V by referring to Fr GWS popes as anti-popes---and Catholic ones at that. In any case, they are not anti-popes. My understanding is that there are a couple of exceptions but the great majority of anti-popes are not Catholic at all.

I never gave Myrna any 'links' to the Bulls( I never 'gave' her or anyone else in this Forum 'encyclicals') of Clem V re; Templars. Only the NAME of the Bulls-- possibly she would benefit by :smoke-pot: Myrna has remarked above that she was reading them. It seems reasonable to assume they have been found somewhere.If a link cannot be supplied possibly a book reference. Is what U are reading in Latin, Fr or English?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #190 on:** October 16, 2010, 08:50:36 AM »

SpiritusSanctus:
Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while.

RC:
So you believe that the Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church is also the head of another Church?

SpiritusSanctus:
Sort of. I know it's a very hard thing to understand, and I myself sometimes can't explain it very easily. One might say that the only point in which the seat of Peter was empty was during the reign of Paul VI. Not to call him an anti-pope because I can't call him one without knowing for sure, but at the time it was as if Archbishop LeFebvre was running the true Church since he was keeping it alive. Paul VI certainly didn't want it to remain intact. Benedict is trying to merge these two Churches together. So Benedict seems to be going back and forth between the two Churches.

RC:
Yes it sure is a hard thing to understand your position as stated thus far, but I can understand why you can't explain it very easily.

Sorry but Arcbishop Lefebvre never ran the Church, nor did he single-handedly keep it alive.

So you think there was period of sedevacante while Montini was putatively pope and trying to destroy the Church? When did Montini become a non-pope and why? Or was he never the pope?

Cheryl · « **Reply #191 on:** October 16, 2010, 09:56:16 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: roscoe
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
:scratchchin:

roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.

roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.

BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!

Dang Myrna! You scared me there for a minute. I saw the doobie smoking guy on YOUR post. Please don't do that again, you might give me a heart attack! Of course, I might have caught on quicker if I'd been wearing my glasses. :surprised:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #192 on:** October 16, 2010, 01:07:29 PM »

Quote from: Cheryl

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: roscoe
If there were such a thing as a 'doubtful" Pope( another of Myrna's inventions) then he Could be Pope and it would not necessarily be true that he is not the pope.
:scratchchin:

roscoe, tell that to the Council of Constance, a few threads back you told me how I must obey the papal bulls in order for salvation, does that not include you as well.

roscoe, you live in California, why not try Fr. Radecki's Mass, located in Newhall, Calif. While there you can chat with him about the Templars, and Pope Clement.

BTW.... I am reading those encyclicals you gave me, not sure what you mean now, when you are asking me to give you the links, since you gave them to me first. Are you sure your not :smoke-pot: NO, you wouldn't be!

Dang Myrna! You scared me there for a minute. I saw the doobie smoking guy on YOUR post. Please don't do that again, you might give me a heart attack! Of course, I might have caught on quicker if I'd been wearing my glasses. :surprised:

Cheryl, maybe I should use that icon more often if it gets attention as it did for you.

******

roscoe --->

Quote

I never gave Myrna any 'links' to the Bulls( I never 'gave' her or anyone else in this Forum 'encyclicals') of Clem V re; Templars. Only the NAME of the Bulls-

Correct! I looked the names up on google, and you can do the same. I thanked you for the inspiration as well.

I also suggested since you live in Calif. and not too far from, Fr. Radecki you visit his Church and talk to him about the Templars. http://www.queenofangelscatholicchurch.org/

I posted the Council of Constance because it is there the Church said, "A doubtful pope is no pope" and you claim it is my invention, shame on you, roscoe.

Who knows maybe you will realize someday, sedevacantism is a reality.

Alexandria · « **Reply #193 on:** October 16, 2010, 01:17:57 PM »

Myrna, two questions:

1. Where in the docuмent does it say that? I have it up on my board and do not have the time to read it all.

2. I see that it was written after the GWS - what would you answer to someone who would say that the docuмent's saying "A doubtful pope is no pope" does not contextually apply to our times.

Alexandria · « **Reply #194 on:** October 16, 2010, 01:24:02 PM »

Hard to believe popes ever wrote like this (Council of Constance), after the mamby-pamby fluff we've been fed the past 50+ years.