Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 07, 2021, 07:35:39 AM
-
If I were elected Pope, the FIRST thing I would do would be to issue a Bull (not an Encyclical) called Ecclesia Sancta.
I would solemnly redefine EENS (without allowing any wiggle room), solemnly reaffirm the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and solemnly teach the VISIBILITY of the Catholic Church.
While I would fall short of declaring BoD heretical, I would characterize it as a speculation and positively FORBID any mention of it among Catholics. Let your speech be "yes, yes" and "no, no". If asked whether anyone outside the Catholic Church can be saved, the answer is an unqualified NO, no ifs, and, or buts. When asked if the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, the answer is an unqualified YES.
I would order that the references in the works of the Doctors to BoD be removed from the main text and inserted as a mere footnote with an explanation that the Church no longer allows speculation with regard to BoD.
Next would be a Bull regarding the nature of the Liturgy, including forbidding all lay participation in strictly Liturgical functions, and re-establishing the practice that all those in the Sanctuary and participating in the Liturgy should have the Minor Orders (which would thereafter be allowed to be permanent). This to wipe out any aberrant notions regarding the nature of the Liturgy.
I would DESPOSE every single Novus Ordo bishop and have them consigned to a monastery and, if unwilling, defrock them. I would immediately obtain a list of all Traditional priests active in any Diocese and appoint them bishops with strict instructions to do exactly as they were told. Those who have dubious orders would be immediately conditionally ordained and/or consecrated.
-
I would solemnly redefine EENS (without allowing any wiggle room), solemnly reaffirm the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and solemnly teach the VISIBILITY of the Catholic Church.
While I would fall short of declaring BoD heretical, I would characterize it as a speculation and positively FORBID any mention of it among Catholics. Let your speech be "yes, yes" and "no, no". If asked whether anyone outside the Catholic Church can be saved, the answer is an unqualified NO, no ifs, and, or buts. When asked if the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, the answer is an unqualified YES.
Problem:
If you did that, you might find yourself holding the short end of the stick. Check out this terrifying blurb from the latest Avrille Dominicans newsletter on the problem of invalid baptisms:
"The grave problem of invalid baptisms
The liturgical anarchy that has been raging for over 60 years can have some very grave consequences.
Two recent examples:
1) On June 24 th , 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith officially issued a reminder of the
traditional doctrine, according to which the Baptism formula, “We baptize you, in the name of the Father,
etc.” is invalid. (This formula, using the plural rather than the singular, is in vogue in modernist circles, as it
allows the “People of God” to usurp the role of the priest.)
Hearing of this decision in August, a priest in the archdiocese of Detroit, Fr. Matthew Hood, decided to
watch the video of his Baptism… There he saw the deacon using the invalid formula! Invalid Baptism,
invalid priesthood… as well as the invalidity of all the sacraments he had himself administered since his
“ordination” in 2017.
2) In Brittany, last September, a young girl was preparing for her First Communion. In questioning the
parents, the priest realized that the girl had not validly received the sacrament of Baptism: indeed, the God-
mother had poured the water while the priest pronounced the words!"
In other words, if there is no baptism of desire, how many people like these two would be damned on a technicality? The only solution would be to necessitate adult baptism to prevent such abuses/mistakes (and how many would be damned between the age of reason and the adult baptism)? What are the implications for the justice and mercy of God, if such people could not be saved? Or are all baptisms to be repeated on the basis of negative doubt?
-
Problem:
If you did that, you might find yourself holding the short end of the stick. Check out this terrifying blurb from the latest Avrille Dominicans newsletter on the problem of invalid baptisms:
Indeed, if a Pope had to fix ALL the problems caused by the Novus Ordo, it would probably take 10 years.
I agree. I would conditionally have every NO Sacrament redone, including interviewing candidates to check if they were actually Catholic. They would have to take an oath of some kind, an extremely expanded Anti-Modernist Oath or Profession of Faith since 90% of them don't have the faith and shouldn't be admitted into the Church.
Novus Ordo has created a disaster of epic proportions.
I imagine that some bishops would refuse to leave and pull what the Nine did against the SSPX, sue Rome to keep their properties. They would probably win too, given that the governments are all controlled. That's why you need the Great King to be there, since the Triumph of the Church will need to be both spiritual and temporal. In that case, I would in fact appropriate the Traditional Catholic infrastructure and move the Sees to the closet Traditional Church. I bet 90% of the Novus Ordites would stay with their schismatic bishop in their new Church.
That's why I said this would just be the FRIST thing I'd do.
We could come up with a list a few yards long if we thought about it much.
-
If you were elected Pope and *Universally Accepted*, the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Catholic Church. Not going to happen.
Then the second thing I would be would be to excommunicate XavierSem and Lover of Truth (just for good measure).
Thank you for your contribution to the thread. Obviously I will never be Pope. But the point of this thread it to make more concrete WHAT a Pope should do, in our opinion, to restore the Church.
But I imagine you think that no restoration is needed. You, not actually being a Traditional Catholic, would probably just make minor changes and would put band-aids on what has been a radical transformation of the Catholic Church into a non-Catholic entity.
Explain what you would do.
No, every Bishop ... well, except a small handful, would need to be deposed and are not even salvageable as Catholic bishops. They need to be deposed for crimes against God and the Church and can never be trusted with power in the Church again.
Let's say that happened and that a schismatic Novus Ordo Church formed, with these bishops refusing to step down. What percentage of "Catholics" do you believe would stay with the schismatic NO bishops? Probably 90%. That tells you how few there are who still have the Catholic faith. Go ahead and mandate (again) that no Catholics who use contraception that they are forbidden from receiving Communion. 90% of them would leave the Church.
I've had some thoughts along the lines of, well, it might be better to do it gradually. No, there has to be a radical transformation. In fact, the Church MUST be greatly reduced in numbers to excise the pollution from the Body of True Catholics who remain in the Church.
That's the only way to do it ... depose ever darn one of these criminals and replace them with the closest Traditional Catholic priest.
-
If you were elected Pope and *Universally Accepted*, the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Catholic Church. Not going to happen.
This actually shows your true colors. You would rather have a guy like Ratzinger or even Bergoglio than someone who happens to believe, with St. Augustine, that God will not let anyone die without actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. Given that this dogma (EENS and ecclesiology) is hard hit even among Traditional Catholics, THAT is why I said that this would be the FIRST thing that I did. Rabid BoDers consider Feeneyites to be a bigger threat to the faith and open Conciliar heretics. They consider Fr. Feeney to be the bad guy and the heretic Cushing the good guy in that entire ordeal. That shows how warped your mind and your sense of the faith are.
For you, BoD has become some bizarre strange warped super-dogma that tops all other dogmas.
Of course, after having replaced all the NO bishops (I would rather have a Traditional priest in that position than a NO heretic with advanced degrees from Conciliar Rome), if the Consecration of Russia had not already been done (unlikely since a great pope like me :-) would never be elected unless that had happened), I would immєdιαtely order all these new Bishops to make the Consecration ASAP.
-
If you were elected Pope and *Universally Accepted*, the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Catholic Church. Not going to happen.
If this Conciliar abomination is the Church Church, then you're too late; the gates of hell have already prevailed. That's laughable that you think that someone of my theological positions would bring down the Church, while things are still cool with Bergoglio.
-
I would affirm the absolute necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, and make it clear in the accompanying statement that that means salvation for all - Jews, Muslims, etc. Wouldn't take much, not much more than simply quoting I John 2:23 in big, bold letters:
(http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=2&l=22-#x)
[22] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=2&l=22-#x) Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. [23] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=2&l=23-#x) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.
Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 John Chapter 2 (drbo.org) (http://drbo.org/chapter/69002.htm)
(http://drbo.org/chapter/69002.htm)
Ok. Verse 22 isn't strictly necessary, but adds some nice color.
-
...
Then the second thing I would be would be to excommunicate XavierSem ....
:laugh1:
-
If this Conciliar abomination is the Church Church, then you're too late; the gates of hell have already prevailed. That's laughable that you think that someone of my theological positions would bring down the Church, while things are still cool with Bergoglio.
Good points.
-
Go ahead and mandate (again) that no Catholics who use contraception that they are forbidden from receiving Communion. 90% of them would leave the Church.
That's one of the very first things I would do, if I were Pope (or even a bishop or a priest).
Let them go.
I hope everyone here realizes that, in allowing people to engage in what is, arguably, a sodomitical (or quasi-sodomitical) practice, is the tail wagging the dog, the kids telling the parents what to do, the inmates in charge of the asylum.
Never heard of a religion operating like that before. Would the Jehovah's Witnesses just "let it slide" and never mention it, if 92% of their adherents received blood transfusions? Mormons drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea? Muslims eating pork? Or to kick it up a notch, Unitarians being racists?
Again, let them go.
In the objective order, they're damned anyway. Contraception is a sin of the flesh, and all sins of the flesh are objectively mortal. It is not the kind of sin you commit while not in possession of your free will and your intellect. It's entirely deliberate. No one ever ran off the the gynecologist for a prescription, took it to the drugstore, or went in and bought condoms while out of their minds in paroxysms of passion and fury. (If a couple "freaked out" at the last split-second and spontaneously practiced coitus interruptus --- "we can't take the chance of having another child, we can't feed the ones we have now as it is" --- that could be an act of less than full consent of the will, but that's about it.)
-
I would order that the references in the works of the Doctors to BoD be removed from the main text and inserted as a mere footnote with an explanation that the Church no longer allows speculation with regard to BoD.
.
What the ...? Who do you think gave those people the title of Doctor of the Church in the first place??! :confused:
-
That's one of the very first things I would do, if I were Pope (or even a bishop or a priest).
Let them go.
I hope everyone here realizes that, in allowing people to engage in what is, arguably, a sơdơmitical (or quasi-sơdơmitical) practice, is the tail wagging the dog, the kids telling the parents what to do, the inmates in charge of the asylum.
Keep in mind, that those "who would leave" if the Church ever became fully Catholic again *aren't Catholic right now to begin with. They are those who have LOST THE FAITH during this Crisis.*
That is the exact litmus test to be used, to tell who has the Faith to any degree. What do they think of "Tradition" a.k.a. the Catholic Faith? The Faith is inherently Traditional, I should point out. If they HATE Tradition, they really hate Catholicism and only the ongoing Crisis in the Church permits them to stay members of "the Catholic Church" which is really a Conciliarist religion extremely similar to Protestantism.
-
If I were in the Seat, I'd follow Pope Urban II's lead.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.sGSoTeyj71P4bqCV4yg6iQHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
I'd call for a Crusade to remove the infidels and perfidious Jҽωs from the Holy Land.
-
The next true pope should clear up the confusion saying something like: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that baptism of water and the Holy Ghost is necessary for Salvation. If any one does not confess that whomsoever dies over the age of reason without the administration of the sacrament of baptism with true and natural water is forever damned to the fires of hell, prepared for the devil and his angels; let him be anathema."
In my opinion, the top issues of the next papacy should be:
1) Interdiction and decision on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites
2) Condemnation and revocation of the heretical false II Vatican Council
3) Formal deposition of all false claimants to the papacy and episcopates
4) Infallible definitions on EENS, Co-Redemptrix, and Creationism issues
5) Conditional ordination or consecration for all doubtful ministers
6) Excommunication and legal execution of all formal heretics
7) Completion of the Council to condemn Palamas and consecrate Russia
8) Exposition of cօռspιʀαcιҽs about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, GMOs, birth control, etc.
9) Revelation of the complete messages of OL of Fatima and Tre Fontane
10) Reestablishment of old Indulgences and other customs and disciplines
-
The very first act would be to define anew the dogma EENS, then reveal the Third Secret, then get all the bishops in unison with me to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immediately after that, the dismantling and condemning of all things NO while restoring the Church back to Catholic.
-
Things like contraception etc must be dealt with slowly. I would require all Priests to teach against it. God forbid that anyone keeps continuing in grave sɛҳuąƖ sin, but even if a Catholic sins during the week, confesses his or her sin, and then goes to Holy Mass and Holy Communion with the resolve to change, he or she is still a Catholic and can do so. A dogmatic anathema against contraception may follow later, once Catholics have, by frequenting the Sacraments, praying the Rosary etc, been led away from sin. Saints say you cannot keep continuing praying the Rosary and persisting in grave sin. You will give up one or the other.
You will always have people who have decided that they are going to live in mortal sin for at least a portion of their lives. They gamble "I'll take the chance I won't die anytime soon, then when I'm done [doing whatever it is they feel like they have to do, or see themselves as too weak to give up], then I'll make it right with God". That's a huge problem, but that's not the problem most so-called Catholics in our time have. Their problem is far worse. They actually assert that what they are doing is not wrong, that they know more than the Church knows, that what "society" or "modern times" have to say about the matter is more important than what the Church teaches.
There are two things going on here that cloud their judgment --- money/finances/convenience/desire for an easy life, and that fact that this sin involves sex. With regard to the latter, "the heart wants what it wants", and other things want what they want as well. It's no more complicated than that. (I doubt that many have thought far enough ahead, to say "if I adhere to this teaching, I may never be able to get married, because I won't be able to find a spouse who will go along with it". People generally don't think that far ahead anymore, if they ever did.)
If they were just willing to say "I know this is wrong, I know this is a mortal sin, but I don't love God enough to avoid it, I don't trust God enough to try to live by it, we can't take a chance on that extra child, I can't lose my spouse, and besides, my gonads can't do without sex" (the latter would be far more true of males than females), then that would be bad enough. They certainly don't cease to be Catholics, they have just made the decision to be Catholics who are willing to live in mortal sin for a time. But to say "the Church is wrong" or "this doesn't bother my conscience", well, that's ten times worse. There's no coming back from that, because not only do you have the sɛҳuąƖ sin itself, but you've also introduced an element of pride, fueled by a world that doesn't see anything wrong with it.
-
4) Infallible definitions on EENS, Co-Redemptrix, and Creationism issues
A Pope would have to be careful. Pius XII in Humani Generis reluctantly accepted the Evolution could be possible, albeit in a purposeful, theistic way. Defining exactly how God created the world would be a hard matter. EENS would seem easier, at least to utterly banish the abusive V2 interpretations which rendered it meaningless. 'Co-Redemptrix' would have to be something where a Pope would have to be a stranger to JP2-style obscurity. It could sound to the unguided that Our Lady has an equal role in Redemption, a foolishness found among Palmarians. It would be refreshing to have a Pope who rules on doctrines in order that they be better known and followed, rather the Popes of the past 50 years who saw doctrine as sometime to be subverted.
-
Pius XII in Humani Generis reluctantly accepted the Evolution could be possible, albeit in a purposeful, theistic way. Defining exactly how God created the world would be a hard matter.
How do you know he was reluctant and did not believe in it himself? But anyway stating the beginning of Genesis is true would be the most important thing for a traditional Pope to do. Strike at the heart of the beast. The heart of the beast today is evolution.
-
The very first act would be to define anew the dogma EENS, then reveal the Third Secret, then get all the bishops in unison with me to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immєdιαtely after that, the dismantling and condemning of all things NO while restoring the Church back to Catholic.
Viva la papa Stubborn! 🕺
-
How do you know he was reluctant and did not believe in it himself? But anyway stating the beginning of Genesis is true would be the most important thing for a traditional Pope to do. Strike at the heart of the beast. The heart of the beast today is evolution.
Yes, that's right up there. Probably the first victim of Modernism was the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
-
Were I elected Pope, I would not do anything. I would be silent and hidden so that the person of the Pope could recede out of the daily lives of Catholics. I would let the una cuм become the central connection of practicing Catholics with the Office of Peter which would again be made the visible sign of unity and the see of final appeal for doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. The oracle papacy with its rock star cult of personality so common in contemporary times would give way to a reserved, contemplative, and distant Papacy.
-
How do you know he was reluctant and did not believe in it himself? But anyway stating the beginning of Genesis is true would be the most important thing for a traditional Pope to do. Strike at the heart of the beast. The heart of the beast today is evolution.
We don't *know*, but there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that he believed it. He doesn't say he believed it in HG.
//36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
//
Perhaps this is imprudent, but I don't see anything here that would suggest that he believed it.
-
Were I elected Pope, I would not do anything. I would be silent and hidden so that the person of the Pope could recede out of the daily lives of Catholics. I would let the una cuм become the central connection of practicing Catholics with the Office of Peter which would again be made the visible sign of unity and the see of final appeal for doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. The oracle papacy with its rock star cult of personality so common in contemporary times would give way to a reserved, contemplative, and distant Papacy.
I agree with putting an end to the "rock star" papacies of the V2 papal claimants, but I should think SOMEthing would have to be done to clean up the mess left by Vatican II and the NOM, the dubious Sacraments all over the place, etc. I believe that things are so far gone that upwards of 80% of Novus Ordo pew-sitters would revolt and follow their Modernist bishops into schism. In that case, it's better that they're gone so that the process of cleansing the Church could begin.
-
We don't *know*, but there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that he believed it. He doesn't say he believed it in HG.
Perhaps this is imprudent, but I don't see anything here that would suggest that he believed it.
It is not in that docuмent. I don't know the exact belief he held because I have never read where he explained it in every detail. But he gave a speech to the pontifical academy of the sciences where he went on and on about the universe and the earth being billions of years old and how the big bang was like some sort of sign of God's glory. He did not go into detail on what else he exactly believed but he clearly did not believe the earth was a few thousand years old and that it was created in six days and God rested on the seventh. So the most likely thing in my mind was that he believed in theistic evolution, though it is possible that he believed in some hybrid theory.
http://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god (http://inters.org/pius-xii-speech-1952-proofs-god)
This might be the speech, but I did not just now read it in full. I previously read it on another website.