Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.  (Read 4485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

Re: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2019, 11:31:33 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on March 30, 2019, 05:45:26 AM
There are many instances of Church authorities sometimes going against a Saint, then later realizing it and canonizing him; e.g. St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, St. Padre Pio etc. We believe the same will happen to saintly Archbishop Lefebvre one day, though again that is not the subject of this thread - I wonder why sedes are afraid to come out and say at least, yes, the Dimonds defend objective heresy, when they say the Church needs no governing hierarchy. And they also misrepresent the historical facts and become heretical.

Anyway, as some of Rome's own Canon Lawyers explained, consecrating an auxiliary bishop, because it does not usurp the Pope's primacy of jurisdiction, does not constitute schism; only if a Bishop attempts to confer habitual jurisdiction on another Bishop - and Archbishop Lefebvre was crystal clear H.G. did not intend this and explicitly disclaimed it - is there an issue. Cardinal Oddi said "Merci, Monsignor" (Thank you, Monsignor) over Archbishop Lefebvre's tomb, and +ABL passed into eternity on March 25th, a signal grace of sanctity because it is such a holy day. St. Padre Pio himself venerated Archbishop Lefebvre.

"The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission” (Valeurs Actuelles, July 4, 1988 ).

Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops

So all that is in the past now anyway. Now, back to the Dimonds. Do you agree with them, or do you agree that they are objectively heretical?
About the same time you admit that, while also believing that Vatican 2 and the Conciliar Church's hierarchy are valid and legitimate, it's heretical and/or schismatic to:
(1) say the canons of the masses of the Church contain errors
(2) reject much of the Magisterium and declare it in error
(3) ignore and openly defy the authority of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy and Pope
(4) knowingly go to masses of a society with no canonical status with priests lacking any legitimate ministry within the Church (Pope Benedict XVI 2009 - "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
(5) reject councils of the Church (Vatican 2)
(6) refer to Catholicism after one of its valid councils as a "false religion"
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2019, 10:31:03 PM »
Quote from: XavierSem on March 30, 2019, 07:53:04 AM
Hi DecemRationis, is it your view that a Pope himself will be AntiChrist? I think that is impossible.

I think Francis may very well be the AntiChrist, and you call him pope. I believe that answers the question.

As I said in a prior post to you, Judas was an apostle, one given to Christ by the Father, and despite the Scripture telling us that "none" of those given to Christ by the Father is lost, Scripture also tells us Judas, one of the "given" was lost and a "son of perdition."  A contradiction? No. An anomaly, an exception to the rule ordained by God and woven into His plan.

Is Francis (or the future Anti-Christ) not a pope but an "anti-pope"? You know the movie Bambi? Well, like the skunk told Bambi when he called him a flower, "you can call me a flower if you want to." You can call the Anti-Christ pope an antipope if you want to.

It's semantics that would matter - if we weren't dealing with a mystery that's steps out of the usual governing rules of the "game" like a miracle in the natural order.

And the battle over the semantics (between Sede and R & R) as we grapple with this ordained mystery is the standard fare on every Traditional Catholic blog or forum in existence I think.

What is possible, since the Pope is Christ's Vicar, is that Anti-Christ is an Anti-Pope truly and properly so-called. I think it possible and even probable. Simon Magus was considered by many as a prefigurement of Anti-Christ, and he set up something like an anti-church in Rome, opposing Sts. Peter and Paul, like every anti-pope opposes the True Pope. Judas, the son of perdition, was also considered as a prefigurement of anti-Christ, an apostate bishop. I think it is quite possible there will be an invasion of Rome, then a 3 and a half year reign of an anti-pope forcibly installed by hostile world powers, and something like that. Some prophesies suggest such things.

Was Judas a "bishop" or an anti-bishop heretic apostate? You just called him a "bishop." Think about that. Semantics. Thanks for putting this in the right perspective.

But none of that has any bearing on the view of the Dimonds that the entire jurisdictional Hierarchy of governing Bishops can disappear. Do you believe such a thing is possible?

I don't know. That might be part of the ordained anomaly of the end times, after all of the elect have been sealed. Apoc. 7:3. While I think it is possible (like the end times anomaly of a "pope" who is an apostate heretic), I think not however. I do not believe we have not had at least a few orthodox ordinaries who had, and taught, the Catholic faith at all times during period of the Conciliar Church. Bishop Schneider jumps to mind as to the present time. He's an auxiliary bishop so I'm not sure if he qualifies, but I believe there are, and have always been, ordinaries who possess the Catholic faith and therefore carry on the work of the apostles.  
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2019, 04:46:50 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis
I think not however. I do not believe we have not had at least a few orthodox ordinaries who had, and taught, the Catholic faith at all times during period of the Conciliar Church. Bishop Schneider jumps to mind as to the present time. He's an auxiliary bishop so I'm not sure if he qualifies, but I believe there are, and have always been, ordinaries who possess the Catholic faith and therefore carry on the work of the apostles.

Ok, great. This was the main question in this thread, as Peter Dimond denies it. But regarding AntiChrist, (1) do you believe there is an AntiChrist before the Period of Peace? (2) The books generally say that AntiChrist will reign for 3 1/2 years over the whole earth, it will be a time of great persecution over the whole earth, the Pope will be driven away, the old temple will be built again, AntiChrist will restore the animal sacrifices, claim to be Christ and God, and want to be worshiped as such etc. I don't think this fits. 

Maybe 10 years from now, for e.g. we could have an Anti-Pope. Anti-Pope has historically been used to mean, a false claimant opposing the real Pope. Thus, for example, we speak of Anti-Pope Natalius in opposition to Pope St. Zephyrinus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes

I believe we can have one or even more than one Anti-Popes, but it will be (1) in opposition to the true Pope, (2) this Anti-Pope will never be universally accepted by the Cardinals and Ordinaries of the Church. So that's why I don't think we're there yet. Your thoughts?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2019, 09:44:35 AM »
Xavier, don't you have better things to be doing with your time, like attending to your studies?  You would do well to learn a little logic, philosophy, and theology before embarrassing yourself here on CI.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2019, 12:02:55 PM »
Quote from: XavierSem on April 09, 2019, 04:46:50 AM
Ok, great. This was the main question in this thread, as Peter Dimond denies it. But regarding AntiChrist, (1) do you believe there is an AntiChrist before the Period of Peace? (2) The books generally say that AntiChrist will reign for 3 1/2 years over the whole earth, it will be a time of great persecution over the whole earth, the Pope will be driven away, the old temple will be built again, AntiChrist will restore the animal sacrifices, claim to be Christ and God, and want to be worshiped as such etc. I don't think this fits.

What period of peace? St. Paul talks about the revolt (Latin, discessio, a schism) preceding the second coming of Our Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2. This is the most explicit teaching in Scripture on the end. A period of peace is conjecture. There is a lot of conjecture here of course. 

Maybe 10 years from now, for e.g. we could have an Anti-Pope. Anti-Pope has historically been used to mean, a false claimant opposing the real Pope. Thus, for example, we speak of Anti-Pope Natalius in opposition to Pope St. Zephyrinus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes

A man dressed in white elected by a majority of heretical cardinals who teaches and promulgates heresies to the Church is not an "anti-pope"?


I believe we can have one or even more than one Anti-Popes, but it will be (1) in opposition to the true Pope, (2) this Anti-Pope will never be universally accepted by the Cardinals and Ordinaries of the Church. So that's why I don't think we're there yet. Your thoughts?

The "anti-Pope" will be such that he will show such signs and wonders that are so deceptive they could almost seduce even the elect. Mark 13:22. Who professing the Catholic faith would be deceived by a "pope" not universally accepted by what appears to be the "Church"? Only such a "pope" appearing as the vicar of Christ could possibly seduce those who profess the integral Catholic faith. 

Such are my thoughts in response. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »