Author Topic: "He who hears you, hears Me..."  (Read 8698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gladius_veritatis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Reputation: +1234/-0
  • Gender: Male
"He who hears you, hears Me..."
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2008, 12:29:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cletus
    We should try to keep our theological noses very clean.


    Agreed, Cletus.  Thank you for your assistance, then and now.  God speed.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #16 on: July 19, 2008, 08:00:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gladius_veritatis


    Thank you for the profound insight, verbatim SSPX-isms and all.

    Anyone with a brain would also see it thus.  The vulgar way of putting it would be...NO SH*T!

    While your ability to repeat the SSPX party line is most impressive and entertaining, sort of like sitting in a room with a well-trained parakeet, it is plain that you do not intend to think seriously before giving a substantial answer to the matter at hand.  Good day.


    The "vulgar" way of saying that would be, "Dulcamara, you don't agree with me so YOU'RE STUPID!" ... with or without sticking your tongue out at me afterward. Which is about as mature as that statement.

    Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with you, or who happens to have come to the same conclusion as the SSPX, "has no intention of using their brains." I suppose this has been the position of a good many people in a great many debates throughout history where you have two parties sitting radically on opposite sides of an issue. At some point it becomes clear that the other side isn't going to change their minds, and suddenly, "they're just stupid."

    Well isn't that convenient? How about that... He who doesn't agree is just stupid... Well, actually there are few sides of any debate where the people are just stupid. Usually they're ignorant (not in possession of certain facts), proud, confused, misinformed, etc... but hardly ever stupid. (Except maybe the folks who hang out in remote places waiting for aliens to make contact.)

    Anyone who has bothered actually taking the time to get off of their high seat as judge of the pope, condescend to read the humble writings of certain archbishops and bishops, and other books where all of the points of cannon law and what have you are considered and laid out all very nicely, or... if you consider a 'lowly' archbishop or bishop much too much beneath the dignity of the almighty and genius laity, at least defer to church doctrine and dogma and law which you can read presented by even some secular writers who perhaps, being more like yourself, you may respect more... you might then actually reconsider your position.

    Having read them, had them read to me incessantly by someone else who reads them, and having the whole thing pounded into my head in full to the minutest dogmatic and legal detail by someone who, I think, eats, sleeps and breathes this church crisis and the truth of the matter... whose own head, I might add, is full of some of the finest minds secular and otherwise to document the horror from just about any angle you want to discuss (no, I don't mean everyone in the SSPX)... I myself could not possibly have failed to "think deeply" about it. I hear about virtually nothing else, whenever there is conversation in my home. I could start a conversation on the whether and ten minutes later be discussing the theological teachings and errors of this or that churchman. But finally it comes down to this... if the law reads one way, or the theology reads thus, or the dogma is such and such... well... there it is. Either you, as a Catholic, can accept it, or you can do the protestant thing, and just kind of take it however makes you feel smart and important, and... let's not forget the most important point of all... what makes YOU "right".

    And before you get started, no, I'm not saying I am right. I'm saying that the truth is right, and whoever finds it is right. People are never right because they're so great. They're right because they happened to find the truth when they went looking for it. The truth is the great thing, not the "right" people. The right people are no more great for happening to be right, than Hawaii is great for happening to be green, because it just happens to exist in the conditions it does. Truth is not an issue of pride. It's and issue of what simply IS. It's error that's the issue of pride, and those who are in it are always great... greatly mistaken and great fools.

    Well... if you enjoy reading dogma, theology and cannon law, and then going out and doing whatever is most comfortable for you, then hey... why not go along with Vatican II for that matter? It would be easy, and make about as much sense. Or you can take the other route, where you are your own pope, or the elector of your own pope, and the judge of the pope and all churchmen... your own, private, one-man inquisition... and join the $3d3 crowd. But what is right, what is true, often lies, very painfully (for our personal pride and high opinion of ourselves,) somewhere in-between two very flattering extremes (one extreme in this case to indifference... it's nice and easy, after all, not to have to think at all... or the other, total pride, setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner against the pope and all churchmen, quite like Luther, only without making up a new name for your own church or religion).

    USUALLY, I repeat, the truth is somewhere in-between the two. Something that requires humility. Something that will not be easy, fun, pleasant, or nice on the ego or pride. Something, in fact, that most often calls for that which most of us are purely allergic to: humility. Willingness to suffer. Willingness to get the mud and the (excuse my earthy language) crap thrown on us step by grueling step as we walk, together with our Lord, carrying that cross we like so much to run away from in whatever direction that seems easiest. If we're with Vatican II we escape it by simply betraying Christ and His church, and agreeing to passively go down with the ship, because it's easy, and we don't want to do anything that isn't easy. If we go the $3d3 route, we get the glee and pleasure of seeing ourselves as giants of intellect among ants! Those who "know better" than to follow that _fill in what you think of the pope here_. Those who won't recognize the office (and share in it's disgrace) because they can't stand the man. Those who say, "I know not the man."

    Oh how easy either one of those alternatives would be. Oh how much more difficult and humiliating, to belong to that church which is, right now, being utterly degraded, humiliated, torn to pieces... suffering in short what Christ suffered in his torture and death on the cross... How much harder it is to stand up like men (or women as the case may be) and go down that street, and have the crap thrown at OUR face, and the mud, and be scourged and ridiculed, and condemned by the world around us!

    No, it's not fun. It's much nicer to think ourselves not responsible for where we end up (indifference) or too great-minded to join in and suffer such a degrading spectacle. It isn't nice. It doesn't pet the pride until you see yourself as a genius among idiots. It's humiliating. It hurts. It's degrading. Like Our Lord was humiliated, hurt and degraded. Which is, perhaps, the best sign that it is, in fact the right course. Those who escape the suffering of the cross flee from it cowards. Those who pretend they're above it throw it down in disdain. But how ironic is it, that the true Catholics are the ones who are willing to be humiliated, condemned, ridiculed for and with the church as Christ was Himself? How very fitting that those who want to partake of His kingdom, are made so closely to partake of His humiliations? And made to do so as HE did so... with humility. Meekly. Willingly. Eagerly even, thirsting as He thirsted to suffer according to the will of the Father.

    When you look at it that way, it all becomes very clear. Say what you will, but to deny the pope smacks of pride. To have your faith taken away and do nothing smacks of cowardice. To walk the most ignominious road a Catholic can walk... to be condemned and denied even by one's own, to suffer the shame and humiliation of belonging to that church whose superiors are doing such shameful and un-catholic things, and yet to cling to that Church as Christ did to the cross... you might say, to be crucified by and to it... now there's a path with which we all ought to be familiar. It is the way of the cross, and Our Lord is there on it.

    And to point out that there is nothing but suffering down this road... If you're with Vatican II, you're loved, accepted and praised by those who are also in it. If you are $3d3, you are hailed as an intellectual who had the brains to get out of that "disgraceful mess" and join the ranks of other intelligent, enlightened men. But if you are "traditionalist" ... if you keep the faith AND the Vicar... not only will you enjoy (...yay...) suffering all the humility of belonging to the Church as it is, but you will also get crucified by your fellow self-proclaimed traditional Catholics (the $3d3s and novus folk). You will find, in fact, no source of personal gratification here... except the cross, the truth and the sacraments. And maybe... MAYBE a few members of your own family, if you're lucky.

    There's no room for pride in this choice. Just your 'fiat' before you join Our Lord on the cross of disgrace, with all the humiliation and pain it entails.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #17 on: July 19, 2008, 09:29:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't see too much "hailing" of sedevacantists in this world.

    I don't know of any mainstream, broad spectrum Traditional Catholic message boards on which the very word sedevacantist is BLEEPED out as though being... THAT... were the foulest and darkest of all possible human iniquities.

    Let's not let our idiosyncratic emotions run away with our grasp on reality. Traditional Catholics who love and honor the Popes of Rome can "do" their Traditionalism in such a way that they find respect and sympathy from many in the "Novus Ordo" and even in Rome itself.

    So I don't get the pope-accepting Traditionalist as lonely martyr bit.

    ONLY the poor !@#$%s or BLEEPS are generally treated by the World and by other Traditional Catholics as though they were the scum of the earth.

    It just doesn't wash to posit them as the thief on the left and the Vatican II adherents as the thief on the right, with the poor Recognize But Resist Traditionalist as the Rejected of Men/Acquainted With Grief Christ figure smack in the righteous middle.

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #18 on: July 19, 2008, 09:34:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So the Vatican II Pentecost ISN"T a disgraceful mess? :confused1:

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #19 on: July 19, 2008, 09:38:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CORRECTION: "I don't know any mainstream Traditional Catholic message board on which the very term "adherent of the SSPX position" is BLEEPED out etc..."





    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #20 on: July 19, 2008, 10:55:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am beginning to get Dulc a little clearer. Thank you Cletus--The 'world' definitly does treat **** Catholics with contempt. We are hardly a part of 'the enlightened' in the modern sense; the v2 ers are the 'enlightened'

    With the excep of Ben XIII, I really don't see any Popes whose competence I would even question bet Pius V and X. As far as nepotism, although there has been embarrassments in this area in the past there have also been more than a few examples of this working out just fine.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #21 on: July 19, 2008, 11:37:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I should point out that we're allowed to use the dreaded word sedevacantist in THIS forum.

    The World hardly knows that sedevacantists exist. Just as ancient Rome hardly knew that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

    Mel Gibson's father was a flash in the pan as a nationally talked-about celebrity.

    It would be so easy for sedevacantists to go down the road of self-serving and maudlin analogy resulting from irrational self-pity. "We are more despised by the World than the far wealthier and better known SSPX, therefore we are more like the Master, therefore we must be right and they wrong..."

    Say what you will about the validity of their conclusion, sedevacantists are hard-headed, business-like sorts who DO tend to stick to logical arguments based on Faith-aided Reason and this page of Bellarmine and that bull of Paul IV.

    PS:

    I don't know enough about His Holiness Pope Benedict XIII to know why he might be deemed so much worse than, say, Pope Innocent X.

    I've always thought that it would be nice if the faithful simply presupposed that the Holy Father had good reasons for putting his nephews or cousins or friends in positions of power. Unless, of course, the latter were notorious scoundrels or absolute boobs. On the other hand, the faithful rightfully see superior morality in those pontiffs who avoided the very appearance of family favoritism.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #22 on: July 19, 2008, 11:52:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are none the less many(and I would say this is usually the case) good examples of nepotism.

    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #23 on: July 20, 2008, 01:02:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "They're just proud" is far more "convenient" (and far more insulting) than "They're just stupid."

    An offense against the command "Judge not" is also involved.

    I don't think that I have ever come across a sedevacantist who said, "They're just stupid." Ripping into arguments in favor of honoring the Vatican City leaders as Supreme Pontiffs and calling them stupid is another matter.

    Only two or three times have I come across an adherent of the SSPX position who didn't accuse sedevacantists of the First Deadly Sin on the utterly self-centered basis of some outlandishly irrational home-grown analogy involving the sufferings of Jesus on Good Friday and everything but the kitchen sink.

    "Say that thou art not Richard, who hath done all this," the lady says in the play when the royal scoundrel tries to doubletalk his way out of responsibility for his crimes.

    Say that the top Vatican City leaders since 1958 have not said and done all the heretical and blasphemous and obscene and apostatical things that the harder-line Traditional Pope-recognizers and sedevacantists say they have said and done. Then say that there is nothing but nothing "on the Catholic books" which points Catholics in the direction of rejecting the heretical and blasphemous and obscene and apostatical putative pope as a true pope.

    Sedevacantists want to prove that these putative popes are not popes. So what do they talk about? They talk about the errors and enormities of these putative popes, and attempt to demonstrate that true popes could not be guilty of them.

    Their critics want to uphold these men as true popes. So what do they talk about? They talk about the real and imagined "sins" of past true popes and the alleged "Pride" of sedevacantists.

    The sedevacantist is taking the trouble to analyze arguments iin favor of recognizing the Vatican II top leaders as Vicars iof Christ before he declares then stupid.

    What is the Recognzing Resister analyzing before he declares the sedevacantist proud?

    Just madcap analogies he concocted in his own head. "The Vatican II mess is the cross and the sedevacantist proudly walks away from the mess, which is walking away from the cross..."

    Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna. Catechism Boy.

    When a Vatican II church prelate shows unspeakably filthy pictures of Jesus Christ on the grounds of his cathedral, justifying his sacrilegious obscenity in the name of every last  rubric of Modern Enlightenment in the Vatican II playbook, this is not "the cross" that we must love and embrace, filth and all. It's just a vile apostate doing his vile thing, performing a Satanistic ritual of profanation in accordance with the spirit and praxis of the vile religious cult to which he belongs: the Vatican II church. Or, "the Conciliar Church", as Archbishop Lefebvre DISMISSIVELY called it.

    We're veering into the unhallowed and supremely sick domain of Sin Mysticism with all this equation of supreme iniquity with the means whereby Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews was executed. This wild and unsound analogy concocting has to be strongly opposed.

    Stupidity if NOT the eighth sacrament.

    Intelligence is not a Mortal Sin.




    Offline marasmius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 148
    • Reputation: +24/-2
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #24 on: July 20, 2008, 05:15:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following words of Archbishop Lefebvre still make sense nearly thirty years after he said them. "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #25 on: July 20, 2008, 07:30:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't think that these words make any sense at all.

    They are the result of backwards thinking.

    What a sorry let-down from "Rome is controlled by antichrists!" and "They have uncrowned Him!" and "Cardinal Ratzinger is working for the dechristianization of society." and "The time may come when we shall have to see the See of Peter as vacant!"

    If the Conciliar Church is evil and does evil to men, why should we consider its visibility as something that can do good? What sane person wants a mortal snare to enjoy visibility?

    And what of the SSPX? Archbishop Lefebvre always said that it was necessary to ensure the survival of the Church. How visible is IT to most people? And in what way is his relatively invisible Society connected to what IS visible -the New Pentecostalist abomination- which Archbishop Lefebvre considered the antithesis of the Faith, ordered to the damnation of its adherents?

    People can find a local outpost of the all too visible Vatican II church in the yellow pages and send their kids to one of its schools and have their kids come home preaching the word that nowadays we understand that above all Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet who abhorred exclusivisistic judgmentalism and accepted people as they were, on their own terms, and respected their existential authenticity, and didn't try to change them according to a rigid exterior norm of morality.

    So much for the Vatican II church's accursed visibility and for quoting Archbishop Lefebvre when he was clearly off his game.

    The problem here is that people, out of desperation, are confusing Rube Goldberg with Jesus Christ when it comes to understanding the way in which the Church is constructed and what the workings of a future salvation might be. It's sheer presumption to start rationalizing according to the whims of folk Catholicism on how you'd have to have your cardinals is place, see, otherwise you don't get your Pope Pius XIII, see...

    The problem NOW is a putative pope or (let's allow it) a Resistance-worthy pope who is a heretic ten thousand times over and a "papally" approved and fostered New Pentecost that disgusts the better class of Mason and Communist and psychokiller. It is juvenile to refuse to deal with that real probem seriously, according to Catholic doctrinal norms (and one's own self-contradictory outbursts on one's more, um, "schismatic" days) and to prefer to dabble with one's own oo'ertowering and complex but fatally wobbly constructions of redemptive fantasies.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #26 on: July 20, 2008, 08:12:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the sake of argument, lets assume I am a 'sede'. 'Sedes' do more than try and show that real Popes could not poss be guilty of the actions of these v2 anti-popes. We also point out that these v2 'popes' were not even legally elected as Card Siri actually was: therefore there are two ways the v2 'popes' can be shown to be anti-popes.

    Cletus--Alex VI had Cesare and Paul IV had Carlo. Benedict XIII had Niccolo Coscia. Source--von Pastor v35



    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #27 on: July 20, 2008, 08:46:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But I think it's fair to say that most sedevacantists do not hold with the so-called Siri Thesis.

    There are many different sedevacantist theories among different kinds of sedevacantists.

    Some hold that despite his vagaries, John XXIII was as certain a pope as Pius X. Others hold that Paul VI started out as pope, but "lost it" when he promulgated the heresies of Vatican II on December 7, 1965. Others hold that he was never a pope because he was a heretic as Cardinal Montini and therefore ineligible. They hold that NO true pope can EVER lose the papacy. Others hold otherwise. The theology of sedevacantism is never as simple as A,B,C once you start to get legalistic and canonically fussy about it all.

    Roscoe, if we dig deeply enough we might find that all the Supreme Pontiffs had "someone." Except for Pius X, who had Merry del Val. It may be bad for one's spiritual shovel to dig too deeply into a divinely created Rock.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #28 on: July 20, 2008, 09:04:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can only speak for myself and my 'Sede' theory does include the Siri election.

    There is no way that 'all' the Supreme Pontiffs 'might' have someone like a Cesare, Carlo or Coscia.  The latter was not a relative of Ben XIII, he was just a bad choice--nepotsm doesn't apply here.

    I was just trying to illustrate why Ben XIII might be considered a Pope of questionable abilities. I did not say he was a bad Pope. To me there is no problem with any of the Popes beg from Pius IV through Pius X with the exception of Ben XIII
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #29 on: July 20, 2008, 09:08:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't be afraid to dig into the Divinely created rock as my experience has been that there is nothing to worry about. Why are you presuming that you might find trouble if you look to closely?
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16