Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: gladius_veritatis on July 16, 2008, 05:47:58 PM

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 16, 2008, 05:47:58 PM
For those who are adherents of the SSPX position, or some sedeplenist variation thereof, I am genuinely and sincerely interested in how you think Our Blessed Lord's words, "He who hears you, hears Me...", apply to the post-V2 Church (which you accept as the Catholic Church).

The gist of Our Lord's words is: If you listen to my representatives, you are listening to Me.  Doing such, you will infallibly be on the right path.

How is it possible to say this about Benedict, his post-V2 predecessors, and the entire V2 Church, and its patently non-Catholic religion?  If we followed the Benedict and his V2 religion most faithfully, would we not be on our way to perdition?

I am NOT trying to be a pain in the ass, here.  I am deeply interested in how this truth, uttered by Incarnate Wisdom, can be seen to relate to the V2 Church.  I thank you in advance for your replies.  God speed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 16, 2008, 05:49:59 PM
The #### above was, strangely, inserted in place of the Latin term for "filled see"; i.e., the See of Rome is, in fact, occupied by Benedict XVI.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Dulcamara on July 16, 2008, 10:15:36 PM
When the pope speaks infallibly, the Holy Ghost will not permit him to err, in which case we can certainly follow him. If he says, however, that generic beans taste better than name brand ones... that is not infallible, and therefore we needn't switch to plastic beans any time soon.

Infallibility is a wonderful thing. It's also why the Church has made it this long without being totally and completely corrupted. As a man the pope can say and do anything. But when he's speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, we can all rest assured he will be telling only the truth.

It would be nice if the papacy meant that every pope is infallible all the time, and automatically a saint, but... hey, we can't have everything I guess...

One might also add that we have to follow the traffic laws, even if democrats make them. If at a party some important democrat simply SAYS, however, that tomorrow the speed limit will be 106 ... again, we don't have to listen to them, as they're not then speaking officially and with the full force of the government behind them.

If only these things were understood as the common sense they are.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 16, 2008, 11:25:51 PM
No one demands or expects that all popes be saints.

Catholics were well accustomed to having unsainted and maybe just unsaintly popes for centuries. There was not a one between Pius V and Pius X.

It's just a red herring wrapped in a straw man to be suggesting that the problem with THOSE people (Those Who May Not Be Named And Who Appear as %4&*$#@! or What Have You If One Tries To Name Them) is that they expect  Roman Pontiffs to be SAINTS. We all know that that's not it. Not it at all. We should all stop insulting the intelligenge of our neighbor by waving about that stinky old red herring decade after decade. It's an untruthful argument. Pope Leo X was far from being a saint, but in the end he did just fine denouncing the errors of Luther.

Those Who May Not Be Named do not expect popes to be SAINTS. They expect popes to be CATHOLICS. They expect them not to be everything Archbishop Lefebvre said they were: Antichrists who have uncrrowned Christ and embraced the Godless Revolution, and OFFICIALLY promoted grave offenses againt the First Commandment, who may not be true popes at all.

Now I ask you. Is that really expecting too much?

And even when a pope does not speak infallibly, when he speaks as a teacher of the faithful ("Assisi is the way that the Church must follow") the faithful are bound to listen to him as though it were Christ speaking. It is a little known and highly embarrassing oddity of common theological opinion that the theoretically fallible utterances of popes are nonetheless "covered" by the Assurance of Christ, "He who hears you, hears Me..."

One could be saucy. One could say that in the Catholic System things always look much better for Bellarmine and Billot than they do for Saint Bernadette and her washerwoman mother and, to quote Francisco of Fatima, poor, poor Jesus.

But things are tough ALL over.

Gladius, you may want to take a second look at things you have written recently about the teachings of Pope Pius XII, whom, I assume, you still consider a true Vicar of Christ. Yes, you were diffident and tentative about appearing to side with someone who was neither and simply dismissed "Pacelli" as a hapless shill for resurgent Modernism, one who was doomed to be such from birth. But even so. We should try to keep our theological noses very clean. If we don't, one day we won't be able to look down them at those who Resist but Recognize.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 17, 2008, 12:03:18 AM
Leo X reacted but it was to late. If GV has in the past described Pope Pacelli as a shill for modernism I would agree.

Fr Feeney has also complained that there were no saints between Pius V and X. From my thinking(which apparently classifies as insane or lame acc to some) I notice that there were no BAD or anti-popes during that long era.  The only one I consider to be of questionable quality was Ben XIII. Poss Urban VIII but he redeemed himself in the end.

Cletus--what do you mean by 'just unsaintly Popes for centuries'?

I pay attention whenever a Pope expresses himself publically in any way; infallible or not.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 17, 2008, 10:07:58 AM
GV never called Pope Pius XII "a shill for Modernism."

I was referrng to a thread in which a book by one Mary Martinez was being respectfully cited. I think that it is a fair epitome of her words on "Pacelli" to say that she dismisses him as "a hapless shill for Modernism, doomed to be so from birth."

I don't think that Pope Benedict XIII was alone in being "of questionable quality" in the long period between the death of Pope Pius V and the election of Pope Pius X. There was nepotism and destructive favoritism galore with more than a few of these unsainted Vicars of Christ. But their incompetence and sloth negatively affected only the running of the Vatican. The Kingdom of Heaven kept running A-OK.

When I say "maybe they were just unsaintly" I am seeking a reason as to why they were unsainted.

Innocent XI made it to Blessed, one must point out.

The issue under discussion here is alleged fault in the TEACHING of Pope Pius XII  which the faithful were (and are) bound to hear as being spoken by Christ. (I use the word fault and not error advisedly.)

I'm not blaming anyone for trying to thrash out the problem with that most problematic of popes: I'm just pointing out that the problem with him is with him as a TEACHER OF THE FAITHFUL, not just as a behind-the-scenes ecclesiastical player, in which capacity everyone from Leo XIII to Pius XII, everyone except Pius X, has been faulted by learned and pious Traditional Catholics. I've also suggested that Pope Pius XII has gotten a totally bum rap over his Mystical Body encyclical from Catholic authors with questionable sociopolitical views.

The real problems lie elsewhere. And they should be handled with the utmost delicacy. Claiming that "Pacelli" was theologically perverted beyond all hope of redemption from the time he was a little boy and that that explains his future career as an enemy of Christ is not exactly delicate.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 17, 2008, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: Dulcamara
When the pope speaks infallibly, the Holy Ghost will not permit him to err, in which case we can certainly follow him. If he says, however, that generic beans taste better than name brand ones... that is not infallible, and therefore we needn't switch to plastic beans any time soon.


Thank you for pointing out the patently obvious.

Quote
Infallibility is a wonderful thing. It's also why the Church has made it this long without being totally and completely corrupted. As a man the pope can say and do anything. But when he's speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, we can all rest assured he will be telling only the truth.


See my response above.

Quote
It would be nice if the papacy meant that every pope is infallible all the time, and automatically a saint, but... hey, we can't have everything I guess...


No one is expecting such, and I personally would never desire such.

Quote
One might also add that we have to follow the traffic laws, even if democrats make them. If at a party some important democrat simply SAYS, however, that tomorrow the speed limit will be 106 ... again, we don't have to listen to them, as they're not then speaking officially and with the full force of the government behind them.


This is not as germane as you might think.

Quote
If only these things were understood as the common sense they are.


Although I appreciate the intention in your responding, you have done nothing to answer the question.

Even in other days when the Pope did not speak very often in an infallible capacity, you could still follow the teachings of his ordinary magisterium, keep the laws of Holy Church, and worship in the same way as the Pontiff - the way that God Himself laid down for us.  Now, you cannot do these things.  The V2 religion is completely antithetical to the Catholic religion.  If you follow it, if you "hear Benedict" and practice the religion he practices, you will go to hell.  That is a complete annihilation of Our Lord's promise, for it is meant to apply to the entire life of Holy Church, not merely the occasional ex cathedra statement.  Many people are born and die without hearing an infallible declaration.  Are they without a safe guide?  Of course not, for "He who hears you, hears Me..." is applicable to all times.  According to your thinking, Our Lord's words are only applicable once in a very long while.  The rest of the time, it is all up for grabs.

Can you, or can you not, practice the religion which V2, Benedict, and his V2 predecessors have taught and practiced?  Will such get you to heaven?

No, it will not, which is exactly why you resist it, holding fast to the old ways.  You are hearing Christ, and the Pontiffs of 1950+ years, but you are not hearing the V2 pontiffs.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Matthew on July 17, 2008, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
The #### above was, strangely, inserted in place of the Latin term for "filled see"; i.e., the See of Rome is, in fact, occupied by Benedict XVI.


I think that word got added to the "censored words list" back in the days of Dust-7, when he used it as an epithet against SSPX-followers. On the one hand, it's a technical term. On the other hand, it almost can't be used in a good sense, as the default position for a Catholic is s*deplenist.

It's like calling someone a meat-eater. I think every human being, by default, is willing to eat some kind of insect/fish/fowl/mammal meat -- unless they are distinguished by their complete abstinence from it, e.g., vegetarians, vegans, etc.

Matthew
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Dulcamara on July 17, 2008, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis


Although I appreciate the intention in your responding, you have done nothing to answer the question.

Can you, or can you not, practice the religion which V2, Benedict, and his V2 predecessors have taught and practiced?  Will such get you to heaven?


No, actually your question was:
Quote
The gist of Our Lord's words is: If you listen to my representatives, you are listening to Me. Doing such, you will infallibly be on the right path.

How is it possible to say this about Benedict, his post-V2 predecessors, and the entire V2 Church, and its patently non-Catholic religion? If we followed the Benedict and his V2 religion most faithfully, would we not be on our way to perdition?


The answer is to to understand infallibility in the proper and true light, and to understand the word "obedience" in the true light, not as slavish zombie mentality, but as obedience where obedience is due... only for that which is right and good and true. I have heard since my childhood catechism days, that the Catholic church teaches that if someone tells you to do something wrong, it doesn't matter who it is, you don't listen. I don't recall it saying anything, though, about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, eg "if your parents say to do something wrong, from then on, totally disregard their authority and defy them in everything!" ... I don't recall that attitude in my Catholic instruction anywhere.

Now it's the pope. Well, is it shocking? Of course. Scandalous? Absolutely! But the fact of the matter is, the pope is, after all, still human. He is still capable of thinking and saying things that are bad. We as good Catholics are taught by our dear Mother Church not do do bad things, no matter who says them. However the Church never said such an incident is free license to overthrow the rightful and legitimate authority of that person, when they are acting within it's right and true capacities, such as when the pope says things that ARE Catholic, or gives orders we CAN follow.

That's the answer to the question you actually DID ask originally.

To answer your second question, since the "new religion" is something different from Catholicism, we are bound NOT to obey or follow it, absolutely. But where the head of the church acts within his rightful authority (teaching and ordering that which is right and good) then we must listen to him.

Once you disregard the wrong ideas on obedience and infallibility, the whole thing becomes quite simple. (The truth often has that effect.)

In this way, we can follow and respect the pope when he acts justly and rightly (telling only the truth, and commanding only that which is good), and not at all follow anything bad or false he may introduce.

Of course I'm sure you will probably just say "EHHH! Wrong answer!" and look for another, but... you asked, so I gave you a very reasonable and complete response to your questions. If you don't like them, well... I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 17, 2008, 04:38:57 PM
Dulcamera--I am a bit slow at times. Could you tell us clearly whether you accept the v2 'council' as legitimate and if you accept the 'popes' beg with john 23 as real? Just asking

Acc to Fr. Cuthbert Butler's book on the Vatican Council(the 1st and only Vatican Council), no infallible declaration has come from the Vatican since the dogmatic constitution issued by that same Council.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 17, 2008, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: Dulcamara
In this way, we can follow and respect the pope when he acts justly and rightly (telling only the truth, and commanding only that which is good), and not at all follow anything bad or false he may introduce.


While we all appreciate your sophistry in pretending that I somehow altered my question in any kind of substantial manner, you have still largely avoided giving anything like a straightforward answer.  I am neither surprised nor disappointed, as I have seen it literally hundreds of times.

In your words I have quoted above, do you not see that YOU are setting YOURSELF up as the arbiter of the question?  You are plainly NOT open to hearing him in a way that is consistent with 2000 years of Catholic behavior.  Offer more sophistry until the proverbial cows come home - many do - but it shall not change the reality.

It is not that I do not like your answer - which, btw, is anything but complete.  It totally sidesteps the issue - that a man CANNOT take the purported Roman Pontiff as a rule of faith, or the practice thereof.  Is this not a frightening fact?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Dulcamara on July 17, 2008, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
that a man CANNOT take the purported Roman Pontiff as a rule of faith, or the practice thereof.  Is this not a frightening fact?


Not at all. God is more powerful than the pope, and His religion cannot be corrupted. Under proper obedience, corruption or evil in any man, even the pope, is powerless against the incorruptible faith.

If the church and the true faith depended upon the virtue of the men who hold it's offices to exist and survive, there would (humanly speaking) surely be no church today. But because it is a divinely instituted thing, no amount of human corruption, even of it's authorities, can possibly corrupt, alter or kill it. The faith is not given the popes to change, but to transmit. The Catholic is therefore correct who recognizes BOTH... the divine grace and life of the true faith and it's incorruptible nature, AND the fallibility of every man (even the pope when he is not willfully exercising his infallibility).

The Catholic of a balanced and prudent mind will not be at all shocked (or at least not much) if the pope sins, or sins grievously. They know the pope sins. He's human. They know also not to follow him into sin. Such a Catholic has the privilege of being founded upon a rock, not tossed to and fro with the waves of confusion and uncertainty. He will follow the pope where the pope is right and where it is all right to follow him, and disobey him (in obedience to God) where the pope is wrong and it would be wrong to follow him. He needn't deny the office of the man because the man might be bad. (He would never dare judge the man, as only God can do.) The Catholic who has not neglected his own moral and theological education knows his faith well enough to know what it IS, and what it is NOT. He has good sense enough (by the help of God) to keep his own bearings regardless of what the Pope as man is, and the humility to obey when the man is right.

The king, even if bad, is still the king. The martyrs who died under the roman emperors, I'm sure, never once denied that the emperors were the emperors simply because they were pagan and wicked. Instead, they acknowledged by laying down their lives that his authority came from God, and that the office was what it was, regardless of the rottenness of the man in it. So, too, the sensible Catholic knows the pope is the pope, for better or for worse, and will for the love of God obey him when he is right, and in anything he can morally do so, and for the love of God again, disobey where he must, even as the martyrs obeyed the emperors in dying, but NOT in offering sacrifice to false gods. We can obey the pope in anything not contrary to God, even if we can't follow this new religion. He still carries the authority of God as pope, however good or bad he is as a man.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 18, 2008, 12:13:15 AM
It is not a question of a pope as man "sinning."

It is a question of a supposed pope AS pope teaching false doctrine and filling minds with false doctrine in the name of Christ and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

It is very, very wrong to "make a lie." Doctrinal defections of putative popes cannot be blithely bundled off to the ho-hum category of "papal sin" alongside the "funny parties" of Alexander VI and that time Benedict XV rebuked his dangerously incompetent coach driver far too severely. (But it is edifying to know that the latter "sin" was atoned for when the Supreme Pontiff showed up at the poor man's door with a bottle of wine, or two cigars....)

We're not talking about papal sin.

Ignoring someone who points this out does not lend strength to a stubborn repetition of the untruth.

We are talking about papal or putative papal defection as regards Catholic Truth. There are rules about this one papal or putative papal "sin" which do not come into play even if a pope is guilty of mass murder or incompetent coachman lambasting.  

It's also wrong to mix supernatural apples with natural oranges. Roman pontiffs are not Roman emperors. And as a matter of fact, the same eminent Doctor of the Church who might have argued that such and such an Emperor might have been justly deposed and deemed Emperor no longer (and his head placed on a stick) might also have argued that such and such a putative pope is no pope at all, due to his teaching of heresy.

Deposing and killing an atrociously bad ruler is always an option for Catholics. So is rejecting an apparent pope as pope because of his teaching heresy.

I don't see what is so "sensible" about insisting on calling a Rock what one personally avoids like quicksand and the Plague.

The true Catholic idea of the pope is that you can trust EVERYTHING that he says in his capacity as pope.




Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 18, 2008, 12:20:37 AM
Quote from: Dulcamara
The Catholic of a balanced and prudent mind will not be at all shocked (or at least not much) if the pope sins, or sins grievously. They know the pope sins. He's human.


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.

Matthew,

You have surely seen this thread.  What say you?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 18, 2008, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: Cletus
We're not talking about papal sin.


I have my doubts that this statement will EVER register.

Quote
The true Catholic idea of the pope is that you can trust EVERYTHING that he says in his capacity as pope.


Yes, it is...but a bad king is still king, Cletus, and a bad father is still the father!  Don't you SEE??!?!!? :laugh2:
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 18, 2008, 12:29:46 AM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Dulcamara on July 19, 2008, 08:00:47 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 19, 2008, 09:29:55 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 19, 2008, 09:34:20 PM
So the Vatican II Pentecost ISN"T a disgraceful mess? :confused1:
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 19, 2008, 09:38:24 PM
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..."



Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 19, 2008, 10:55:12 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 19, 2008, 11:37:53 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 19, 2008, 11:52:52 PM
There are none the less many(and I would say this is usually the case) good examples of nepotism.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 20, 2008, 01:02:09 PM
"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.



Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: marasmius on July 20, 2008, 05:15:58 PM
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."
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 20, 2008, 07:30:30 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 08:12:29 PM
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



Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 20, 2008, 08:46:03 PM
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.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 09:04:12 PM
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
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 09:08:09 PM
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?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 09:42:57 PM
Holy Church need fear NO truth--Pope Leo XIII
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 10:37:26 PM
And if most 'sedes' don't know of or agree with the Siri election and there are many diff 'sede'  theories, could you name a couple: what reason do they give for the Papacy being in so drastic a condition and the v2 anti-council?

IMO a line of illegal anti-popes sure seems like it would and could cause something like this.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 10:53:09 PM
It just occured to me that Piers Compton thinks Paul VI had a double who apparently was paul 6.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on July 20, 2008, 11:18:00 PM
Roscoe, you're getting as bad as I am with the one-right-after-another posts. Or have I been getting as bad as you? :scratchchin:

I indicated some of the different theories about some of the Vatican II popes. It's not as though the different sedevacantists are making things up as they go along. They are trying to relate the facts of the Vatican II Armageddon to the opinions of various weighty theologians as to apparent popes who are not popes because they are heretics.

I have never come across a sedevacantist who imagines that he has it all sewn up with no loose ends when it comes to explaining these things with Scholastic precision.

I have always thought that sedevacantists are strongest when they are following the "via negativa" and saying what is not and could not be the case with popes and the Church at any time: iffy canonizations by a true pope which one may mock and denounce willy-nilly, for example.

I think that what Pope Leo XIII said about opening up the Church's records to historians and letting the chips fall where they may would have been rather different had he envisioned thousands and thousands of laymen opining negatively in the open forum on, say, his own way of dealing with the Americanist crisis, and not just three or four white-bearded historians finding juicy tid-bits for tomes that hardly anyone would read.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 20, 2008, 11:27:32 PM
The one after another posts has to do w/  there being no edit function. At the old Shankradio Forum(which can still be accessed at Shankblog for those interested in disputation with obstinite heretics) the edit function would stay on for a period of time. I think it was 24 hrs or something. If it could be left on for an hour or so........
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 22, 2008, 02:58:59 PM
Matthew,

While we have all profited immensely from dulcamara's thoughtful responses, would you please be so kind as to offer your own ideas about how "He who hears you, hears Me" actually applies to the V2 pontiff and pseudo-religion?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 22, 2008, 03:04:23 PM
We all know the famous dictum, "Do as I say, not as I do."  This is essentially what sedeplenists are using for their support.  However, what they seem to miss - how, I have no idea - is that you CANNOT DO EITHER where the V2 pseudo-religion and its leaders are concerned.

"He who hears you, hears Me..." MUST APPLY to at least the doing of what they SAY, even if we avoid doing as they do.  At present, neither is possible - making it IMPOSSIBLE for these men to be legitimate.

Tell me, when was the last time you did what Rome said?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 23, 2008, 06:09:36 PM
Even in the days of a Boniface, a Wolsey or a Spellman, at least you were correct in doing as they said.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 24, 2008, 03:18:26 PM
Looks like we are not going to get Matthew's opinion on this.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 24, 2008, 08:09:29 PM
Although it is possible there was a glitch that erased my other thread, I am presuming it was not so.  That said, I shall speak my mind, although it is unlikely that my comments will be received well.  

Matthew,

IF you have purposely avoided my sincere attempts to have a calm discussion on this point, in this thread or in the other I started that seems to have been deleted, by yourself I can only imagine, I have to call a spade a spade.  You, sir, are a coward.  In truth, you need not be, as I am not trying to pick a fight, exposing this or that hole in this or that position.  I genuinely want to know how you can possibly reconcile the ideas of the SSPX, and all trad "full seaters" with Our Lord's words.  I am not trying to grandstand, as I do not pretend to have all the answers myself.  However, it does not behoove Catholic gentlemen to avoid even engaging in discussion with those who disagree with them on important matters.  It helps no one, especially the one who will not even accept a calm and kindly offer to have such a discussion.  So be it.  God speed.

Eamon
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 24, 2008, 08:10:37 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Even in the days of a Boniface, a Wolsey or a Spellman, at least you were correct in doing as they said.


EXACTLY!  Such can no longer be said, granting that the V2 Pontiffs and/or their phony religion are to be taken seriously.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Matthew on July 24, 2008, 08:26:35 PM
I didn't delete any threads. Sometimes I move a thread to the "Crisis" sub-form where appropriate.

Only my wife and I have access to delete threads.

You can call me whatever you want. As a busy family man, I have more important PRACTICAL things to worry about in my life.

I used to spend more time arguing such issues, but now I see that it's hard enough to become a saint without taking on the Church's problems as well. Perhaps single people have the time for it -- I just know that I don't.

Sincerely,

Matthew
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 24, 2008, 08:53:26 PM
The only position that is defensible is that of a 'sede'. When asked, even Cletus can't come up with a good argument against the 'sedes'. It should hardly be surprising that no one else has a thing to say. However I would like to thank Matthew for at least letting us have our views heard.  :argue:
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 24, 2008, 09:49:16 PM
Quote from: ChantCd
I used to spend more time arguing such issues, but now I see that it's hard enough to become a saint without taking on the Church's problems as well. Perhaps single people have the time for it -- I just know that I don't.


Thank you for your magnanimity and patience with a poor idiot. :wave:  Please see the other thread I started, which I somehow did not see anywhere before, wherein I publicly apologize to you.

As for the above, I certainly understand.  However, the central point is that one cannot work out one's salvation very well when one cannot even establish, or reasonably explain to themselves or others, the identity of Holy Church.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to do as Benedict does, or even do as he says, making it IMPOSSIBLE for him to be Christ's vicar.  This demonstrable fact, accepted implicitly by all who resist the V2 Pontiffs and their bogus religion, cannot be swept aside nonchalantly - duties or no duties.  God speed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 24, 2008, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: roscoe
The only position that is defensible is that of a 'sede'.


There are those who would argue this, even amongst those who reject Benedict et alii.  Sede privationists AND sede impeditists would say that pure sede vacantism is worthless, as it leaves you without a visible Church.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 24, 2008, 10:10:06 PM
GV--this is why I have used the word in quotes. I am not even sure if there is such a thing. It is a vague term and my position has always been that there is a true Pope somewhere--just not in the v2 'church'.  Could you explain the two terms you used--privationist and impeditists.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on July 24, 2008, 10:21:37 PM
Before I got to TCW and Cathinfo, just about the only place I ever encountered the term sede vacantist was in reading Pastor. He uses the term to describe the time period between when a Pope dies and a new one is elected. This type of thing has been know to go on for months or even over a year.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 26, 2008, 03:14:28 PM
You can find a fairly accurate appraisal of sede privationists on wikidpedia.  To learn more, contact Bp. Sanborn, or read his explanation of the thesis of Guerard des Lauriers, also known as the Cassiciacum thesis.

As for the impeditists, I believe most (likely ALL) take Siri to have been Pope.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: MichaelSolimanto on August 19, 2008, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
For those who are adherents of the SSPX position, or some #### variation thereof, I am genuinely and sincerely interested in how you think Our Blessed Lord's words, "He who hears you, hears Me...", apply to the post-V2 Church (which you accept as the Catholic Church).

The gist of Our Lord's words is: If you listen to my representatives, you are listening to Me.  Doing such, you will infallibly be on the right path.

How is it possible to say this about Benedict, his post-V2 predecessors, and the entire V2 Church, and its patently non-Catholic religion?  If we followed the Benedict and his V2 religion most faithfully, would we not be on our way to perdition?

I am NOT trying to be a pain in the ass, here.  I am deeply interested in how this truth, uttered by Incarnate Wisdom, can be seen to relate to the V2 Church.  I thank you in advance for your replies.  God speed.


There is not one thing I'm commanded to do as a Catholic which would kill my chances for salvation even with their insanity. I'm not obligated under the pain of sin to be ecumenical, and JPII has said the opponents of ecumenism have their place, and there is nothing I have to do by their standards which if I disobey I go to Hell.

Am I obligated to go to the Novus Ordo? Nope
Am I obligated to go to interfaith prayer meetings? Nope
Am I obligated to go to deny the faith by any directive that if I disobey I go to Hell? Nope
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 19, 2008, 11:27:23 PM
Are you obligated to view the likes of Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger as the Vicars of Christ?

Are you obligated to show respect and docility towards Vicars of Christ insofar as they, say, beatify folks and declare certain new liturgical forms to be the Church's ORDINARY forms?

They used to joke about Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

How about the Vicar of Christ with, really, just the fancy robes and hats and little but total contempt from his "most faithful children"?

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 19, 2008, 11:36:58 PM
If you are a true son of Tradition are you obligated to accept Vatican II in the Light of Tradition? Nope? Yep?

May you simply reject it across the board as a carnival of apostasy and heresy? Nope? Yep?

It's okay for entertainment purposes to be sententiously folksy. But it's no argument.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: MichaelSolimanto on August 20, 2008, 12:00:43 AM
Quote from: Cletus
Are you obligated to view the likes of Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger as the Vicars of Christ?


How does that answer the question of how that endangers my salvation? The opposite though runs true as well, are you obligated to deny the vicars of Christ and die before the judgment seat of God? I would rather side with caution and pray for them rather than do something which DOES risk my immortal soul, namely, to deny the Vicar of Christ.

Quote
Are you obligated to show respect and docility towards Vicars of Christ insofar as they, say, beatify folks and declare certain new liturgical forms to be the Church's ORDINARY forms?


Again, am I obliged to go to those events, liturgies, or ask for the intercession of those beatified for salvation? Nope.

Is there any proposition I have to assent to in Vatican II which is not previous doctrine or dogma which if I reject I risk eternal damnation? Nope. As a matter of fact there is not one proposition in Vatican II that is novel that I'm obliged to assent to intellectually or risk my salvation. Here's the proof:

"In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so" [Ex Actis Ss. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Notificationes Factae ab Exc.mo Secretario Generali Ss. Concilii in Congregatione Generali CXXIII diei XVI Nov. MCMLXIV].


Believe it or not, you are proving my point. Nothing you can point out in any circumstance which is novel is something I'm obliged to obey for salvation. If anything proves that the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church through this insanity there you have it and therefore you are proving, rather than disproving, that the Church is still present and visible in Rome.

Since you found this to be so upsetting to respond twice, can you show me where as a Catholic I can believe that there aren't any bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and still call the Church visible? If you reply that you never said or claimed that, which is fine, name me one member of the hierarchy you pray that God leads to help souls to Heaven who has ordinary jurisdiction. I want his name and the diocese/area he is the pastor of souls.

If not Christ left the Church didn't He since He gave us no official way of knowing "He who hears you hears me" through a visible chain of command, a belief every theologian who was orthodox has always taught and believed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 20, 2008, 01:00:28 AM
I have not proven any of your points, Mr Solimanto.

The reason why your thinking on these matters is so dreadfully skewed is that you think it's "all about YOU."

No, YOU don't have to pray to Blessed John XXIII.

Yes, you ARE obligated to avoid involvement of any kind with an institution that mocks God to the extent of proposing such an apocalyptically wicked creature for veneration.

You MIGHT be spared Hell if it is Grave Fear or being a simpleton which keeps you in thrall to the leaders of the Vatican II cult.

You ARE obliged to consider the dignity of the human intellect in THIS world (which is so outraged by the untruths which prop up Dear Holy Father as Antichrist theologizing) and not put everything in the conveniently iffy context of what you imagine I may imagine about the next world.

Concern for Truth, just for the sake of God Who is Truth, should precede a parochial fixation on one's own salvation.

It is inane to pass from a reference to "caution" to the notion of "praying for" the Vatican II church top leadership. It's an abnormal thought process. (Normal among Traditionalists, though.) No, the idea is that you FOLLOW and OBEY and HEED AS YOU HEED CHRIST the Vicar of Christ. Your "praying for" him is beside the point. You may pray for Josef Ratzinger as a heretical Mozart lover who needs conversion all you like.

Opposing the Ordinary Form of the Mass as proposed by the Vicar of Christ does not put your salvation in danger? You may ignore and denounce and mock him will-nilly as long as you piously stipulate that it is the Vicar of Christ whom you are ignoring and denouncing and mocking?

YOUR managing to take a pious pass on involvement in Catholic reality solves nothing. The only thing that matters is that you insist for some ungodly reason on claiming that it is the Vicar of Christ and his visible fellow bishops who are opening the gates of hell and making all hell break loose on earth.

You've heard ANY Conciliar pope or bishop as you hear Christ since you became a Traditional Catholic? I doubt that you have. How on earth has Christ ever had a day's luck with THEIR visibility? What good does it do Him or you or me or any soul on earth? Those Modernists, those Masons, those Liberals, those sons of the Revolution who, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, have been working to dechristianize society, souls, the Church?

But no one is OBLIGED to be dechristianized? That's awful nice to know! Someone should inform the Universal Visible Church at once. It seems not to have grasped that point.

I think we all know what the real issue is here. The mechanics of the hope of a rescue. The so-called Solution. I grant that there is no hope on earth for a Catholic Restoration unless there is a living link to the Catholic Past. I grant that the stricter sedevacantists are destroyers of that hope.

The answer is simple. There is no hope for an earthly restoration. Our only hope is in heaven now. Things are shot all to hell in this world. The task of believers  is to accept this reality with good grace and head held high. Otherwise your life will be a degrading and painful lurch from one idiotic mirage or obsession to the next.

Such as, oh, a REAL bishop of the Visible Church who despite his love of the Novus Ordo spoke SO beautifully of Our Lady that he made a glorious new Pope Pius seem almost tangible... except that then he lauded The Theology of the Body in a way that made even Uncle Max, a Freethinker, blush in scandalized shame...

Orthodox theologians, you say? They have always allowed for an apparent pope who is no pope at all, having fallen from office under his own heretical steam, with no need of declaration.

It is not "cautious" to claim that a man whom you yourself dismiss as a false teacher is the Supreme Teacher of the Faithful.

It is reckless.

It is really, really dumb.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: MichaelSolimanto on August 20, 2008, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: Cletus
I have not proven any of your points, Mr Solimanto.


Yes you have.

Quote
The reason why your thinking on these matters is so dreadfully skewed is that you think it's "all about YOU."


Read the first post in the thread. GV asked us as individuals how we live in the current state. If you can't read the context of what I was answering stop acting like a 4 year old when get smacked down intellectually.

Quote
No, YOU don't have to pray to Blessed John XXIII.


Thanks for proving my point.

Quote
You MIGHT be spared Hell if it is Grave Fear or being a simpleton which keeps you in thrall to the leaders of the Vatican II cult.


While you start your own cult of Catholics who are without a hierarchy and believe in a non-Magisterial Catholic society? Sorry, but your saccharine phraseology is getting played out, and the contrary explanation of what you believe is being left out isn't it.

Quote
Concern for Truth, just for the sake of God Who is Truth, should precede a parochial fixation on one's own salvation.


I think this one line proves to me I'm wasting my time since I've never said the contrary and you continue to make intellectual propositions which are not contrary to anything I said, nor have I even hinted at the following, and yet you constantly do it.

Quote
Opposing the Ordinary Form of the Mass as proposed by the Vicar of Christ does not put your salvation in danger? You may ignore and denounce and mock him will-nilly as long as you piously stipulate that it is the Vicar of Christ whom you are ignoring and denouncing and mocking?


Since logic isn't your strong suit I'll make it easier, but I'll compound the syllogism to save myself time:
-The Novus Ordo is not a doctrinal/dogmatic definition nor is it a matter of morals
-Only those things that have to do with doctrine/dogma and morals must I assent to intellectually to be Catholic
-Ergo, I'm not bound to assent to remain my Catholic identity

Historically what do you make of the 2 Eastern saints who opposed 2 different Vicars of Christ on the date of Easter to unify it with the West? Do they fit the anti-Christ/cult like movement you've been preaching or do you still pretend that history was just about people who just fawned over every decision of their ordinary and the Holy Father?  

Quote
You've heard ANY Conciliar pope or bishop as you hear Christ since you became a Traditional Catholic? I doubt that you have.


Actually JPII address to the youth in Mexico City in 99 was amazing and it was like hearing Christ speak on earth. I've never been a fan of the man since I came to know what he did to the Church, but this speech defies your claim. He told every young man and women not to pursue a career until they first pursue religious life and "cast their nets" into the sea to get a great catch of Our Blessed Lord.

Quote
But no one is OBLIGED to be dechristianized? That's awful nice to know! Someone should inform the Universal Visible Church at once. It seems not to have grasped that point.


You are missing the entire point for your position. It boils down to how can someone remain Catholic and follow Benedict XVI. I answered that. It doesn't come down to me, but anyone who follows the syllogism I provided above to any problem we are facing.


Quote
Orthodox theologians, you say? They have always allowed for an apparent pope who is no pope at all, having fallen from office under his own heretical steam, with no need of declaration.


The theologians you point to have different OPINIONS on what to do. There is no consensus with or without a declaration between the theologians themselves. Suarez and Torquemada believe a council must be called. Still, they are just opinions I'm not obliged to believe, but I am obliged to believe that the Church is visible. Still, no theologian has taught there is no visible hierarchy with jurisdiction. You believe in a fictional, mythical reality which is filled with just a few angry people who are aggressive, rude, discourteous, and get kicked off every message board for good reason (unless they tolerate it... like here).

Quote
It is not "cautious" to claim that a man whom you yourself dismiss as a false teacher is the Supreme Teacher of the Faithful.


Should I have denied John XXII if we went in a time machine? Should he have to be re-elected? Your beliefs are, and I quote, "reckless... really, really dumb."
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 20, 2008, 12:58:39 PM
What good does the Visibility of the Conciliar church do Christ or the world or souls?

About as much good as the visibility of the Austrian cardinal archbishop's filthy pictures of Christ, which he had Catholic children view in the name of Vatican II-style Engagement with Modern Culture.

The visibility of the Vatican II cult is a diabolical snare. It is blasphemous to make God its ultimate guarantor, as mainline Traditionalists do in their desperate lunacy.

SSPX adherents should be content to reason that the SSPX is visibility enough for the True Church, and stop proposing blasphemies supportive of the Conciliar church because of things about the marks of the Church that they read in old books and misunderstood.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 20, 2008, 07:41:59 PM
I will try and refute MS but first: could he inform us if in his view there even is such a thing as an anti-pope and if so who would he consider one or two or 3. Fr Radecki's book describes 41 without even considering v2.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 20, 2008, 10:50:19 PM
Actually Fr Radecki's #should be revised down by 5 names because he lists the Fr faction during GWS. Acc to von Pastor, since the GWS was purely political and didn't involve heresies or homos, one is free to call either Pope of the  a true one.

A while back there was someone who referred on 2 occaisions to Alex VI as a very bad Pope. As I have been able to rehabilitate the char of the Pope to some extent--there were no Vatican orgies and Savanarola was a heretic-- it would be interesting to hear v2 ers comment on the orgies that are indeed going on there now.

The only other crisis in the history of Holy Church that might be compared in a small way to what is happening now is the Templar scandal and the anti-pope boniface who was protecting them.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 20, 2008, 11:13:02 PM
Does Cletus believe that john 23 was legitimatly elected? Was he an anti-pope because of his actions then or no. What about the rest of the v2ers--would you call any of them true Popes?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 21, 2008, 12:56:10 AM
John XXIII certainly revealed himself as a false prophet and an enemy of Christ and the Gospel from the very start of Vatican II.

He worked hard to lead the world into disastrous errors, into the Great Apostasy.

The theology of the past simply does not ask the right questions about such a creature and the significance of his incomparably wicked deeds given his apparently kosher occupation of the See of Peter. Bellarmine and Suarez and that bunch simply could not conceive of the Vatican II situation and of the way in which Modernists operate: Pius X, of course, had a better idea of it, but even he failed to make it clear how the Modernists were heretics at all, even though they clearly were not Christian believers at all.

"Maybe we should not be so certain that Jesus of Nazareth is anything to us but some ancient Jew who apparently got crucified for reasons we'll never know."

Where precisely would Aquinas find any heresy in such a statement? The "maybe" itself ends the heresy hunt right off the bat. It is evidence of a lack of pertinacity, better in any ecclesiastical court than a comely lass's lifting her skirt while on the stand is in any secular court. Of course, we all know that it is REALLY evidence of diabolical perversity. But God and simple believers don't write the heresy rules. Clerics who are given to covering for their clerical homeboys write the heresy rules and enforce them- or don't.

Where exactly is the heresy in the statement of Cardinal Hume that alhough he personally believed in the Resurrection, modern Christianity could carry quite nicely should it develop that Jesus rotted in His tomb after all?

The book has yet to be written in which the atrocities that Roncalli uttered against the holy Way of Christ for the last few decades of his life are analyzed and condemned for what they truly are:  exhortations ordered to a false gospel and a general No to Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Most theologizing on these matters is inane and foolishly pedantic on all sides. Old-timers such as Bellarmine and Suarez conceived of theological warfare in the way that generals and kings conceived of sociopolitical warfare: everyone stand in a nice straight line and politely blows some chaps on the other side to smithereens at an agreed-upon time in an agreed-upon place. This is why in the end most Traditional Catholics come down hard against orthodoxy and in favor of heresy and error and vice.

"Well, pertinacity has not been proven!" they say in defense of the most outrageous and blasphemous purveyors of falsehood. "And the truth supposedly denied would not even be of divine and Catholic faith!"

The style now among Traditionalist mainliners is to attack sedevacantists and make common cause with people who not so long ago they rejected as "Novus Ordo Conciliarist non-Catholics."

John XXIII? He's off MY list of popes. I would have to see it written in some papal encyclical or Conciliar decree that being a false prophet and a destroyer of a billion lives in Christ is compatible with true papacy, whereas being a bona fide, card-carrying, horn-tootin' heretic, formal and everything, not just material, is not so compatible.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on August 21, 2008, 06:46:10 AM
  I am sorry to see people still getting all torked up over this "infallible" issue. "he who hears" is always true if you are a Catholic, but you are not supposed to follow known diabolic doctrines, even if they are prounounced from an angel . Christ sternly corrected the authorized religious powers of his time. Why did Catholics give up their God given reponsiblity to defend the truth since the 1870 Vatican Council "infallibility" pronouncement? I might just be a sort of Catholic caveman (unlike all of you more enlightened people), but I think the emphasis of Christianity is distorted when you get bogged down with arguments of infalliblity. The building up of the poor and weakest members of  Christian society so that man could serve in the manner God intended -
That's where the focus should be.

    I think is interesting to note that the Satanic one world system really started humming since the "infallibles" arrived on the world stage in 1870. I don't think it was intentional, but Piux IX started thinking like our globalist elite masters when he used expressions like "invincibly ignorant" and "infallible". Get it?  Christ healing and building up of the poorest and weakest souls vs. the elitist of the world, who through superstructures of earthly power, build up the kingdom of anti-Christ.  

   Just one more comment for the SSPX bashers, I don't think they are infallible either, but give them credit for fighting the good fight. May God bless you all in fighting the good fight.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Dulcamara on August 21, 2008, 09:50:41 AM
Quote

SSPX adherents should be content to reason that the SSPX is visibility enough for the True Church, and stop proposing blasphemies supportive of the Conciliar church because of things about the marks of the Church that they read in old books and misunderstood.


Um... Okay, if the SSPX is basically your "pope" ... the SSPX says, "the pope (Pope Benedict) is the pope." So then if they're your pope, you are then told indeed to recognize that, good or bad, the man with the white hat is, in fact, the pope. >gasp< Well, let me guess... "It's okay to follow the SSPX in everything else they say... but not in that," right? Well, if that's what you think, your position is exactly that of those who still recognize the pope. You've just put it at "one remove'. "Obey the pope in everything he says that doesn't offend against the Faith, and disobey in whatever he says that does offend against it."

It never ceases to amaze me how people get so caught up on this issue. This whole mess should only be a problem if you believe that Catholics must slavishly follow every word that the pope utters, whatever it is. Which any Catholic educated in the matter knows is NOT true, and which is a totally false idea of infallibility.

If you are Catholic, and adhere to all the beliefs of the Catholic faith, then you MUST adhere to the pope. However, if you are a rational Catholic with an IQ greater than 6, you SHOULD be able to reason out... "hey... the pope is a human being with a free will... that means >gasp< he can SIN!!" ... and also, "But since my faith doesn't compel me to obey everything he says like a mindless zombie... then I am only bound to obey what he officially, infallibly commands, and what he says besides that is NOT sinful or in error."

Very simple. Christ is not going to ask each of us to account for the sins of the pope, however public. But we are, as Catholics, bound to acknowledge that, however bad or sinful, the pope IS the pope. This proposition, which used to be common sense, poses no threat at all to the faith of a good Catholic. The good, sane Catholic can perfectly well acknowledge the reign of a very bad pope as well as that of a president who is for abortion... but just as the Catholics don't run out and get abortions because the president likes it to be legal, a good Catholic simply doesn't go along with any sinful acts or philosophies the pope may hold. And because they aren't slavishly bound to follow him, like men without free will or intellect to discern with, any sins the pope commits, or errors he may preach, will roll off the soul of a good Catholic (educated in their faith and rational thought), like water off a duck's back. In fact, like ducks, we can be in the middle of a very large lake (or world) of error, and come out of it none the wetter, as long we really know our faith and adhere rationally to it. But we fall when we set ourselves up as our own popes... the ultimate decider of every statement the Church makes. That is an error. We have to believe what the pope says infallibly (protected by God). God can force even the devil to tell the truth. I don't think the pope is quite THAT bad, for all his faults...

The whole "pope problem" is only an issue if you think that acknowledging the authority means following the man like a mindless zombie. The rational Catholic who understands obedience and infallibility correctly, is not at all effected by what the pope may do in terms of evil, since they will simply go on practicing their faith correctly regardless. We are never bound to disobey God. We ARE  bound to  know and practice our faith, and obey the pope in matters in which he IS in line with truth and God. Know this, and it won't matter one wit to our salvation what error the pope may be in, or how many sins he may commit.

And that's why the church can last on and on, in spite of even a million bad popes. It doesn't depend entirely upon the men. It's fool proof. The men are necessary at least to hold the positions because we need a visible Church, for many good reasons. Therefore we must recognize who it is that is, at the very least, holding the place... But we aren't at all compelled to listen to anything sinful. The two (obedience to that which is in line with God and His law, and disobedience to anything sinful) are not at all in contradiction. It's a matter of common sense to the Catholic well versed in their faith.

I just wonder what, in the coming ages, all the followers of the countless anti-popes will do? Up until the 1960's everybody accepted and recognized the church was at Rome. A couple men of questionable principal go through the office, and half the crew jump ship. Now supposing a very holy man comes into that office? All the sedevacantists and ant-pope followers will condemn that man, however holy, because he's the successor of Pope Benedict? They will claim the superiority of their anti-popes over that man, however elected, to the man who can trace his reign back to Peter? They will listen to the dogmas and doctrines of the anti-popes over the infallible declarations of the Church?

In all the history of her, the Church has never broken away from herself. It is a trademark of the Church, that whatever errors have ravished her, she has always remained herself. It has been the heretics and (genuine) schismatics who have gone out of the boat of Peter, who have gone elsewhere, who have set up authorities outside, and who have founded other sects, other religions, other authorities. It is ridiculous to think that now, after 2000 years of unbroken protection of God, the Church must suddenly break away from itself. The very idea smacks of satanic irony. Which is why those men, those priests... who are out there right now setting up truly Catholic priories all over the world, teaching the faith, re-founding traditional religious orders, opening truly Catholic schools all over the world... who are, in short, doing the works of the Church (everywhere, not just some local sect), also adhere to that same Church it claims to be working in the name of, rationally, and in spite of the flaws of the man in charge of it.

Christ's way is unity, and the devil's division. If there were no way to acknowledge the authority of the man without denying God, the story might be different. But if Christ had founded such a fragile and breakable Church, it likely would not have made it 200 years, let alone 2,000. But since God is perfect, He founded a Church that can survive in spite of the evil in any one of it's members... even the pope. It is possible and necessary to adhere to the Church and the authority of it's head, even if not to the errors that same man may spout 24/7 (were that the case) otherwise. Such a man still marks clearly the place where the authority of Christ upon earth really lies, whether or not he chooses to exercise it or to live Christ's religion very well himself. And if we declare that this man or that man in the line of Catholic popes "is not the pope" then there is no safe or sound guarantee of ever again finding who really is, or what the truth really is. Foundation of the Church upon the personal judgment of the sanctity or dogmatic soundness of the Vicar of Christ, is a foundation upon quicksand. God in His wisdom, however, founded a Church that is absolutely and always visible... a city on a mountain that cannot be hid. Outside of it all is darkness and confusion, and it would be insanity to suppose that the anti-popes of today will carry on the infallibility of Christ given to His chosen Vicar alone, which they proposed to usurp.

God is almighty, and His Church invincible. For those who truly believe that, there is no need to depart from it for anything.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 21, 2008, 11:21:02 AM
The v2 'church' is a schismatical, apostate anti-christ, anti-church headed by judeao-masonic anti-pope. There are liars and homos all over the place which have never been present until Spellman and john23 show up on the scene. The GWS was a walk in the park compared to the present unsolvabe choas.

St Pius X was extremely emabarassed when Hertzel insisted on a meeting to discuss poss Vatican support for an Israeli state. Such support could never be given and such support of the v2 anti-church falls in the same catagory.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 21, 2008, 12:01:52 PM
Classicom says we are not suppose to follow diabolical doctrines even if proclaimed by an angel. First of all this is jibberish because it is impossible for an angel to proclaim a diabolical doctrine( a fallen angel maybe).  And then Classicom goes on to attack the very infallibility that defines what is and isn't a diabolical doctrine and how we are suppose to tell the difference(since this is something outside the perview a a layman)

The infallible definition of a Roman Catholic has been proclaimed in the Constitution of the the Vatican Council. This is the Nicene Creed as it has developed over time and in response to the need for further definition due to attacks by heretics. Anything or anyone who even doubts one word of the document is committing a heresy.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 21, 2008, 08:50:27 PM
Outside the church headed by "Pope Benedict XVI" all is confusion and darkness?

Ouside of that so-called church, comparatively speaking, all is the Beatific Vision.

*

Anyone who is familiar with Catholic history, in particular the history of common Catholic notions about and attitude towards the papacy, knows that the it is indeed incumbent upon Catholics to go along inside and out with all that a pope says as pope.

The foundational texts of the New Pentecost were not notes taken at a meeting of progressives in a Travestere trattoria.

They pertain to the Ordinary Magisterium and (if you buy into Vatican II and the Vatican II popes at all) come with the blessing and guarantee of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

What mainline moderate Traditionalists do is pluck out of thin air an attitude towards the papacy which is completely out of contact with reality.

One simply does not say, "Oh, well. Sometimes the pope speaks the Truth and then you listen to him. Sometimes he is trying to lead you astray and you ignore him."

That's "lunacy."

Even Traditonalists who reject the sedevacantist explantion should abhor this attempt to make papal orthodoxy kind of like icing on the cake which may or may not ne there, which you have no right to expect.

*

The fallacy of attributing to sedevacantists the idiocy of demanding that all popes be impeccable has been skewered and burnt to a crisp elsewhere in this latest batch of sedevacantist threads.

Everyone here knows that it is grossly untruthful to bring the notion of papal sinlessness into this discussion.

We are not dealing with childish expectations of sinless popes.

We are dealing with reasonable expectations that popes not be Modernists and Liberals and Masons and Revolutionaries and false teachers and false prophets and indifferentist beatifiers and Mass destroyers and soul dechristianizers and Antichrists.

We are dealing with the PARTICULAR sin of so-called popes trying to destroy the Faith and subvert the Kingdom of Christ.

Pope John the Ripper stuffing the ladies behind Baroque sepulchres in St Peter's? No problem there. Not as regards his popehood. A bit of a problem for the Italian police and the basilica janitors.

Let's keep this discussion honest.

We are not bound to say that anyone who claims to be the pope is the pope.

We are not bound to say that anyone who seems to have been duly elected pope is the pope.

The teaching of the Catholic Church points in the opposite direction.

Some Traditionalists are hopelessly fixed in the delusion that sedevacantists invented the theories that they apply to the Vatican II church top leadership.

They speak and act as though the proposition, "Josef Ratzinger is the pope" is certain in the way the proposition, "Christ rose from the dead on the third day" is certain.

There is ALWAYS the possibility that a case could be made that any given supposed pope is no pope at all.

So it is simply untruthful to assert that "We must be believe that the pope is the pope."

The question should be, "Has he really lost his office because he is a heretic?" Or "Did he never gain that office because he was a heretic before he traded in his red skullcap for a white one?"

Sedevacantists do not always carry the field when those kinds of questions are asked. Many of them do not realize that heresy is only one kind of doctrinal error.

*

My IQ is 149.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 21, 2008, 09:24:25 PM
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

Galatians 1: 8

St Paul was speaking of erring angels for rhetorical effect. We could assume that the poster here was doing the same.

But speaking of anathema, one thing you really don't want to do is come anywhere near the one hurled by the Vatican Council against those who deny or doubt its infallibility pronouncement.

I don't think that Pope Pius IX thought like our globalist elite masters. I can't imagine why someone would suggest that he did.

I, for one, don't "get it." I don't get how anything Pope Pius IX said or did militated against the interests of Christ and served the turn of the dark masters of the earth.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 21, 2008, 10:37:51 PM
Cletus-- a while back you mentioned that you didn't think Card Siri was actually elected. If john23 is off your list of Popes are we to assume you believe him to be an anti-pope because i don't think you have actually said that. And if you consider him to be an anti-pope would it be because his election was fraudulent or his apostacy and blasphemy or both? If his election was illegitimate then whom do you think was actually elected?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 21, 2008, 10:55:15 PM
My phrasing of the angels metaphor I think is as a parallel to who may deserve the appellation of anti-pope--by their fruits you shall know them. One of these days I am going to read the new teatament all the way through.  It doesn't seem as if Classicom understands that there is a fallen nature to mankind--a communist philosophy.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 21, 2008, 11:10:10 PM
And to further illustrate the importance of the above Infallible document consider that the first thing a newly elected Pope does after donning whatever vestments necessary is to swear an oath to keep the Deposit Of Faith(sum of all the Infallibly Defined articles of Faith) fully intact until he dies.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 22, 2008, 02:49:16 AM
Quote from: roscoe
Cletus-- a while back you mentioned that you didn't think Card Siri was actually elected. If john23 is off your list of Popes are we to assume you believe him to be an anti-pope because i don't think you have actually said that. And if you consider him to be an anti-pope would it be because his election was fraudulent or his apostacy and blasphemy or both? If his election was illegitimate then whom do you think was actually elected?


I once read an essay by a British sedevacantist who made what struck me as a good case for calling the Vatican II top leadership non-popes instead of antipopes.

I think that Siri might have been elected. I don't think that he was ever pope. But what can anyone really know about that whole Agatha Christie farrago. THE CLUE OF THE WHITE SMOKE THAT WAS AND WAS NOT. I don't care much about the whole thing.

I think that the main thing about John XXIII was that he was a false prophet and the man who all but destroyed the Kingdom of Heaven on earth with his ungodly Liberalism. He made Rome the center of an unholy cult.  Ah, but is a false gospel necessarily formally heretical? Ah, but... Ah, but...

I'm just not into treating the spiritual blasting of the human race as though it were a rectory parlor game of skill and daring.

In any case, with all subsequent "popes" of Rome the evidence of formal heresy is piled high. Higher than the mountains of unanswered letters in the Vatican from anguished parents who respectfully and humbly complain about the way in which the Visible Successors of the Apostles (hallelujah, brother- we got Visibility!) debauch their children in the name of the Holy Spirit, the debauching being strictly mandatory.

The Vatican II church is the Kingdom of Hell on earth. John XXIII created it. The gates of Heaven will prevail against it. But once it has, the cosmos will not be such that the Eternal Word network will be reporting on the gladsome event... Or that a supposed Pope of Rome will be fretting over possible blows to the hermeneutic of continuity with Vatican II...

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on August 22, 2008, 02:56:26 AM
Quote from: roscoe
My phrasing of the angels metaphor I think is as a parallel to who may deserve the appellation of anti-pope--by their fruits you shall know them. One of these days I am going to read the new teatament all the way through.  It doesn't seem as if Classicom understands that there is a fallen nature to mankind--a communist philosophy.


What a great idea. Reading the New Testament through, I mean. The impressions you get are not always the stuff of holy raptures, though. What struck me most about the Synoptic Gospels when I read them straight through is how often the Divine Master, Who had not where to lay His head, talked about MONEY!

ON the other hand I was struck by the prominence of the whole "Sabbath breaking" theme in all four Gospels.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 22, 2008, 04:53:52 PM
I would like to ask Dulcamera the same question that has been asked(and so far not answered) of MS. Do you think there is such a thing as an anti-pope(?) and if so could you give us a couple examples of who you would consider one.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on August 22, 2008, 05:26:53 PM
And the question is also for anyone else who is not a 'sede'. Do you believe there is such a thing as an anti-pope(?) and if so could you give us a couple examples of such? Chant? Adesto? Happywife? Classicom? KP?  
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on August 31, 2008, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: ChantCd
...As a busy family man, I have more important PRACTICAL things to worry about in my life.


Like discussing 'home alone'-rs/ism?

Quote
I used to spend more time arguing such issues, but now I see that it's hard enough to become a saint without taking on the Church's problems as well. Perhaps single people have the time for it -- I just know that I don't.


Home alone-rs/ism is hardly more germane to your spiritual progress, etc., than dealing with the paramount issue raised within this thread.  IMO, it is a question of choosing battles.  Fair enough, as we all must do so in life.  Wisely, most 'full-seaters' stay away from this discussion for one simple reason - they do not have a decent answer.  God speed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on August 31, 2008, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: Dulcamara
...This whole mess should only be a problem if you believe that Catholics must slavishly follow every word that the pope utters, whatever it is. Which any Catholic educated in the matter knows is NOT true, and which is a totally false idea of infallibility...


Hear this: WE AGREE ON THE POINT IN BOLD.

Although you clearly are attached to this straw man, repeating this nonsense ENDLESSLY will not make it applicable to anyone living.  NO ONE thinks as you seem to believe - and the length of your posts, nor the repetition of them, will make it so.  I imagine you do not yet grasp this, perhaps in all innocence, but you have systematically avoided answering the actual question.  God speed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 01, 2008, 09:36:41 AM
So we don't have to "slavishly follow" the words of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

But if we choose to reject them we have to do so respectfully and self-doubtfully because he is, after all, the Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Why expose one's soul to mortal danger by paying any mind to the "Roman antichrist" at all? Why put others in PRACTICAL danger by demanding that they do so?

Mainline Traditionalism puts souls into all sorts of complex mystical and theological and moral relationships with evils that should be SIMPLY avoided.

Also, there is always a taboo bugaboo in the Pope-accepting-but-resisting room. It is off-handedly and shamed-facedly claimed that every now and then the likes of Benedixt XVI says something that we MUST heed.

Help in ascertaining what on earth that ever could be is never forthcoming. "I liked something he said once on youth trusting Christ," doesn't cut it.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 01, 2008, 09:46:45 AM
The "Church's" problems are very much the personal problems of most Traditionalists.

Before Vatican II your simple work-a-day Catholic life went hand in hand with your simple Average American life.

No moving all over the country all the time to increase Sacramental opportunities.

No total breakdowns of family relationships due to one Thanksgiving argument to many over the REAL motives of Cardinal Pizzalardo in playing nicey-nicey with His Grace.

No visits from the FBI because I once sold a book to a devout Catholic whose devout Catholicism led him to try to kill the putative pope.

In any case, we ARE the Church. Its problems are ours and vice versa.

To raise your kids decently (an eminently PRACTICAL business) you have to avoid the catechetical hellholles of what passes for the Catholic Church of Rome in this world.

The issues discussed on this message board very much pertain to the practical business of seeking the good and the true and the safer in this world.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: MaterDominici on September 01, 2008, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: ChantCd
...As a busy family man, I have more important PRACTICAL things to worry about in my life.


Like discussing 'home alone'-rs/ism?

Quote
I used to spend more time arguing such issues, but now I see that it's hard enough to become a saint without taking on the Church's problems as well. Perhaps single people have the time for it -- I just know that I don't.


Home alone-rs/ism is hardly more germane to your spiritual progress, etc., than dealing with the paramount issue raised within this thread.  IMO, it is a question of choosing battles.  Fair enough, as we all must do so in life.  Wisely, most 'full-seaters' stay away from this discussion for one simple reason - they do not have a decent answer.  God speed.


I think you read his posts thoroughly enough to know he didn't spend much time on that one, either.  :smirk:
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 01, 2008, 08:29:00 PM
I just wanted to add that I tried the home alone method for about a month . "Pope" Ratzinger's visit to the USA made me want to barf. It took a non Catholic from India to convince me that a flawed institution like the SSPX is better than nothing at all. I just have to wise up and keep my mouth so that some semblance of unity can be preserved.

Like I said before, you would be put in jail if you sold a car without brakes or warning lights. The anti church of today is too risky for anyone's soul. This is a special time where you have to use the critical thinking and spiritual discernment God has given you. If the bus driver gets drunk, its ok to push him on the floor and take the wheel. Today's traditionalists would rather let the bus crash rather than make an original move. People like to beat you over the head with the "infallible" stick, or say that your spirit of disunity can only be diabolical. I say unity with diabolical beliefs is not a good thing. Where was the spirit of unity when the money changers were driven out of the temple.? Certain behavior fits certain situations. A Good soldier will do what is necessary. A mutiny is the correct answer after finding out the captain is an enemy agent. You make a bad call, you pay the price.

As far as the sheep and shepherd symbolism goes, if you can understand that the sheep are being led astray, that qualifies you as a potential shepherd. If the sheep follow your voice, than there is a good chance that Jesus Christ has influenced your voice to say the correct words. Maybe that is final lesson for Catholics. Instead of some sort of sociology course, Christianity needs the Spirit of God rather than just blind following of a catechism. no matter how good the catechism may be.

So be of good cheer. We have a shipwreck on our hands, but there will be a few survivors. Don't make the swim to shore any harder than need be. (quit hitting me with that infallible oar!)

----------------------------------------------

  I am sure that will offend a few here. Its the best that this very flawed writer can understand. Just to bolster my opinion on Mr. Infallible , Pope Pius IX , I just read that he came from a very well to do (read elitist) family. (Mazeratti?) With the loss of the Papal states, He had to deal with the question of temporal power vs. spiritual power. An intersting tidbit after his death, his body was moved to a new resting place but an angry crowd of Romans attempted to throw his body into the Tiber. I wonder what that was all about.  

     I am not quite the anarchist you think I am. I have to admit I was wrong in the 60s when I believed pseudo scientist Paul Erlich rather than the Pope in regards to birth control. The Catholic Church has the only true doctrine on salvation.  The rambling point is that there are vital Catholic truths that need to be preserved. If you love the truth, I think that you have to admit there is a lot of housecleaning that needs to be done.  The Day of the Lord seems to be the only remedy to accomplish that task.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 01, 2008, 08:39:28 PM
Here is what it is all about--A group of Communist Revolutionary thugs attempted to desecrate the relics of the saintly Pope Pius IX.

Without the Infallible Constitution of Holy Church there is nothing but anarchy. And you might consider getting the Popes name correct--Mastai-Ferretti.

If you are serious I would recommend Hales biography of Pio Nono and Fr Cuthbert-Butlers book on the Vatican Council
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 02, 2008, 12:14:39 AM
The idea is that the Church of Christ is a supernatural institution with a supernatural principle of unity.

There should be no question of fallible human beings "keeping up a semblance of unity."

What's wanted is the real thing. Not a semblance. And the real thing cannot be faked just by following the right rubrics with your mystic incantations.

To a great extent Catholic reaction to Vatican II has been a matter of false, utterly unspiritual folk wisdom and not of doctrine or faith or piety. That's why we hear so-called Novus Ordo conservatives compare Traditionalist separatists to rats leaving a sinking ship. Or, we hear more generic good Catholic soldiers say that the Church's dirty laundry should not be aired in public, and that proper Catholic Team Spirit demands that we all smile along with out Head Guy in Rome and say that the New Pentecost is a roaring success.

The rules that govern the camaraderie of a frat house should not be applied to the Church of God.

You are bound to find more than "some" Catholics at a Traditional message board who will be offended by Pope Pius IX's being referred to as "Mr Infallible."

There is nothing sinister about a pope's having come from the upper class.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 02, 2008, 09:21:05 AM
Quote from: MaterDominici
I think you read his posts thoroughly enough to know he didn't spend much time on that one, either.  :smirk:


Righto, good lady! :cowboy:  God be with you.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 03, 2008, 07:47:37 AM
From Cletus

You are bound to find more than "some" Catholics at a Traditional message board who will be offended by Pope Pius IX's being referred to as "Mr Infallible."

------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that one right Cletus.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01EED71030F93BA15755C0A9669C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Italian Jews Denounce Vatican's Decision to Beatify Pius IX

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: June 28, 2000

To Vatican historians, Pius IX was the pope who locked papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary into church doctrine.

But to Italian Jews, Pius IX was the pope who in 1858 abducted 6-year-old Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish parents in Bologna, then a papal state, and raised him in Rome as a Catholic -- an act that was the Elian Gonzalez case of its era and became an international cause celebre.

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that Italian Jews are in a fury over the Vatican's decision to beatify Pius IX in September. Beatification is the next to last step to sainthood.

At a symposium on Pius IX held today in Rome, Amos Luzzatto, president of the Union of the Italian Jewish Communities, said, ''The Mortara case is a wound in the body and spirit of Italian Jews that has yet to be healed.''

The cause of Pius IX is a fainter echo of the controversy over the Vatican's effort to put Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not speaking out forcefully enough about the Holocaust during World War II, on the path to sainthood. As with that issue, the cause of Pius IX is a battle of irreconcilably clashing memories. To Vatican officials Pius IX was a martyr to 19th-century anticlericism who is being unfairly judged by contemporary mores.

But to many Jews he symbolizes the open anti-Semitism of the Roman Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65.

Pope John Paul II, who in May prayed at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, has made reconciliation with Jews a hallmark of his papacy. For many Jews the beatification of Pius IX represents a baffling step backward. After lobbying by Jewish groups worldwide, the Vatican quietly put aside plans to beatify Pius XII this year alongside Pope John XXIII, who is revered by Catholics and Jews alike as the pope who ushered in the reforms and interfaith reconciliation of the Second Vatican Council.

Instead, in February the Vatican announced the beatification of Pius IX, who ordered the First Vatican Council in 1869. His beatification process was begun in 1907 and preparation was completed in 1984, but it was put on hold because the Vatican felt that he could be seen as a symbol of opposition to Italian unity.

Msgr. Carlos Liberati, the Vatican official overseeing the cause of Pius IX, denied that the 19th-century pope's beatification had been revived to provide political balance to John XXIII, a pope championed by liberal Catholics.

''The church does not use scales like a pharmacist or a goldsmith,'' Monsignor Liberati said. The two popes, he said, ''represent different modes of sanctity.''

But Pius IX is certainly a conservative's pope. His 32-year-reign is the longest in the church's history, and in some ways it was the last of a vanished world order.

The papacy was stripped of its temporal powers, states and most of its property in 1870 under the Risorgimento, the 19th-century movement that united Italy from a quilt of tiny kingdoms, republics and foreign-occupied territories. Pius IX, who died in 1878, spent his last years a prisoner behind Vatican walls, reviled by Italian nationalists.

His reign began in 1846 on a more progressive note. One month into his papacy, he declared an amnesty for political prisoners. In 1848 he ordered that the gates to the Jewish ghetto in Rome be knocked down.

But Europe at that time was swept by revolutionary movements that threatened the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Pius IX wrote his first encyclical in 1846, condemning Freemasonry and communism.

It was the Mortara case of 1858 that most marked his papacy outside the church. On June 23, papal guards arrived at the home of the Mortara family and took away Edgardo, one of their eight children. The parents bitterly objected, but the church contended that an illiterate Catholic servant had secretly baptized Edgardo when he was gravely ill.

Canon law at that time required the church to take religious charge of any person baptized in the Catholic faith, regardless of the parents' wishes.

The boy was taken to a Catholic boarding school in Rome and was adopted by Pius IX, who adamantly refused to return him to his family, despite a fervent international campaign.

David I. Kertzer, who wrote a book in 1997 about the scandal, ''The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara'' (Knopf), argued that the backlash against Pius IX's act was a critical element in the collapse of support for papal rule. The boy, who entered a seminary at age 13, became a Catholic priest, and he died in Belgium in 1940.

''I have a direct knowledge of Pius IX's nefariousness,'' said Elena Mortara, a professor of American literature at the University of Rome and a great-granddaughter of one of Edgardo's sisters. ''It's not just about Edgardo. It's a question of the objective situation of depriving Jews of their civil rights in Rome. That in itself is serious enough to stop this beatification.''

Monsignor Liberati said that Pius IX had merely followed church doctrine of his time and that the event had been used by 19th-century Masons and nationalists to discredit the church.

''If we focus on this minor fact, we cannot understand this great pope,'' he said. ''The church has tried everything to improve relations with the Jews. But they don't forgive us the slightest thing.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Remember Pius IX's
      example being used by the New World Order as they
      take custody of Christian children and adopt them into an
      antichrist society.



Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 03, 2008, 10:42:18 AM
One of the reasons why Catholics should read the Gospels frequently, and not be content with telling their beads and memorizing their catechism, is that only from familiarity with the Gospels does one get to know Jesus as He truly was as opposed to the way the Modern World would have Him.

There is a seemingly "ruthless" quality to Him.

"Leave the dead to bury their dead."

"Force them to come to My feast."

"Leave wife and children..."

Our Catholic Sense should be supernatural. It should be Holy. It should not be a matter of a gut attachment to a certain institution with neat rituals to which we are attached for old times' sake or out of superstitious fear of the Guy Upstairs.

When we deal with Supreme Pontiffs in Church History we are on sacred ground. We can't be bad mouthing them in all directions, shooting from the hip.

In the Mortara case, there might be a thousand "human" details about which we more enlightened and humanistic Twenty First century folk could be rightly critical. One doubts that a bunch of nineteenth century Italians were as considerate towards the Jewish people involved as they might well have been. But it is wrong for any Catholic to give the impression that it's a given that the behavior of Pope Pius IX in the sad and delicate matter was improper, much less unchristian or antichristian.

Christ comes first. Christ is the King. Christ rules. Our thoughts about Him and His way have to be shaped by supernatural Catholic Faith.

Jesus of Nazareth, albeit parabolically, spoke what seems to be relish about having the enemies of God slain in front of Him.

I still think that Jesus is very different from Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.

Pope Pius IX is very different from the Masonic and Illuminati and One World order elite.

It is Of Faith that Christ gave the sword of government to His Church.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 01:10:39 PM
Children of the 21st century being adapted to anti-christ society is the complete opposite of Pius IX attempting to convert the world to christianity. Only a classic communist would attempt to spin the Mortara case into a concatenation of events that accuses a great Pope of nefarious activity.

I would suggest actually reading mr Kertzers very informative books. Edgardo(later Fr) Mortara was never forced to do anything against his will and in fact refused to go back to his own anti-christ family by choice.

He later described his own brother as an assassin of Christ when the latter took part in the Italian occupation of Rome.

Edgardo's father was later involved in the murder of a christian woman.

Looks like mr classicom(like mr MS) needs to get his facts in order.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 01:33:00 PM
Mr Kertzers other books(Popes Against the Jews and Prisoner Of The Vatican) are also of interest. He is the type of Judaic who does not reject the Roman Church out of malice but soley out of ignorance. Because of this he actually tends to support Catholic thinking without even knowing what he is doing. He also supplies a spendid refutation to the charge that Cardinal Rampolla was a 'secret occult mason and in the OTO'.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 06:24:43 PM
It is also important to note that Edgardo was almost 7 yrs old(the age of consent) when rescued by the Pope. By the time he had to make up his mind on what to do he WAS of the age of consent. Only through jewish eyes can the Vatican be accused of impropriety in this case. The child chose of his own free will to be a Catholic.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 03, 2008, 06:48:37 PM
Quote from: roscoe
He is the type of Judaic who does not reject the Roman Church out of malice but solely out of ignorance.


Unless he was raised in a cave, and continued there whilst writing and publishing, it is likely there was at least a marginal influence of prejudicial sentiment involved.  While this might not be actual malice, it is not the same as ignorance, either.  God speed.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 03, 2008, 06:54:10 PM
Not through only Jewish eyes. Through the eyes of every group of people in the world, including Catholics. Though maybe some Shiite Mohammedans would be able to appreciate the principle involved.

Maybe it's a bit much to speak about the "free will" of a seven year old. Or of someone who is still six years old "making up his mind" to be a Roman Catholic over the objections of his parents.

We don't have to be inhuman and pretend that it produces in us no pang of sympathy when we read that soldiers showed up at the door of a family's home and whisked away their little boy for reasons the family the could not comprehend. The whole convoluted affair was a human tragedy.

The history of the Catholic Church is not such that we may safely presume that the Mortara case was well handled on the Catholic side.

I presume the opposite. That the Catholics involved (keeping His Holiness apart) behaved like a bunch of heartless creeps. Maybe I would be pleasantly surprised if I studied the case and found that this presumption is groundless. Either way, the Catholic principle holds. Little Edgaro had to be led in the way of salvation once he got started up in it in his freakish way.





Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 07:07:28 PM
Cletus--Have you read the book? I believe the case was handled correctly by the Church and you cannot seperate the Pope from the actions of everyone else because it was Pius who who ordered the child resued.

The Christian faith was explained to the boy and it was his own free will to stay with the Pope--period. How this can be described as a tragedy is beyond me.

It is my recommendation that all read mr Kertzers books. His father was a friend of rabbi Zoli's and defended him against other judaics when Zolli converted to Catholicism. The twist here is that I suspect Zolli to have been a Marrano.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 03, 2008, 07:45:28 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: roscoe
He is the type of Judaic who does not reject the Roman Church out of malice but solely out of ignorance.


Unless he was raised in a cave, and continued there whilst writing and publishing, it is likely there was at least a marginal influence of prejudicial sentiment involved.  While this might not be actual malice, it is not the same as ignorance, either.  God speed.


"Marginal" might be putting it too kindly. And the malice can be rank if there is a question of directly denying Christ or ever finding fault with Catholic doctrine and morality.

Yes. The "ignorance" excuse is wearing thin.

But to address the part about this one man's simply rejecting the Roman church. About not being a member of the Roman church? Not being a member of the Catholic Club?

What on earth is wrong about rejecting the Roman church?

The Jewish guy is supposed to know how to separate Eternal Holy Rome from the Antichrist Rome of today which has lost the Faith? When not a Catholic alive can do so?

The point is that the Jewish guy is right to reject the Roman church.

Rejecting the Roman church is an act of purest religion.

But there is the Church of the Ages. True. What signs does that Church show forth to souls today? What exactly would be the Motives of Credibility which we would propose to Jews today where conversion to the True Church is concerned? You're only as good as your latest supernaturally cogent display of Unity and Holiness and Catholicism.

The Roman church of our times is a perpetual prodigy of unholy chaos. (But it's all too catholic. You can't get far enough away from it on the face of the earth. If you go to the deepest, darkest jungle the "pope" will be there encouraging liturgical abuses involving such public indecency as one might expect in the jungle.)

The burden is on Catholics to say that they mean the abstract Church of the Ages when they speak TODAY of the Roman church.

We should be horrified at the prospect of our misleading souls into imagining that the Roman church of TODAY is the Church of Christ.

Of course, everyone is obliged to work out some sort of crisis, emergency relationship to the Church of the Ages which God in His mercy might accept as Church membership.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 03, 2008, 08:29:01 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Cletus--Have you read the book? I believe the case was handled correctly by the Church and you cannot seperate the Pope from the actions of everyone else because it was Pius who who ordered the child resued.

The Christian faith was explained to the boy and it was his own free will to stay with the Pope--period. How this can be described as a tragedy is beyond me.

It is my recommendation that all read mr Kertzers books. His father was a friend of rabbi Zoli's and defended him against other judaics when Zolli converted to Catholicism. The twist here is that I suspect Zolli to have been a Marrano.


I don't remember if I read a book on this subject. I think I did. It's hard to keep track.

I'm using the word tragedy in a loose, old softie sense. There was obviously a lot of heartbreak involved on all sides.

I agree that the case was handled properly as to the bottom line. What I object to is bringing in dubious statements about infantile theologizing and subsequent bloody murder in order to demonize the Jewish side and attribute an unlikely purity to the Catholic side.

Did the Lord Pope's trusty knights come a calling at a decent hour? Did they brandish swords at screaming brothers and sisters?

Do we know? Do we care?

Even Jewish mothers have the right to want to be with their kids. I don't see the point in showing a dogmatic callousness towards a mother's anguish. The general tragedy is the unbelief of the Jewish people. And whose fault is that? JUST the Jews'? I doubt it.

I hope that no one is going to start putting Signor Mortara's name up there with the Duke of Clarence's on the Jack the Ripper suspect short list.

What I would expect if I were to read about this case is to find some enterprising cardinal toting the kid around Italy giving speeches against Liberalism, with the cardinal's ambitious brother, in the role of agent and promoter, realizing a tidy little profit from the whole deal.

Maybe it seems perverse to say that I don't know what the case was, but presuppose the worst, and would be happy to be shown otherwise. I would say that someone who comes out with something like that, someone who is that confident about his ability to toss out a likely "mutatis mutandis", (the way it was with A was probably the way it was with B and C and D and E etc...) had better have a wide experience with delving into the nitty-gritty of Church History. I think that I do: It has given me what I consider a holy cynicism about the "human side of the Church."

Generally, the behavior of Catholic clerics and prelates in this world has stunk. Notably.

That's Wisdom of the Saints 101.

The general orders of superiors are one thing. The way in which their flunkeys execute them are often very much another.



Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 08:39:41 PM
It would be a unique experience if a couple of souls on this forum would actually read Mr Kertzers books. A most beneficial discussion could then be had. Kertzer does not understand the significance of the history that he has reported( it has everything to do with seperating the v2 cult from the true Roman Catholic Church) It has to be asked why Catholic authors since the time of Benedict 15 are timid when writing about the 19th century Church. I had to find out from mr Kertzer that Card Rampolla was no friend of the judaics.

Judging from Mr's Dimomd, Vennari and Hiembichner( all who claim to be 'catholics', one would think Cardinal Rampolla( and by inference Leo XIII, Pius X and Cardinal Raphael) was complicit in a satanic cult trying to infiltrate and destroy Holy Church.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 09:09:29 PM
The names of Msg Jouin and Mrs Martinez have to be added to those confused over the Card Rampolla case--although some of the v2ers are more than likely a little more complicit than simply being confused.

And the names of the Catholic authors who do understand the Card Rampolla case have to be noted; Francis McNutt, Francis Sugrue and Robert Sencourt.

Cletus--there were never any heavy handed tactics involved in taking the child. Edgardo's mother did indeed want to be with her son but the child made the decision on his own when he was of the age of consent. He could have returned to his family at any time but never did.

Your statement about expecting to find 'some enterprising cardinal toting the child around giving speeches on liberalism' is based on speculation and I do not agree with your unqualified statement that the behaviour of Catholic clerics in this world has stunk notably; are you talking about the entire last 2000 yrs?
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 03, 2008, 09:24:17 PM
While reading through Elizabeth Sparrow's book Secret Service( British Agents In France 1792-1815[ which cost a healthy $170]) I found that Alexis De Toqueville began a study of French clerics during the Revolution with an extreme prejudice against them but ended with nothing but admiration for the great majority. It was only a few Jansenists that sold out the Church.

And in fact, the dispute over the Papal Bull Unigenitus(proscribing Jansenism) was what lead the Paris parliament to USURP POWER FROM LOUIS XV in the 1750's. This, along with the proscription of the Jesuit order is really the start of the Revolution.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 03, 2008, 11:38:46 PM
If little Edgaro was spirited off with all due decorum and consideration I'm glad to hear it.

You said almost seven.

Six is not the "age of consent."

It's a commonplace in all kinds of Catholic writing over the centuries that "most priests and bishops lose their souls." (Of course, according to a related commonplace most people in general lose their souls.)

I concede that it may be unwise and in bad taste to invent a colorful scenario of misbehavior in the Mortara case when I have no reason to believe that there was any.

What makes me think that the above is a legitimate rhetorical exercise is that I am confessing my ignorance of the details of this particular case and saying that no matter WHAT they were Pope Pius IX cannot be faulted for the bottom line of what he did in the case. He had the Christian child raised by Christians.

If I concede to the critics of Pope Pius IX that the worst of what they say about the Mortara case may be true, and yet insist on the Catholic principle involved, it's a way of cutting to the chase and getting to the eternal essentials.

What is the worst that they say? It's not what they think it is. If what they are saying is that the pope saw that a baptized Jewish child was raised by Catholics, they are not saying anything bad at all.

My sarcastic statements about what this or that cardinal may have done in the Mortara case are not based on pure speculation. Using the Church to gain money and power for one's family is as commonly Catholic among clerical muckety-mucks as holy water. I would not be rash and claim that it was ever as common as clerical concubinage.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 04, 2008, 04:55:27 AM
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 04, 2008, 09:56:59 AM
What's this all about now?

Biden was bad on Iraq. He's much better now.

So what?

How does mixing his badness on Iraq with the Catholic Church's imagined badness on infallibility and the temporal sword in the 19th century make any sense?

Seriously and with all respect, I strongly recommend a return to the "Home Alone method." Work and family obligations aside, not a second should be wasted away from home on activities that do not relate directly to developing some kind of Catholic Sense from reading old Catholic books.

The autobiography of St Anthony Mary Claret would be good start.

And just for the record, Biden's statements about Catholicism are stupid and hypocritical and disgustingly carnal. What a low-minded man.

There is no abuse of power more outrageous than the general abuse that led to Vatican II and sustains the New Pentecost. (Not that the villains involved have any real power in my "sedevacantist" book.)

Modernist and Liberal priests and prelates want people to question God. Why? Because, being Men of Sin, they give THEMSELVES out as God. They cannot bear even the "accent of reproof." God is a rival. They want to dissolve His power base in this world. That is, people of faith.

"You're just an ignorant, untrained layman! You have no right to an opinion! Hans Kung is a great scholar! He knows better!"

No, the Vatican II cult does not encourage questioning in general. It encourages only apostasy. It is a just the main hideous head on the ten-headed Beast of wicked totalitarianism.

How does Biden stack up on Life issues? A little worse than Pope Pius IX did, maybe?

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 04, 2008, 12:35:38 PM
Cletus Quote

"You're just an ignorant, untrained layman! You have no right to an opinion!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

   But at least I know you don't substitute pennies for fuses in the fuse box. You might get away with it for a number of years, but when you have a problem, there is no protection from a catastrophic fire. With this notion of Infallibility, you don't need prophets anymore. How can a prophet overturn the notion of infallibility? So when you circumvent the prophet's role, then the only alternative is the Day of the Lord. As far as I remember, that is supposed to be a big fire.

    The point I was trying illustrate about Biden, is that when the Church acts more like a political structure rather than spiritual, then people are going to disregard the Church's guidance and use their street sense (worldly based). To me that is the tragedy.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 04, 2008, 02:53:48 PM
That was not a Cletus quote. That was Cletus epitomizing the way in which Novus Ordo clerics put down laymen who in any way resist the Novus Ordo.

The reason why I brought up the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Novus Ordo tyrants is that the ungodly comments of the Bad Novus Ordo Catholic Biden are being accorded approval here in an odd, back door way.

Biden certainly does not share the ecclesiological views of "Mr. Infallible."

So in that respect is Biden a better Catholic than Pius IX?

The Church of Christ offered Catholic souls a lot more than worldly politics in Biden's formative years, the 1940s and 1950s. That's not what people tuned in to Fulton J Sheen for.

We have to try to be clear on what we believe and what our gripes are and with whom we have those gripes. We can't just be confused and unhappy as Catholics and start lashing out in all directions. Sooner rather than later, the Father of Lies directs us in ONE direction. And then we declare open season on Pius IX and start finding nice things to say about Hans Kung, insofar as Hans Kung does not share this or that theological defect of Pius IX.

Could there be ways in which certain theological and pious trends in, say, the Counter-Reformation period ironically lent themselves to the evil doings of the false Vatican Council of the early 1960s?

I believe that that's exactly what happened. A certain "prophetic" sense was excommunicated from the Church in favor of a prissy, fussy, Baroquely unctious fear of "scandal", of rocking the official Catholic boat.

This is how the unorthodox likes of Cardinal Newman were allowed to become Big Catholic Noises as the orthodox sat on their hands. Newman made a mockery of Biblical Inerrancy. His clerical Catholic opponents  squawked a bit and then backed down. Under pressure from their superiors, no doubt. Criticizing a bona fide Catholic big shot such as Newman was bad for Catholic business. Dirty politics have always been a big part of how the Catholic Church operates even insofar as doctrine and the salvation of souls are concerned, "humanly speaking". Absolutely.

It is sickening to compare what such "prophets" as Saint Bridget of Sweden and Saint Bernard said and did in the case of corrupt Churchmen to what even some of the greatest saints of the fussy, old maidish post-Trent era said and did.

But Jesus Christ Almighty was wrong to make His Vicar infallible because...? Because....? Because....?

It's mere "street sense" to view the Dogma of Infallibility in terms of Church politics.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 04, 2008, 03:15:52 PM
Pope Pius IX(mr Infallible)  was highly suspicious of Newman and would not hear of him being a Cardinal. It is really the only mistake I can find by Leo XIII when he was cajoled for political purposes into doing just that.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 08, 2008, 03:58:40 PM
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 08, 2008, 04:23:09 PM
If you're a Catholic, you believe that the fact of Papal Infallibility goes back to the personal will of Jesus Christ as regards the nature of the Petrine office and ministry.

So it's not just a question of the dogma as coming from Pius IX.

It's also a question of the Idea of Peter as coming from the Sacred Head.

You have to assent to the dogma as proposed by the Church.

Are you allowed to have or express regrets that the dogma was ever defined?

I think that I am safe in saying that Christ will be none too pleased upon His return with those whom He finds doing either.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 08, 2008, 04:49:04 PM
There is no such thing as a "prophetic" role in the official Catholic scheme of things.

There are Supreme Pontiffs. There are defined dogmas. There are canonized saints. There are seven Sacraments. There is a body of theology from Doctors and Approved Authors about certain dread possibilities where the Roman Pontiff (or the semblance of one) is concerned.

There are no prophets.

Except for the prophets in the Old Testament and for the King and the Queen of Prophets.

Let's all put aside our various colorful quirks and kinks and shticks and admit to this simple Catholic fact.

Then, if we want to let loose for what we think good reason with our own personal theologies and apocalypses, let's do that. But let's be honest about it and make the distinction.

For example.

I find it useful to term St Bridget of Sweden ("This pope was a murderer of souls!") a prophet and, say, St Robert Bellarmine (the stupid laity are better off being misled by clerics than being left to their own devices) a Baroque fussbudget because there is something that I think needs to be said as mordantly and memorably as possible against a growing clericalism among Traditionalists whereby, for example, Catholic parents who write letters to their Modernist Yet Valid Local Ordinaries protesting the Satanistic debauching of their children are piously chided by fellow Traditionalists for lacking respect for the Cloth and the Crook.

Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 08, 2008, 05:43:57 PM
Leo XIII and St Pius X weren't the only Popes to have a prophetic vision of the Church being in mortal(v2) danger.

There was one Pius IX who insisted on the Infallible Constitution being defined so the faithful would have something to guide them when that mortal danger did occur(1958).

Without the Infallible Constitution of Holy Church THERE IS NO CHURCH.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 08, 2008, 06:09:47 PM
Could Classicom give us his source for the prophesies of Leo XIII and St Pius( not that I am doubting them).
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 08, 2008, 06:49:02 PM
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 10, 2008, 03:00:05 PM
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 10, 2008, 03:12:33 PM
Infallible Constitution of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6

One cannot even doubt one word of this Infallible document proclaimed under the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff( the first of whom received the Pallium directly from Jesus) without committing a heresy.

Possibly Classicom could inform us if he swears by this document and if not what is there specifically in the document that he finds objectionable.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 10, 2008, 04:36:13 PM
No, Pere Hyacinth certainly does not seem to be too keen on the dogma of papal infallibility.

The question then becomes: Who in Hell is Pere Hyacinth?

He was a French heretic who left the priesthood to shack up with some woman. The Little Flower offered her final Communion to effect his conversion. She uncharacteristically flopped this time out. With a vicious child killer she was a roaring success. I think that there's a lesson in that for all of us.

Then the question becomes: Why in the name of all that is holy should we quote Pere Loyson as though he were a Doctor or a Saint or a Catholic?

It is like shooting trout in a bucket to demonstrate that what really bugs the opponents of Papal Infallibility is the existence of God and the establishment by His Son of a Holy Church with authority to bind and loose.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 10, 2008, 05:29:22 PM
And as Catholics we are bound to accept every word of above Constitution.

If Classicom doesn't believe in the Constitution of Holy Church--which he has the right to do under the concept of free will, what exactly does he believe in? The Bible alone(Sola Scriptua)? we all should know by now that this is a heresy. Does he believe in the Talmud or the Koran?

Please enlighten us.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Classiccom on September 10, 2008, 08:21:39 PM
Check out this free book link. Loyson is Clint Eastwood on Catholic steroids. The Church has routinely chewed and spit out good people that tell the truth. They called Christ the devil, so Loyson is in good company. I hope Christ will give him a pardon for bucking the Pope and standing tall for what he perceived as the truth.  What have all the billion or so "Catholics" done about paganism as promoted at Assisi in 1986 and reaffirmed in 2007 by Pope Ratzinger?  Do you really believe cowardice will be rewarded by a place in Heaven?

    It would be nice to send a copy of this link to all the victims of  church pedophilia. I think they would be comforted to know that that there were voices that  tried to clear up the insanity of forced celibacy. Another recent hero was Fr. Enrique Rueda , author of the Homosexual Network. His book in the early 1980's warned of the seminaries being infested with promiscuity, but he was treated as the enemy in the American Catholic Church. He wrote a column for the Wanderer for a number of years, but they have no idea of his where abouts today. There are many other examples, but we have a history of trashing a lot of good people.

    What about accountability of today's bishops and Pope?  When Delaware's own Joe Biden talks about public and private faith, why is he allowed to receive communion?. Why do  these bishops and Pope permit this public apostasy and yet people like Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX get excommunicated?


http://books.google.com/books?id=L4MXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=P%C3%A8re+Hyacinthe+sermon&source=web&ots=q_wcmzMbdi&sig=bUOqkcW6JgQRGzxySslbnq7ZLmU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA89,M1

My Last Will and Testament , by Hyacinthe Loyson (Pere Hyacinthe)

( excerpt from Religious Reform in France letter)

 No one can worthily uphold Catholic truth who has not first of all protested against those errors which have become interwoven in it and impoverish it. No one has the right of speaking in the name of the primitive Church which our creed calls "holy, Catholic and Apostolic", who has not energetically protested against all the superstition and fanaticism which have crept into the teaching of her ministers, or the observances of the faithful, through the fault of men and also through fault of the times.
-----------------------------------

excerpt from Letter of Cardinal Newman in 1870

 Let up be patient; the turn of things may not take place in our time; but there will be surely sooner or later, and energetic and stern nemesis for imperious acts such as now afflict us.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: Cletus on September 11, 2008, 02:14:39 PM
Now let's all write tactfully but sternly disapproving things of an eminently fallible letter that St Pius X wrote to some company-man type Irish bishop about how wonderfully orthodox Cardinal Newman was despite this and, um, that, and, er, that...
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:26:33 PM
I must confess, I feel tempted to post blank entries until the defect introduced into this page by that absurdly long link (that completely messes up the format of this page) is no longer an issue; i.e., until a new page begins. :cowboy:
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:27:03 PM
Gotta do it...
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:29:13 PM
One post closer...
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Gettin' closer...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:39:29 PM
Sorry, folks...

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: gladius_veritatis on September 11, 2008, 07:58:23 PM
One more try...sleep well, friends...
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Title: "He who hears you, hears Me..."
Post by: roscoe on September 11, 2008, 08:58:46 PM
I'll give it a shot also