Author Topic: "He who hears you, hears Me..." (Read 20200 times)

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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 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.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #2 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.

Cletus · « **Reply #3 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #4 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.

Author Topic: &quot;He who hears you, hears Me...&quot; (Read 20200 times)

Author Topic: "He who hears you, hears Me..." (Read 20200 times)