Author Topic: "He who hears you, hears Me..."  (Read 8699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gladius_veritatis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Reputation: +1234/-0
  • Gender: Male
"He who hears you, hears Me..."
« on: July 16, 2008, 05:47:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #1 on: July 16, 2008, 05:49:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #2 on: July 16, 2008, 10:15:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #3 on: July 16, 2008, 11:25:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #4 on: July 17, 2008, 12:03:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #5 on: July 17, 2008, 10:07:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #6 on: July 17, 2008, 02:35:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23111
    • Reputation: +20267/-246
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #7 on: July 17, 2008, 02:45:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #8 on: July 17, 2008, 03:31:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7128
    • Reputation: +446/-211
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #9 on: July 17, 2008, 04:38:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #10 on: July 17, 2008, 10:05:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #11 on: July 17, 2008, 11:32:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #12 on: July 18, 2008, 12:13:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.





    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #13 on: July 18, 2008, 12:20:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    "He who hears you, hears Me..."
    « Reply #14 on: July 18, 2008, 12:23:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:
    + Vincit veritas +

     

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