2. Will all the Bennyvacantists go sedevacantist now?
They have no choice (unless they retract their position).Maybe Francis will retire and they will become Frannyvacantists
May God have mercy on his soulThat's pretty much the long and short of it. Although given our particular judgments are immediate, it has already been judged.
1. May God have mercy on him, and let perpetual light shine upon him. I wish him no evil.Ann Barnhardt | Barnhardt (https://www.barnhardt.biz/author/annb/)
2. Will all the Bennyvacantists go sedevacantist now?
Even if he wanted to reveal what was really happening or wanted to confess the truth to the Church, he was handled so closely for so long that it really was never was a possibility. I pray that he was relieved of his burdens in confession and no longer personally participated in the modernist destruction of the Church. Jesus Mercy on his soul.
I don't see how a person can spend over 50 years of their life spouting heresy after heresy, promoting pedophiles and freemasons, being completely passive to breathtaking amounts of corruption, to just say oops! sorry about all that Lord in their final hours.If he had a true Papacy (which I am inclined NOT to believe) the grace of the Papacy can and will change a man. It did for Pius lX. Praying for the best for his soul.
It requires a devotion to evil that you only find in the hearts of communist dictators and serial killers.
I don't see how a person can spend over 50 years of their life spouting heresy after heresy, promoting pedophiles and freemasons, being completely passive to breathtaking amounts of corruption, to just say oops! sorry about all that Lord in their final hours.Well, according to the reports just before he died, he participated in mass. Was it a Latin Mass? I doubt it.
It requires a devotion to evil that you only find in the hearts of communist dictators and serial killers.
Ann Barnhardt | Barnhardt (https://www.barnhardt.biz/author/annb/)
Well, according to the reports just before he died, he participated in mass. Was it a Latin Mass? I doubt it.Did he have a choice? Probably not able to make one
That's pretty much the long and short of it. Although given our particular judgments are immediate, it has already been judged.Technically yes, but is the efficacy of prayer limited to the time it’s offered? Couldn’t God use prayer for someone after their death and apply it to give them the grace to repent before they died, if that makes sense?
If he had a true Papacy (which I am inclined NOT to believe) the grace of the Papacy can and will change a man. It did for Pius lX. Praying for the best for his soul.To be clear I’m not necessarily denying this but can someone explain to me HOW this works since presumably the papacy isn’t an actual sacrament like episcopal consecration is?
Apparently, she really is a moron. Her own readers are pointing out to her that she has now embraced sedevacantism, and her response is that they are evil?Yes- she can be exasperatingly obnoxious, I wonder about her intricate knowledge on narcissism, hmmm. I do read her blog because she has been very helpful in the past regarding COVID/ Ivermectin and does have some legitimate insights, but all in all, she is too insistent on this particular issue, and has totally discounted any independent (valid) Trad Catholic movement as schismatic, even in light of Francis.
She says that it’s too obvious to have to explain why they’re wrong.
:facepalm:
We’re now in an interregnum, but nobody is organizing a conclave.
And when inevitable one is organized after Francis dies, they’ll have to not recognize it as legitimate, since it will be comprised of fake cardinals (Francis appointed over 50% of the eligible electors).
Witness the results of financial advisors toying with theology.
And what the hell is with her made up ARSH dating acronym? It’s like she wants to be the kid who made up a trendy new word.
Woman, shut up already!
To be clear I’m not necessarily denying this but can someone explain to me HOW this works since presumably the papacy isn’t an actual sacrament like episcopal consecration is?I think the protection of the Church by the Holy Ghost through the Papacy is intrinsic to the office, is it not? Where did I hear that pre-Vll, seminarians were taught that any Pope who might promote or teach a heresy would be killed on the spot? (by the Holy Ghost) I forgot where I heard it but know this is true
Did he have a choice? Probably not able to make oneThat sounds like the "did he have a choice with respect to his resignation?".
That sounds like the "did he have a choice with respect to his resignation?".95 in kidney failure. Lucid and alert I wouldn't bet on.
We always have a choice. And if he converted and repented, he would refuse to participate in the NO. They were also reporting he was "lucid and alert". Of course, we don't know if the reports are accurate.
That sounds like the "did he have a choice with respect to his resignation?".It's an incredible cope when Bennycantists contend Ratzinger didn't have a choice to resign or was somehow shielded from what was going on right under his nose or got bad advice when it came to the horrendous appointments he made or the crap E Michael Jones peddles, explaining Benny's German guilt from the h0Ɩ0h0αx colored his position on the joos.
We always have a choice. And if he converted and repented, he would refuse to participate in the NO. They were also reporting he was "lucid and alert". Of course, we don't know if the reports are accurate.
It's an incredible cope when Bennycantists contend Ratzinger didn't have a choice to resign or was somehow shielded from what was going on right under his nose or got bad advice when it came to the horrendous appointments he made or the crap E Michael Jones peddles, explaining Benny's German guilt from the h0Ɩ0h0αx colored his position on the joos.
You would need to have a Mr. Magoo level of blindness to stumble through life like that
I think the protection of the Church by the Holy Ghost through the Papacy is intrinsic to the office, is it not? Where did I hear that pre-Vll, seminarians were taught that any Pope who might promote or teach a heresy would be killed on the spot? (by the Holy Ghost) I forgot where I heard it but know this is trueThat seems a little bit different
1. May God have mercy on him, and let perpetual light shine upon him. I wish him no evil.Friends of mine have already done so at the news of his death. If they hold such a belief, it would follow that they should seek out a priest/mass that is not 'una cuм,' recognizing or at least giving the benefit of the doubt, of Francis occupying the See of Rome. Indult, FSSP, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, Independent, (et al)masses are not consistent with this position.
2. Will all the Bennyvacantists go sedevacantist?
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/123/923/899/original/81e8e16d62cc55fd.png)Yeah...and watch the Bennvacantists suddenly believe Bergoglio is a true pope when he does.
I don't see how a person can spend over 50 years of their life spouting heresy after heresy, promoting pedophiles and freemasons, being completely passive to breathtaking amounts of corruption, to just say oops! sorry about all that Lord in their final hours.
It requires a devotion to evil that you only find in the hearts of communist dictators and serial killers.
I think the primary cause of ++Ratzinger’s abdication was that just a few days prior, he announced he was convening a special synod to investigate charges of widespread pedophilia and Satanism in the Vatican.
This is also when Vatileaks arose, and A Vatican butler was jailed for stealing incriminating docuмents.
Getting rid of “the Rat” was the fαɢs’ #1 priority, and Jorge was their man.
Can you provide more detail of this? I do recall the Vatileaks issue, but don't remember that he was convening a special synod to investigate charges of widespread pedophilia and satanism in the Vatican. If true, that would certainly be reason for giving his resignation, assuming that he was perhaps being threatened for potentially exposing these things.
Fishing right now, but here’s a start:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS271665718420121003
That’s just a few months before the resignation.
Will dig up more later (CI threads on the resignation may also be fertile ground on this topic).
I think the primary cause of ++Ratzinger’s abdication was that just a few days prior, he announced he was convening a special synod to investigate charges of widespread pedophilia and Satanism in the Vatican.That's funny, when you consider Ratzinger promoted most of these wicked men
This is also when Vatileaks arose, and A Vatican butler was jailed for stealing incriminating docuмents.
Getting rid of “the Rat” was the fαɢs’ #1 priority, and Jorge was their man.
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/123/923/899/original/81e8e16d62cc55fd.png)Twitter is a mess. So many people trying to canonize him while decrying those pointing out that he was no better than Francis (probably worse)
While I agree with a lot of what your saying here Bernardo, I do not believe this is the time to make comments like this and you are throwing out the possibility of Benedict being forgiven of his sins even at the hour of his death. Just be careful.
And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their land.
- 2 Paralipomenon 7:14 DRB
Twitter is a mess. So many people trying to canonize him while decrying those pointing out that he was no better than Francis (probably worse)GAB mirrors that mess.
Twitter is a mess. So many people trying to canonize him while decrying those pointing out that he was no better than Francis (probably worse)
Ratzinger's is one of nearly 2 billion Catholic souls. What of the others?It wouldn't be "nice" to speak ill of dead false shepherds who spent a lifetime dedicated to the destruction of as many souls as possible. No, let us pray for Luther's soul too while we're at it.
Most people have no idea about his blatant heresies and apostasy.Almost the entire "conservative Catholic" media sphere is owned and operated by Opus Judei, that's why.
They haven't seen these photos.
With all the Catholic media outlets, why has this been so well hidden?
The story I was told and that I have heard from others and that I hear from the popular Tradcasters was that Benedict was liberal in his youth but became a staunch conservative and Latin Mass fan with age. smh
While I agree with a lot of what your saying here Bernardo, I do not believe this is the time to make comments like this and you are throwing out the possibility of Benedict being forgiven of his sins even at the hour of his death. Just be careful.Thank you
And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their land.
- 2 Paralipomenon 7:14 DRB
GAB mirrors that mess.I'm seeing that, I'm back on Gab since Twitter suspended me for a week :laugh1:
I don't see how a person can spend over 50 years of their life spouting heresy after heresy, promoting pedophiles and freemasons, being completely passive to breathtaking amounts of corruption, to just say oops! sorry about all that Lord in their final hours.
It requires a devotion to evil that you only find in the hearts of communist dictators and serial killers.
My what a dilemma it is to be a Catholic. Do we pray God will forgive a Pope who contributed to countless other souls who lost their faith and died in that state. The one thing we cannot do, and that is judge him according to Catholic teaching, which as I understand it means say someone is gone to hell. That said, our faith also tells us heretics and those who contributed to the loss of souls go to Hell. Now the idea that he considered himself a pope who was a modernist as we understand it, and that in his last hours he repented a lifetime of ideas that were anti-Catholic, is highly unlikely. If you believe that why didn't he tell the flock to discard much of his teaching? Why did he leave others to keep believing his heresies and let them to hell. He was a pope which is a position that has a far greater responsibility than the sinners in the pews. Oh yes, didn't someone tell us that hell is paved with the souls of the clergy.Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church.
I think it best to leave him in God's hands now and try to cope with his legacy in Pope Frances, another driving souls into Hell.
Apparently, she really is a moron. Her own readers are pointing out to her that she has now embraced sedevacantism, and her response is that they are evil?
She says that it’s too obvious to have to explain why they’re wrong.
:facepalm:
We’re now in an interregnum, but nobody is organizing a conclave.
And when inevitably one is organized after Francis dies, they’ll have to not recognize it as legitimate, since it will be comprised of fake cardinals (Francis appointed over 50% of the eligible electors).
Witness the results of financial advisors toying with theology.
And what the hell is with her made up ARSH dating acronym? It’s like she wants to be the kid who made up a trendy new word.
Woman, shut up already!
They have no choice (unless they retract their position).
Or else if some believe that Jorge can be convalidated through Universal Acceptance now that the canonical impediment is removed ... similar to how you can have a sanatio of a marriage that is not valid due to one of the couple having a living spouse once the spouse dies.Until he canonizes Ratzinger.
I do consider it unlikely because they absolutely despise Bergoglio.
Now the idea that he considered himself a pope who was a modernist as we understand it, and that in his last hours he repented a lifetime of ideas that were anti-Catholic, is highly unlikely. If you believe that why didn't he tell the flock to discard much of his teaching? Why did he leave others to keep believing his heresies and let them to hell.
I do admit, his early Ministry and Episcopal Years were out of taste however once he became Pope he gave us a bit of Hope.
Pray for Him.
It wouldn't be "nice" to speak ill of dead false shepherds who spent a lifetime dedicated to the destruction of as many souls as possible. No, let us pray for Luther's soul too while we're at it.You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. - Matthew 5:43-45 DRB
Apparently, she really is a moron. Her own readers are pointing out to her that she has now embraced sedevacantism, and her response is that they are evil?
She says that it’s too obvious to have to explain why they’re wrong.
...
Woman, shut up already!
It wouldn't be "nice" to speak ill of dead false shepherds who spent a lifetime dedicated to the destruction of as many souls as possible. No, let us pray for Luther's soul too while we're at it.Yes, after all, we can't know whether he sent souls to Hell either. :facepalm:
Technically yes, but is the efficacy of prayer limited to the time it’s offered? Couldn’t God use prayer for someone after their death and apply it to give them the grace to repent before they died, if that makes sense?
To be clear I’m not necessarily denying this but can someone explain to me HOW this works since presumably the papacy isn’t an actual sacrament like episcopal consecration is?
1. May God have mercy on him, and let perpetual light shine upon him. I wish him no evil.
This thread should have just ended with this. Be careful my brothers and sisters in Christ. Let's not make this similar to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg thread where we judge the dead and condemn Benedict to hell.Do you believe Hell is empty?
I think the primary cause of ++Ratzinger’s abdication was that just a few days prior, he announced he was convening a special synod to investigate charges of widespread pedophilia and Satanism in the Vatican.
This is also when Vatileaks arose, and A Vatican butler was jailed for stealing incriminating docuмents.
Getting rid of “the Rat” was the fαɢs’ #1 priority, and Jorge was their man.
Do you believe Hell is empty?I never said hell was empty. "Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments." (Baltimore Catechism). But respecting the dead and not wishing hell upon them is purely catholic. Why can't we hope that Benedict went to heaven?
I never said hell was empty. "Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments." (Baltimore Catechism). But respecting the dead and not wishing hell upon them is purely catholic. Why can't we hope that Benedict went to heaven?This isn't about wishing or hoping anything. It's about looking at the facts of this man's life and the chances of whether he actually converted and repented. 95 years of spouting and teaching heresy AS THE PURPORTED VICAR OF CHRIST. No one has stated that he is definitely in Hell, but his chances don't look so good. His chance of converting after 95 years is as likely as my 86 year old Jєωιѕн father converting before he died.
So much for the prediction that two popes die the same night.There's still about six hours left and Francis is infirm. It's entirely possible.
So much for the prediction that two popes die the same night.The day’s not over yet, at least not for about another four hours Rome time. Francis didn’t look so good on EWTN this afternoon.
So much for the prediction that two popes die the same night..
It's an incredible cope when Bennycantists contend Ratzinger didn't have a choice to resign or was somehow shielded from what was going on right under his nose or got bad advice when it came to the horrendous appointments he made or the crap E Michael Jones peddles, explaining Benny's German guilt from the h0Ɩ0h0αx colored his position on the joos..
You would need to have a Mr. Magoo level of blindness to stumble through life like that
But Cassini, we don't know these things. Catholic teaching is clear that no one is predestined to hell. Fr. Gregory Hesse (God rest his soul) has a great talk on this subject that I have saved personally in my files. and how do you know Benedict sent souls to hell? If he did, okay. If he didn't, okay. Let us not judge Benedict's soul because do not judge or you too will be judged saith the lord. (Matthew 7:1). We do not know about his last hours. We need to stop semi-calvinists here and act like we know more than God about hell. Benedict's soul is with Christ. Benedict's soul is judged by Christ. Why can't us humans who are also sinners wish him the best? Mind you, I am also at the same time not saying Benedict was not a modernist.
It wouldn't be "nice" to speak ill of dead false shepherds who spent a lifetime dedicated to the destruction of as many souls as possible. No, let us pray for Luther's soul too while we're at it.
Until he canonizes Ratzinger.:laugh1:
My what a dilemma it is to be a Catholic. Do we pray God will forgive a Pope who contributed to countless other souls who lost their faith and died in that state. The one thing we cannot do, and that is judge him according to Catholic teaching, which as I understand it means say someone is gone to hell. That said, our faith also tells us heretics and those who contributed to the loss of souls go to Hell. Now the idea that he considered himself a pope who was a modernist as we understand it, and that in his last hours he repented a lifetime of ideas that were anti-Catholic, is highly unlikely. If you believe that why didn't he tell the flock to discard much of his teaching? Why did he leave others to keep believing his heresies and let them to hell. He was a pope which is a position that has a far greater responsibility than the sinners in the pews. Oh yes, didn't someone tell us that hell is paved with the souls of the clergy.
I think it best to leave him in God's hands now and try to cope with his legacy in Pope Frances, another driving souls into Hell.
.
It's a simple tactic to make up whatever facts your argument needs to be true. The Bennyvacantists went through the following thought process:
1. Francis must be not pope, for obvious reasons.
2. But said obvious reasons are not reasons we can voice, for then we would be sedevacantists. We must find other reasons to allege instead.
3. What about saying that Benedict was forced to resign? Yes, that will allow us to be sedevacantists without being sedevacantists.
4. Therefore Benedict was forced to resign.
5. Make up whatever "facts" you need in order to support step 4.
6. Objective achieved: Francis is not pope and we are not sedevacantists. ::)
So much for the prediction that two popes die the same night.
.Yeah, maybe it had a chance if it said the two "anti-popes" or the two "false popes".
Um, it should be self-evident that any such prophecy is a false prophecy. :laugh1:
Yeah, maybe it had a chance if it said the two "anti-popes" or the two "false popes".
Robert Sarah (French: [ʁɔbɛ:ʁ saʁa]; born 15 June 1945) is a Guinean prelate of the Catholic Church. A cardinal since 20 November 2010, he was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 23 November 2014 to 20 February 2021. Sarah previously served as secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples under Pope John Paul II and president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum under Pope Benedict XVI.
Sarah has been a forceful advocate for the defense of traditional Catholic teaching on questions of sɛҳuąƖ morality and the right to life, and in denouncing Islamic radicalism. He has called gender ideology and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) the "two radicalizations" that threaten the family: the former through divorce, same-sex marriage, and abortion; the latter with child marriage, polygamy, and the subjection of women.
He has been described as largely sympathetic to liturgical practices of the era before the Second Vatican Council, but has also proposed that partisans of different liturgies learn from each other and seek a middle ground. In 2016 Sarah called for priests to face the same direction as the congregation while celebrating Mass (ad orientem), although facing the congregation had become the prevailing practice since the Second Vatican Council. His advice was seen by some as a direct challenge to Pope Francis, a claim that Sarah rejects. An advocate of traditional Catholic marriage doctrine in opposition to same-sex marriage, he has denounced "Western ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and abortion ideologies", suggesting that both are of "demonic origin", and he has compared them to nαzιsm and Islamic terrorism.
Sarah has been mentioned as papabile, a possible candidate for the papacy, by international media outlets such as Le Monde and by Catholic publications including Crux and the Catholic Herald.
Sarah was born in Ourous, a rural village in then French Guinea, on 15 June 1945, the son of cultivators and converts to Christianity from animism.:confused:
Speaking at a London conference on 5 July 2016, Cardinal Sarah asked all bishops and priests to begin celebrating the Mass ad orientem "wherever possible", "perhaps" by 27 November 2016, the start of Advent. He encouraged all Roman rite Catholics to receive Communion kneeling and said that Pope Francis had asked him to "continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began". Sarah then met privately with Francis and on 11 July the Holy See Press Office issued a statement that said that Sarah's London remarks had been "incorrectly interpreted, as if they were intended to announce new indications different to those given so far in the liturgical rules and in the words of the Pope regarding celebration facing the people and the ordinary rite of the Mass", that celebrating Mass facing the congregation (versus populum) was "desirable wherever possible" and not to be superseded by ad orientem. It reported that the Pope and the Cardinal were in complete agreement on these points.
Fishing right now, but here’s a start:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS271665718420121003
That’s just a few months before the resignation.
Will dig up more later (CI threads on the resignation may also be fertile ground on this topic).
See, I for one was not expecting this to happen now, as my personal piecing together of the timeline suggests 2029 for the start of ths "great unravelling", and the above prophecy states that there will be a restoration of the Church after the death of the two popes in the same night. I don't expect the full restoration of the Church until about 2033.Didn't Bishop Williamson publish something similar in one of his Comments a couple years ago when he was talking about the fifth and sixth age of the church?
This is based on the following clues:
1) Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucia to request the consecration of Russia on June 13, 1929.
2) Our Lord later appeared to Sister Lucia and complained that the popes were delaying "just like the Kings of France" and would, as a result, similarly follow them in misfortune.
3) When Our Lord had requested that the Kings of France consecrate the country to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, it was exactly 100 years TO THE DAY of Our Lord's request that the King was deposed. That would be June 13, 1929 -> June 13, 2029 in our case.
4) About 3.5 years later, the King of France was executed). June 13, 2029 + a bit over 3.5 years is early 2033 (200 years after Our Lord's crucifixion)
5) Pope Leo XIII had the vision that Satan would be given special control for a period of 75 years. After this, if you look at Pope Leo's LONG prayer to St. Michael, it specifically speaks of the intention by the Church's enemies to "strike the Shepherd" and scatter the sheep.
6) Roncalli usurped the papacy in October of 1958, since which time Satan has been in control by eclipsing the Church, and 75 years would be 2033.
So my working theory is that on the night of June 13, 2029, two popes will die the same night. Perhaps Jorge resigns before then and is still floating around in 2029 as the new "Pope Emeritus". At that point, a Great Chastisement begins. Russia invades Western Europe due to some provocation. At some point, according to Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, Sts. Peter and Paul will appear and desginate the new pope That would be the "Holy Pope" of prophecy destined to restore the Church. This Holy Pope would the consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary ... at which point, the chaos of the World War would immediately and miraculously end, largely through the Three Days of Darkness, and everyone will recognize that Our Lady's intercession brought the turnaround and will convert to the True Faith. Then a period of peace, about a generation, will then be followed by the arrival of Antichrist. Just my current working theory, but a lot of dots add up to pointing to 2029 as the start, given Our Lady's request in 1929 to consecrate Russia and Our Lord's likening their delay to that of the Kings of France.
I'm on the fence about this. Yes, Ratzinger had nearly 10 years in "retirement" to get right with God, though prayer and meditation, etc. ... to realize the errors of his ways, if he would only correspond with God's graces. But my feeling is that these V2 papal claimants were / are deliberate agents of destruction, and not just some well-meanig people who were confused by Modernism and were simply misguided about what was for the good of souls and the good of the Church.Not only could they, St. John Vianney apparently saw that at least one specific suicidal person did make the act of perfect contrition at the last second and told the wife that she should pray for him
Yes, there's a possibility God intervened with His grace and saved his soul. BUT ... we see no public signs of it, and the Church has tended to presume public sinners lost unless they show some public sign of repentance before they die, refusing them burial. It's only a presumption, of course. Even ѕυιcιdєs could theoretically have repented (and made perfect acts of contrition) before they died.
I think his resignation had to do with not being able to bring the SSPX on board the conciliar church (well, at least not officially). He gave his resignation, what, six weeks or so after the SSPX announcement that they would not reconcile with Rome? I also think that he, at the last minute, intentionally put a wrench in the works by giving a stipulation to an agreement that the SSPX could not meet. It might seem like a minor reason for wanting to resign, but someone may have been blackmailing him. Just a theory.Where would this forum be without Meg's comic relief?
Don't forget Fatima-And no doubt, Ratzinger knew all about the demise of the real Sister Lucia.
Ratzinger, Sodano and Bertone put out that fraudulent (by omission) third secret in 2000...plus the continued promulgation of the fake Sister Lucy. It's all so awful. I pray he repented. There is so much to repent from.
Wanted: The Gang of 8 Who Hijacked Fatima. If This Is a Criminal Investigation, these are the Obvious Suspects and the As Yet Unindicted Co-Conspirators. (chojnowski.me) (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/12/wanted-gang-of-8-who-hijacked-fatima-if.html)
I don't think it's a dilemma. We can do both, pray for his soul AND "judge him acording to Catholic teaching," i.e. denounce his heresies. As for whether he could have repented, well of course it's possible. Now, the one possibility with him is that he did have nearly 10 years in retirement / seclusion to reflect on his life. If he did repent, would his handlers (as he was hardly independently mobile toward the end) allow him to come out with a statement or speech to denouce his errors?
We do have to be careful when praying for him publicly (by which I mean in public vs. by offering the Mass or public prayer of the Church for him, which is not permitted) that we do not give the false impression that there's good hope for his salvation. We pray for him publicly while expressing sorrow that he's likely not bee saved.
So much for the prediction that two popes die the same night.
Right, but theologians hold that people receive various "graces of state" even outside the Sacraments per se.Ok this clarifies for me, thank you
In October 2011, Turkson called for the establishment of a "global public authority" and a "central world bank" to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
In a March 2015 interview, Tagle said the Catholic Church needed to develop a new language for addressing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, unwed mothers, and divorced and remarried Catholics because "what constituted in the past an acceptable way of showing mercy" changes and needs to be re-imagined. ... Following the publication of Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato si', Cardinal Tagle launched a campaign in the Philippines to collect signatures for a petition against anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. ... As the Synod on the Family opened public discussion of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, Tagle said he was open to hearing arguments on the question. He said: "We have a principle we have to believe in. But the openness comes on pastoral judgments you have to make in concrete situations, because no two cases are alike." ... "In our country there is no law on divorce. But people do divorce out of love. Fathers and mothers separate out of love for their children and one of them goes to the other side of the world to work. These separations are triggered by love. In the Philippines and countries affected by migration, we must, as a Church, accompany these people, help them to be faithful to their wives and husbands." ... Tagle served from 1995 to 2001 as one of more than 50 members of the editorial board of the five-volume, 2,500-page History of Vatican II. Completed after discussions at 14 international conferences with contributions from over 100 scholars, it is seen as the seminal work on the Second Vatican Council. It has been criticized by some conservatives for providing an overly progressive reading of the Council.
In 2018, Scola expressed his opposition to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried unless they live in complete continence, the possibility of which has been the focus of controversy surrounding Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia. Scola said withholding Communion is "not a punishment that can be taken away or reduced, but is inherent in the very character of Christian marriage". ... Scola supports stronger ecuмenical ties between Catholicism and Islam "at a grassroots level" believing that there is much common ground between the two faiths, particularly, addressing persecution of Christian communities in the Middle East which Scola focuses on. ... Scola has said in the past that it is also his duty to connect with the Orthodox faithful living in his archdiocese, "giving them churches where they can celebrate the divine liturgy and our experience of a greatly fraternal relationship". The cardinal has also said that while doctrinal and theological differences may linger, it was essential to recognize and collaborate on tackling common issues "like the family, justice, life". ... In a 2012 conference, Scola refuted the idea of the Second Vatican Council being a battle of continuity versus discontinuity, suggesting instead that the docuмents that were promulgated during the Council only further enriched the Church by expanding upon previous magisterial teachings. Scola said that "there is no animosity between Vatican II as an event and as a body of docuмents, but rather conformity". ... Scola favors celebrating the Tridentine Mass and has defended Pope Benedict's 2007 authorization of its wider use alongside other conservative cardinals such as Camillo Ruini and Carlo Caffarra. In Padua in 2017, he issued a strong defense of the Mass and when he became archbishop of Milan immediately sought to reverse his predecessor's restrictions on its use. He took similar actions as patriarch of Venice.
did his doctoral disseration on Hans Urs Von Balthasaar (bad new, believed hell might be empty) ... On 21 November 2007, in a letter published in Quebec French-language newspapers, Ouellet apologized for what he described as past "errors" of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Among the errors he wrote about were attitudes, prior to 1960, which promoted "anti-Semitism, racism, indifference to First Nations and discrimination against women and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs." ... In May 2010 Ouellet stood by his comments that abortion is unjustifiable, even in the case of rape, and urged the federal government to help pregnant women keep their child. He said that "Governments are funding clinics for abortion. I would like equity for organizations that are defending also life. ... In September 2018, discussing the priestly sɛҳuąƖ abuse crisis, Ouellet said "we will need more participation of women in the formation of priests, in teaching, in the discernment of candidates and their emotional balance". In October he told the Synod of Bishops on Young People that it was "possible and necessary to accelerate the processes of struggle against the 'machista' culture and clericalism, to develop respect for women and the recognition of their charisms as well as their equal integration in the life of society and the church". ... On August 8, 2022, a class-action lawsuit named Ouellet as the assailant of an unnamed woman (referred to as "F") who accused the cleric of kissing her, at a cocktail reception in 2008. "F" alleged that Ouellet massaged her shoulders and slid his hand down her back, touching her buttocks. No criminal charges have been laid. Ouellet has denied the sɛҳuąƖ assault allegation, calling it "defamatory". "F" had reportedly written to Pope Francis about Ouellet in January 2021. Following this, the Vatican began an internal preliminary investigation against Ouellet in February 2021, led by Jesuit priest and theologian Jacques Servais. On August 18, 2022, the Vatican dropped its investigation into Ouellet, after Pope Francis determined that there was not sufficient evidence to begin a canonical investigation. In December 2022, Ouellet filed a defamation lawsuit in Quebec courts, arguing that he was falsely accused of sɛҳuąƖ assault.
In January 2009, Gerhard Maria Wagner was appointed by the Vatican, without consultation with the Austrian bishops' conference, as an auxiliary bishop of Linz, Austria. Wagner was known for highly conservative views, in particular for blaming the Hurricane Katrina on the sins of the New Orleans' ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and abortionists. Wagner's appointment generated widespread protests in Austria and a boycott by many priests of the Linz diocese. Schönborn quickly joined the public criticism of the appointment. Schönborn made an emergency trip to Rome and in mid-February 2009 Wagner was thus persuaded to resign his post at Linz. ... In September 2012 Schönborn again "backed celibacy for priests, limiting ordination to men and preserving marriage as a life-long commitment" and reiterated a warning to the dissident clergy that they faced serious consequences if they continued to advocate disobedience to the Vatican. ... Schönborn has been described as a "conciliatory pragmatist who is open to dialogue." ,,, On 1 December 2018, he allowed a controversial rock performance to take place in St. Stephen Cathedral to raise money for HIV patients. The event was held to benefit the Brotherhood of Blessed Gérard, a hospice in South Africa run by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta for people dying of AIDS. In the previous year, Cardinal Schönborn, the Order of Malta, and Gery Keszler's LGBT Life Ball organized a Mass to remember World Aids Day. ... Schönborn is a member of the Elijah Interfaith Institute Board of World Religious Leaders. In May 2017, Schönborn published an approbation in regards to the Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity entitled To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians which was published two years beforehand by the Israel-based Center for Jєωιѕн–Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC). ... In 2006, Schönborn published an article on the relationship between Catholicism and Islam, noting that both are missionary religions and interfaith dialog is often seen as an alternative to the missionary impulse. He advised that dialog focus on "How is mission situated in respect of freedom of conscience and of religion? How is it situated in respect of the requirements of a plural world?", while addressing "openly the dangers of intolerance, of attacks on religious freedom". ... In a September 2015 interview, he said that the Church's ministers should recognise what is good where it is found. For example, he said, a civil marriage is better than simply living together, because it signifies a couple has made a formal, public commitment to one another. "Instead of talking about everything that is missing, we can draw close to this reality, noting what is positive in this love that is establishing itself." Schönborn described a gαy friend of his who, after many temporary relationships, is now in a stable relationship. "It's an improvement. They share "a life, they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another. It must be recognised that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider 'regular'." ... In an opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times on 7 July 2005, Schönborn accepted the possibility of evolution but criticised certain "neo-Darwinian" theories as incompatible with Catholic teaching: Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science. The director of the Vatican Observatory, George Coyne, SJ, criticized Schönborn's view and pointed to Pope John Paul II's declaration that "evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis" and Catholic physicist Stephen Barr wrote a critique which evoked several replies, including a lengthy one from Schönborn. ... In April 2012, the election of a young gαy man, who was living in a registered same-sex partnership, to a pastoral council in Vienna was vetoed by the parish priest. After meeting with the couple, Schönborn reinstated him. He later advised in a homily that priests must apply a pastoral approach that is "neither rigorist nor lax" in counselling Catholics who "don't live according to [God's] master plan". ...
I have a different theory. Ratzinger's job, the one for which he was groomed by being re-invented as a Traditionlist, God's "Rottweiler" and "enforcer" by administering worthless slaps on the wrist to the likes of Kung and Rahner, was to re-absorb SSPX and Traditional Catholicism. When he failed due to the infamous Bishop Williamson interview, he was told to step aside and make way for Jorge to take the destruction to the next level.I agree. Along with the admission of the 300 page Vatican homo-dossier and the scandal of Benedict's butler stealing correspondence to expose the filth apparently hidden from Benedict; the job of absorbing the SSPX into the Consiliar Church was thwarted by the Bishop Williamson's "h0Ɩ0cαųst" video. Benedict was toast.
Where would this forum be without Meg's comic relief?
And more:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/02/23/gαy-cabal-forces-benedicts-resignation-calm-collected-reflections-on-the-media-furor/
For the most part, one has to take the pope at his word: He’s stepping aside because he’s old and tired, not because of any particular crisis.
That said, I don’t believe you can completely discount the cuмulative impact of the various meltdowns over the last eight years on Benedict’s state of mind. Read Benedict’s anguished letter to the bishops of the world back in 2009, at the peak of the frenzy over the lifting of the excommunication of a h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying bishop, and it’s crystal clear he was both pained by the criticism it generated and frustrated the Vatican hadn’t handled the whole thing more effectively.
Benedict's butler stealing correspondence to expose the filth apparently hidden from Benedict;
Benedict's reaction: "Why was't I invited to these sodomite orgies?"So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?
"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."
Now Is Francis Peter the Roman., or is Francis not a real pope and there is some other real pope to come?
I don't know that it's "in good taste" to judge Pope Benedict AT ALL here on the day of his death.
Just for starters, it's not our place. Talk about "above my pay grade"!
A soul has gone to its Judgment. Not just any soul, but a soul that had been given GREAT responsibility and power. What Office is higher than that of Pope? The thought of a Pope being judged by God is enough to make anyone -- with a deep internalization of the Faith -- speechless. (Even Sedevacantists should be included in this number, as Pope Benedict was accepted as Pope and given the powers of a Pope, to do good or evil. Think of all the influence and power the man had. So God would still judge him accordingly, even if he HADN'T BEEN the actual Pope for some reason.)
Even judging "by Catholic principles" seems wrong here. You just don't put the deceased through an ad-hoc trial, dredging up everything the deceased has done and try to "play God" or "simulate their Particular Judgment" in the hopes of figuring out the outcome (Heaven, Hell or Purgatory). You don't canonize the deceased either, as is done at most Novus Ordo funerals. What SHOULD we do, as the Catholic militant? That Catholic Church would have us pray for him, and She (in Her true Liturgy) would bring to everyone's mind the thought of death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven (The Four Last Things), and have us remember that we all must pass by the same Judgment-Seat. This meditation would be beneficial for our own spiritual lives. Each funeral would be a wake-up call, a mini-retreat, a chance to think deeply and take stock of our spiritual lives.
Heck, non-Catholics know better than to speak ill of the dead, or to be "a jerk". There's something to be said for adhering to HUMAN social norms, a.k.a. being "socially acceptable". Some Trads could learn a lot from the average "socially acceptable" decent human being, Catholic or not. Grace builds upon nature, it doesn't replace or destroy it. Is politeness and human decency too much to ask from some Trads, just because those aren't supernatural virtues or something?
If this hits close to home for any member(s), just know that my intention wasn't to attack or offend anyone in particular. I'm just stating the truth to the best of my ability.
So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?
A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.
Seminary didn't do you much good did it!
May God have mercy on him...and you too.
So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?
A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.
Seminary didn't do you much good did it!
May God have mercy on him...and you too.
O, grow up and drop the sanctimonious nonsense, and actually try to comprehend what the comment actually meant. I prayed for him fervently that he would save his soul, but this doesn't change who he was or what he stood for ... hint: it wasn't for Traditional Catholicism. It's not my problem if you can't recognize that the comment was satire, a response to this absurd idea that Ratzinger was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you." by allegations of sodomy at the Vatican, that he was clueless about all this "filth" that was "hidden" from him, that he was somehow distraught by the presence of sodomites at the Vatican. Even the two Vatican analysts (in Sean's article) rejected the idea as absurd, saying that such a thing would and should come as no surprise at all. I'm not sure what rock he had to be living under to not know that there were sodomites all over the Vatican. He was in the Vatican since 1982, for many decades, and he absolutely already knew exactly what went on there.Agreed. I think a lot Catholics fall victim to emotionalism. (especially women... sorry gals.) Confusing charity with "being nice". I have no doubt we are all praying for his soul and his conversion before his death. This is a no brainer.
Ratzinger knew full well about McCarrick's crimes since about 2000, when he was still head of the "Holy Office", and did nothing about them, allowing McCarrick to continue raping seminarians with impunity, and continued doing nothing about them after he becamse Pope. It wasn't just Bergoglio who was implicated in that garbage.
In fact, just before he died, the reports had just been released in Germany implicating Ratzinger of the old reassigning of priest who were convicted in court of having been sɛҳuąƖ predators.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-benedict-xvi-implicated-in-report-on-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-in-german-diocese
No, he wasn't some victim of the gαy mafia, as the pro-Ratzinger propaganda would have it.
OK I'll settle for that Ladislaus.I don't think Francis is Peter the Roman because he's not "feeding his sheep" "feed my sheep" means spiritual food. Francis obviously isn't doing that.
Time now to wait to see if St Malachy's last Pope is Francis.
In 1139, then-Archbishop Malachy went to Rome from Ireland to give an account of his affairs. While there, he received a strange vision about the future that included the name of every pope, 112 in all from his time, who would rule until the end of time. We are now at the second last prophecy.
As for the prophecy concerning the 111th pope, Pope Benedict, the prophecy says of him, "Gloria Olivae," which means "the glory of the olive."
St. Malachy gave an account of his visions to Pope Innocent II, but the docuмent remained unknown in the Roman archives until its discovery in 1590.
Here is what they say about JPII
Pope John Paul II is De labore Solis, meaning "of the eclipse of the sun." Karol Wojtyla, who would become Pope John Paul II, was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse.
Nonsense, De Labore Solis means THE WORK OF THE SUN. And isn't JPII the one who told the world after his 12 year papal commission on Galileo that the Church was wrong and heliocentrism was right.
"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."
Now Is Francis Peter the Roman., or is Francis not a real pope and there is some other real pope to come?
O, grow up and drop the sanctimonious nonsense, and actually try to comprehend what the comment actually meant. I prayed for him fervently that he would save his soul, but this doesn't change who he was or what he stood for ... hint: it wasn't for Traditional Catholicism. It's not my problem if you can't recognize that the comment was satire, a response to this absurd idea that Ratzinger was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you." by allegations of sodomy at the Vatican, that he was clueless about all this "filth" that was "hidden" from him, that he was somehow distraught by the presence of sodomites at the Vatican. Even the two Vatican analysts (in Sean's article) rejected the idea as absurd, saying that such a thing would and should come as no surprise at all. I'm not sure what rock he had to be living under to not know that there were sodomites all over the Vatican. He was in the Vatican since 1982, for many decades, and he absolutely already knew exactly what went on there.
Ratzinger knew full well about McCarrick's crimes since about 2000, when he was still head of the "Holy Office", and did nothing about them, allowing McCarrick to continue raping seminarians with impunity, and continued doing nothing about them after he becamse Pope. It wasn't just Bergoglio who was implicated in that garbage.
In fact, just before he died, the reports had just been released in Germany implicating Ratzinger of the old reassigning of priest who were convicted in court of having been sɛҳuąƖ predators.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-benedict-xvi-implicated-in-report-on-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-in-german-diocese
No, he wasn't some victim of the gαy mafia, as the pro-Ratzinger propaganda would have it.
So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?
A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.
Seminary didn't do you much good did it!
May God have mercy on him...and you too.
Why exactly is it that Ladislaus (and Matthew as well) cannot receive "thumbs down," only "thumbs up." What is their "official" explanation for this?It has something to do with post counts. It prevents new users showing up and going on down voting sprees
Ann Barnhardt | Barnhardt (https://www.barnhardt.biz/author/annb/)So here's what Ann thinks:
Why exactly is it that Ladislaus (and Matthew as well) cannot receive "thumbs down," only "thumbs up." What is their "official" explanation for this?
So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?Amen! Well said, Miseremini.
A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.
Seminary didn't do you much good did it!
May God have mercy on him...and you too.
The day’s not over yet, at least not for about another four hours Rome time. Francis didn’t look so good on EWTN this afternoon.The black pope is the nickname for whoever is the head of the Jesuits.
True, Benedict did not die at night, but you never know.
Probably more wishful thinking on my part than anything else.
She also makes the point that there is a radical difference between "1958" SV and her position. But what is so very interesting, is that the bennyvacantists and the SV's are now arrived at the same practical term. Is there a BV anywhere now in the world who is going to take the position that Bergoglio is pope by default? If not, then a not-too-shabby swath of Catholics are now standing side by side with folk they would otherwise avoid like the plague.So do they become the home alone flavor of SV for now since there's no clergy (that I can think of) that hold to their position? Or do they mosey on over to SV Masses since they both agree on Francis not being the Pope? Or does Francis now become a legitimate Pope to them since the previous Pope has now passed? So many possibilities!
You know what? I'm sick of your attacks, insinuations, and attitude. You seem to have a real problem with me, but you haunt my forum on a daily basis. You're banned.In my opinion, it just makes someone not want to use the vote system. Not every new member will make a significantly unjust use of the votes. And, with the seemingly limited participation on the forum in general, there will be an increasing gap between the newer more active users and the fewer long time users. Then, there's the fact that if someone posts a lot everywhere, there's a lot more chances that that member will get a lot of votes in a short period of time, and they may not all be up votes.
You're not worth the stress.
To answer the question though (for the benefit of those who might be reading this), each member is limited to a 13% of the target's downvotes. But if you only have 100 upvotes yourself, and I have 10,000 downvotes, then you get 13% of the DIFFERENCE between 100 and 10,000. That limits the damage new members (or even sock puppets) can do to long, established members who have been posting on the forum for years, and helped make it what it is today.
I'm not going to side with short-termers over the members who have helped build CathInfo. On the contrary! I'm going to side with the long-established members almost every time. They are going to get a lot more "leeway" during controversies and heated arguments, etc.
And here's the funny part: you would do the same. And you. And you. And YOU. Yes, I'm pointing at YOU reading this. Be honest, and admit it.
I don't see how a person can spend over 50 years of their life spouting heresy after heresy, promoting pedophiles and freemasons, being completely passive to breathtaking amounts of corruption, to just say oops! sorry about all that Lord in their final hours.Good points.
It requires a devotion to evil that you only find in the hearts of communist dictators and serial killers.
Do I then need to become a blabber mouth to keep up with the high post count members just so I can down vote them more if they deserve it? Then I would likely also merit many down votes for so many useless posts.
Let me stop you there.Yeah, I misread/misunderstood regarding posts vs votes, I think the math you were using had thoroughly confused me, but then I suck at math. Something about the difference between 100(up?) and 10,000(down?) votes, 10,100? and 13% would be 1313, so I could give you over a thousand downvotes? Something was never explained right, or I'm just a dummy. But, aside from my initial mistake regarding the post count thing, do you get my point?
That's why I go by UPVOTES rather than POST COUNT.
You need to re-read some of my posts explaining the system. I never said post count. The system looks at the Actor's UPVOTE COUNT and compares it with the Target's DOWNVOTE COUNT. Nowhere does it even look at the raw post count.
Rather clever what I did there, eh? You only get upvotes for good, Catholic, quality posts. Posting a bunch of garbage won't get you any upvotes, hence no additional ability to downvote people.
Now that Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is dead, I note a hell of a lot of praise for him and his theology coming from different Catholic media. No doubt, soon he will be made a saint.
The general advice is to be charitable and say nothing negative about this dead pope. Now if that is done, his modernism will not only be buried with him, but it will remain within the Modernist Church today.
Public Service Announcement: There is a good chance "bishop" Fr. Pfeiffer's consecration was invalid. We have video evidence to that effect. Fr. Pfeiffer saying, "Oh, we fixed it up later. Trust me." isn't good enough to remove the doubts that were proven by video evidence. The "fix" needs to be as visible/solid/public as the original flawed ceremony, to remove these doubts.
Cucks with Aquinas weighing in
Cucks with Aquinas weighing in
That's not what I said, for what it's worth.
I said give it a few days! Out of respect for the dead, if nothing else. For reasons of human decency, politeness, social mores, etc.
Then you can engage in controversy to oppose any currents or campaigns to canonize him.
Cucks with Aquinas weighing in(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/176058091/photo/feather-and-balance-scale.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=9h6ouopKS-mm-HnX5TfdI1BfKYn3H5SUsjAC94CKPNU=)
:laugh1: ... maybe a couple fewer pints and they could actually think clearly about Catholic theology.Or maybe a few more.........:confused:
Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer on Ratzinger's death:
Waiting for days or weeks to reveal the the lifetime of heresy Ratzinger espoused and used his considerable power as head of the CDF and Papal Pretender to propagate, seems to destroy the opportunity to reach millions of those who only receive information from Opus Judei controlled outlets and others who are going full defense mode already.
Where is the Charity toward God or the souls of our neighbors if we stay silent while every NO conservative with any media presence or influence spins every possible narrative to pre-empt the truth about the late Ratzinger? News cycles move so fast that waiting too long simply means most people have stopped paying attention and caring, and return to their default position.
Waiting for days or weeks to reveal the the lifetime of heresy Ratzinger espoused and used his considerable power as head of the CDF and Papal Pretender to propagate, seems to destroy the opportunity to reach millions of those who only receive information from Opus Judei controlled outlets and others who are going full defense mode already.
Where is the Charity toward God or the souls of our neighbors if we stay silent while every NO conservative with any media presence or influence spins every possible narrative to pre-empt the truth about the late Ratzinger? News cycles move so fast that waiting too long simply means most people have stopped paying attention and caring, and return to their default position.
For his sake, that gives a little hope of perfect contrition.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s last words before he died Saturday were, “Lord, I love you.” according to his longtime secretary.
Source: NY Post (https://nypost.com/2023/01/01/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvis-final-words-before-death-revealed/)
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/01/benedict-last-words-03.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
Isn't holding and professing the Catholic Faith a prerequisite for perfect contrition?I believe so, yes. That's why I said a "little hope". Since he lived privately for the past decade or so, it's impossible for me to say whether or not he repented of his errors.
I believe so, yes. That's why I said a "little hope". Since he lived privately for the past decade or so, it's impossible for me to say whether or not he repented of his errors.
Are you willing to go to all of those websites and tell them all about Benendict's heresies? And are you willing that tell them that he wasn't really a pope at all? That would be the brave thing to do, for a sedevacantist. On the other hand, it's much easier to talk about the problems with B16 here, where you won't get too much opposition.
I've actually tried. I've written Ann Barnhardt twice (no, these were not vitriolic or nasty letters, but very polite and respectful), to Taylor Marshall, to Patrick Madrid, and various others, as well as to Father Ripperger on another issue. I've also written the Dimond Brothers. Of all these, only the Dimond Brothers responded ... although they did excoriate me for my errors.
I would love to see that letter. 😂
You mean the one from the Dimond Brothers? Yes, it was a doozy, and I'm not 100% sure I kept it, as this was quite a few years ago now, but even if I could find it, I would have the respect not to reveal something that was intended to be private correspondence without their consent.
I wrote that with my “tongue in my cheek”, but seriously, they mince no words. They are like robots, they seem to have no feelings or emotions.Not to derail the thread, but, upon further reflection of the more recent videos where Bro. Peter is visible: he gives the impression that he has some form of autism (or aspergers). I don't say this to slander him, but his speech patterns, mannerisms, and hyper-focus on specific issues come across as at least some sort of high-functioning autism.
Of all these, only the Dimond Brothers responded ... although they did excoriate me for my errors.:laugh1:
Not to derail the thread, but, upon further reflection of the more recent videos where Bro. Peter is visible: he gives the impression that he has some form of autism (or aspergers). I don't say this to slander him, but his speech patterns, mannerisms, and hyper-focus on specific issues come across as at least some sort of high-functioning autism.I was thinking the same thing. Honestly I think it works in his favor for his apostolate in a lot of cases because he has such a high attention to detail and cares not for if his words offend others as long as they are the truth to him. A big reason that I got started on my journey to Catholicism in the first place was because of Peter Dimond's docuмentary on Pastor Steven Anderson, which had a level of bluntness and intensity that reached a stubborn person like me from the Bible Belt in a way that other Catholic apologists would have struggled to.
Thank you. Let’s face it, the guy was rotten. With his numerous false teachings he led MANY souls to Hell. Sorry to offend his supporters, but the man wasn’t a Catholic. He was a pertinacious manifest heretic. There, I said it! It is very very very unlikely that he repented and was saved.No...thank YOU.
SSPX Cebu has done remarkably well to have discovered a Collect for a deceased "Pope Emeritus" (from the Dead Sea Trolls?)Apparently it came from a Collect for deceased popes. https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2009/08/the-traditional-funeral-rites-for.html
St. Pius V Church - Umapad, Mandaue City, Cebu (Facebook)
Collect for a deceased Pope
Deus, qui inter summos sacerdotes famulum tuum Benedictus Papa Emerito Decimo Sexto ineffabili tua dispositione connumerari voluisti: praesta quasumus; ut qui Unigeniti Filii tui vices in terris, sanctorum tuorum Pontificuм consortio perpetuo aggregetur. Per eumdem Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecuм vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula, saeculorum. Amen.
O God, by whose favor Thy Servant Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was raised to the dignity of sovereign pontiff, grant, we Beseech Thee, that he may be admitted to the eternal society of Thy holy pontiffs in Heaven. Through our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son, who livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
Hey, cucks, Shame on anyone who asserts that this Whore of Babylon is in fact the Holy Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.
All I read outside of CIF is Ratzinger the pope going straight to a special place in heaven. And why not, didn't he teach everyone of every faith heaven awaited them.It's beyond offensive to see them bring his body into St Peter's Square. Too bad if some think that's too blunt and unfeeling at this time.
Which brings me to the sin of presumption. 'Pope Francis prays for Benedict’s ‘passage’ to heaven during New Year’s Day homily' says the New York Times headlines.
No doubt that presumption sin is now to presume someone doesn't go to heaven. Why did the Lord allow his vicars on Earth to teach error. Any Protestant looking on at the chaos of Catholicism for the last 100 years must think they made the right choice. Watch as hundreds of thousands honour the body of a heretic teacher as a saint already in Heaven while his Modernism goes on and on. Any atheist in the know must be laughing at the situation.
It's beyond offensive to see them bring his body into St Peter's Square. Too bad if some think that's too blunt and unfeeling at this time.I agree, unless it's for the purpose of another Cadaver Synod
They will have him canonized very very soon. Probably before the end of this decade, considering a) the speed and b) the way every V2 pope has been canonized
Here is how they are portraying Pope Benedict now;Modernists always appeal to St. Augustine to support their heretical ideas. Just look at "theistic evolution" and their misinterpreted version of Augustine.
https://aleteia.org/2023/01/02/if-ratzinger-detested-anything-it-was-nonsense/?utm_campaign=EM-EN-Newsletter-Daily-&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_term=20230102
He based his 'program of modernity' on reading the works of St Augustine.
look forward to comments.
Why did the Lord allow his vicars on Earth to teach error[?]
Yes, if they can forgive him for Summorum Pontificuм. Of course it's likely that B16 allowed the TLM only because he wanted to the SSPX on board the conciliar church, in order to control and stifle tradition. But still, most of the Modernists hate the TLM, especially Pope Francis. So this could be an impediment to his canonization. Just sayin'
Yes, if they can forgive him for Summorum Pontificuм. Of course it's likely that B16 allowed the TLM only because he wanted to the SSPX on board the conciliar church, in order to control and stifle tradition. But still, most of the Modernists hate the TLM, especially Pope Francis. So this could be an impediment to his canonization. Just sayin'
See the interesting comments between Miguel and Anon on this subject under this article at The Remnant, alleging (correctly) that BXVI was merely playing the long game, and SP was designed to crush tradition:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6322-archbishop-gaenswein-traditionis-custodes-broke-pope-benedict-s-heart
That may have been very well his motive for his allowance of the TLM; only God knows. I do know that God has revealed in Scripture that he has used those to perform actions that He willed with them having a motivation that was not His: He willed the actions for His purposes and the His motives prevailed. I think, for example, of the Lord's use of the king of Assyria to punish Israel for violating His law (Isaiah 10), yet the motive of the Assyrian was pride and lust to conquer for personal glory, or, more positively, the working of the salvation of the human race through the Sanhedrin's most abominable act of deicide.
Some of God's people found grace and salvation through these actions of Benedict in allowing the TLM and, I believe, in restoring the actual words of Christ in place of the false "for all" in the consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo. To these positive workings of grace, the motive of Benedict is irrelevant - for us, if not for him.
Those comments are good.They never stop trying.
The short video that was included in the link was good. Here's an excerpt:
Interviewer:
"As Pope emeritus, he was around to see the promulgation of Pope Francis motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. Was he disappointed?"
Ganswein:
"It hit him pretty hard. I believe it broke Pope Benedict's heart to read the new motu proprio, because his intention had been to help those who simply found a home in the old Mass to find inner peace, to find liturgical peace, in order to draw them away from Lefebvre."
Ganswein's response above is very telling, as the comments you mentioned refer to. It Ganswein is correct, in that B16 wanted to draw Catholics away from Lefebvre, it could be that he was only trying to draw those who wanted the old mass, and who were not too concerned or fussy about the doctrinal problems that accompany the new mass and conciliar church. It makes a certain amount of sense.
Those comments are good.
The short video that was included in the link was good. Here's an excerpt:
Interviewer:
"As Pope emeritus, he was around to see the promulgation of Pope Francis motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. Was he disappointed?"
Ganswein:
"It hit him pretty hard. I believe it broke Pope Benedict's heart to read the new motu proprio, because his intention had been to help those who simply found a home in the old Mass to find inner peace, to find liturgical peace, in order to draw them away from Lefebvre."
Ganswein's response above is very telling, as the comments you mentioned refer to. It Ganswein is correct, in that B16 wanted to draw Catholics away from Lefebvre, it could be that he was only trying to draw those who wanted the old mass, and who were not too concerned or fussy about the doctrinal problems that accompany the new mass and conciliar church. It makes a certain amount of sense.
Ganswein's response above is very telling, as the comments you mentioned refer to. It Ganswein is correct, in that B16 wanted to draw Catholics away from Lefebvre, it could be that he was only trying to draw those who wanted the old mass, and who were not too concerned or fussy about the doctrinal problems that accompany the new mass and conciliar church.
Interestingly, in 2023, this sorry description fits 90% of the faithful in the pews, and most of the branded clergy.Even setting aside all other factors, there's an undeniable difference in the type of person to become a Priest during the post-V2 Revolution, acting against the world to preserve the Faith and those born into a comfortable situation who have never had to make those choices. In a sense, those of the early days were tried and proven, compared to the spirit of deadly agreeableness during wartime that seems prevalent now.
PS: I wonder if +Fellay and the SSPX will consider Ganswein's comments "resistance garbage" (Since that is the ddefault reaction to any criticism of their ralliement)?" :laugh2:
See the interesting comments between Miguel and Anon on this subject under this article at The Remnant, alleging (correctly) that BXVI was merely playing the long game, and SP was designed to crush tradition:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6322-archbishop-gaenswein-traditionis-custodes-broke-pope-benedict-s-heart
More relevant now than ever. RIP Fr. Cekada
In the recent Kansas interview with +Williamson on the deviations of the SSPX after the death of Lefebvre, he stated his belief that normally "Catholic truth" is welded to "Catholic authority," but since V2, the two have become unhinged, causing some Catholics to pursue authority, and others to side with truth.
That the "truth" could be substantially "unhinged" from legitimate papal "authority" is contrary to all the Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians.
In which case one wonders why St. Paul, Athanasius, or Vincent would bother to warn us about it?
"Kindness is for fools. They want them to be treated with oil, soap and caresses, but they should be beaten with fists! In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can! War is not made with charity, it is a struggle, a duel. If our Lord were not terrible, he would not have given an example in this too. See how he treated the Philistines, the sowers of error, the wolves in sheeps clothing, the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!"
In May 2013, Toos Nijenhuis, a Dutch woman, who had been forced for years by her father to take part in satanic rituals, testified that on several occasions, she saw Card. Ratzinger kill a girl in a castle in France. In the following October, another eyewitness confirmed what was said by Toos Nijenhuis, saying he had seen Card. Joseph Ratzinger kill a girl in the fall of 1987.
...
Among the dignitaries who participated in these human sacrifices, Toos Nijenhuis gives three names: the Dutch Cardinal, Bernard Alfrink, Card. Joseph Ratzinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group.
That the "truth" could be substantially "unhinged" from legitimate papal "authority" is contrary to all the Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians.I was just having this conversation with a trad priest the other day who agreed that, it was because for centuries the Catholic world had highly virtuous and saintly popes that the Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians taught what we might say was essentially "blind obedience." Back then, when the priest, bishop or pope issued a command, you obeyed it - period. But the main reason we obeyed was because for centuries there was no fear in obeying because the commands were recognizably Catholic. Hence, what reason would the Fathers teach anything other than what they taught?
I was just having this conversation with a trad priest the other day who agreed that, it was because for centuries the Catholic world had highly virtuous and saintly popes that the Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians taught what we might say was essentially "blind obedience." ...
I was just having this conversation with a trad priest the other day who agreed that, it was because for centuries the Catholic world had highly virtuous and saintly popes that the Fathers, Doctors, and pre-Vatican II theologians taught what we might say was essentially "blind obedience." Back then, when the priest, bishop or pope issued a command, you obeyed it - period. But the main reason we obeyed was because for centuries there was no fear in obeying because the commands were recognizably Catholic. Hence, what reason would the Fathers teach anything other than what they taught?
But the Fathers et al were not prophets, they never foresaw these times.
The Church guided by God's Perfect Divine Providence DID foresee these times and told us exactly what to do.Yes of course, but this has nothing to do with what I said.
Ah, OK. So it was just a fluke, a 1958-year string of good luck that we didn't have error taught to the Universal Church from the Chair of Peter and we just happened to luck out with a great Catholic Mass. This had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church and the promises of Our Lord to guard the integrity of the faith through the Holy See.The Holy Ghost guides the Church, still does today, always has and always will. You'll be fine if you ever get your mind to accept that the pope is not impeccable, is not today, never was and never will be.
More and more your ecclesiology ceases to be recognizable as Catholic ... all in your desperate attempt to salvage the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Docuмents-Magisterium-Contain-Errors-Catholic/dp/187790547X
More and more your ecclesiology ceases to be recognizable as Catholic ... all in your desperate attempt to salvage the legitimacy of Jorge Bergoglio et al.What is it exactly that makes you think this way? It's wrong thinking because I'm not a sede, therefore I could not care less about the status of the conciliar popes. My post simply stated something real, that the pre-V2 popes were exemplars of virtue and sanctity, and then I asked the question: "What reason would the Fathers teach anything other than what they taught?"
Sean,
Have you read it? If so, what did you think?
DR
Hello DR-
I bought it on the basis of the reviews, and just recently received it.
Give me three days to read it, and we can enter into the argument.
Have you read it? If so, what did you think?
(https://i.imgur.com/WKAoKIw.jpg)
Not sure how credible this is, but it's from the Chiesa Viva link posted by Miser on the other thread --I'm inclined to believe her testimony is credible.
http://www.chiesaviva.com/sacrifici%20umani/human%20sacrifices.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A1o1Egi20c
Yes of course, but this has nothing to do with what I said.
But the Fathers et al were not prophets, they never foresaw these times.
“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”Silvestra:
“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’”Suarez:
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”St. Robert Bellarmine:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
Right, let us put this to the test, a real problem for sedevacantism:
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563):
‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, -
‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)
On February 24th 1616 the assessments of Galileo's heliocentrism were declared:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”(considered an immutable, irreformable truth in virtue of the fact that this revelation had been constantly preserved and held by Church tradition since the time of the Apostles);
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
THEN IN 1820 Pope Pius VII decrees:
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII….His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.
THEN IN 1882 Pope Pius VII decrees again:
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun [the defined heresy in 1616], according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’
Inherent in the above two decrees of 1820 and 1822 is that you the flock can ignore the defined and declared heresy regarding the interpretation of Divine Scripture as held by all the Fathers.
It seems then, since 1820 we have had popes not only tolerating but believing and teaching what the Church defined as FORMAL heresy, in other words a heresy that had been long condemned as heresy in the past was made FORMAL HERESY in 1616 and confirmed again as formal heresy by Pope Urban VIII in 1633.
I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood you.I meant the Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. who taught of the necessity of obedience and submission to the pope. That the people in the conciliar era did forsake the teachings of your quotes, and do/did freely and blindly submit to the conciliar authority, wrong though they are. Had the Fathers known this crisis would happen, they all would have added the disclaimers your quotes provide, along with stating the necessity of submission....
Did you mean only the Fathers?
I don't think the link provides quotes from them but it does provide quotes from popes, saints, theologians and canon law describing what to do if an authority wants us to obey sinful actions, and when and how to resist them.
Did you see these ones?
Cajetan:Silvestra:Suarez:St. Robert Bellarmine:
There are more:
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/)
I meant the Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. who taught of the necessity of obedience and submission to the pope. That the people in the conciliar era did forsake the teachings of your quotes, and do/did freely and blindly submit to the conciliar authority, wrong though they are. Had the Fathers known this crisis would happen, they all would have added the disclaimers your quotes provide, along with stating the necessity of submission....
one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church....
nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension.....
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist;...
I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.”
It is Lad who, by what he keeps saying, apparently believes that those of us who actually do what the Fathers in your quotes teach, that our "ecclesiology ceases to be recognizable as Catholic."
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact(ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”
Right, well even if the Fathers didn't make it clear, thankfully the Church was by Divine Providence able to foresee this and provided guidance. Plus Sacred Scripture makes it clear in Gal 1:8.Well, for the first few years at least, no one even knew it was the pope who was the perpetrator of the revolution happening within the Church. The fact here is that faithful Catholics were waiting for him to step in and stop the madness! When the faithful finally found out and accepted that the pope was the perpetrator, they did not lose the faith on that account, they did not go along on that account, they strove to go against the grain and persevere in the faith regardless - and many still persevere today, regardless. Others who chose to go along did so of their own free will, rejecting the only faith they ever knew to accept the new faith, using the excuse of obedience.
However, people, including the clergy, were blindsided and there was no internet for the first 40 years of the crisis so finding this information was quite the task! Even with the internet it can be quite difficult to find.
Like you say, obedience was what Catholics knew so there are many people who wanted to be good Catholics and continued to blindly obey. This is why I don't judge people in whatever camp who are doing their best to strive for holiness in this crisis.
Yet, I personally want to learn and follow the truth to the best of my ability.
So the quotes above, are they pertaining to a pope preaching heresy?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can it be said they are about resisting a pope in certain circuмstances, but a pope preaching heresy is of a different order?
These statements seem to contrast with those above in that they all mention heresy:
St. Francis de Sales:St. Robert Bellarmine:St. Alphonsus Liguori:St. Antoninus:Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913Pope Innocent III:Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
I saw how sedeism divides the faithful, that's what it does, that's all it does, it serves absolutely no other purpose and does not profit anyone's salvation in any way, shape or form. And whoever disagrees, then how does one profit from it and aside from division, what other purpose does sedeism serve?
Thanks for this post. Ganswein here admits precisely the theory I have held for a long time, that it was precisely in order to suck in the Trads that it was implemented.Not according to Vigano in his sermon for Ratzinger's death:
Yes, there are so many divisions now, sadly. It appears to be true that the Shepherd was struck and the sheep are scattered. Well, I guess it has to come to pass so there is no avoiding it really.Well, I would still like to know what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. Certainly Satan wants to destroy the Church, I am sure that's not what sedeism means to you.
Plus Our Lord said he came to divide. Still, I have long time friends who are Novus Ordo or FSSP and our disagreement doesn't mean we can no longer be friends.
As to the purpose the Sede position serves, in my case anyway, it's clear that Lucifer wants a One World Theosophical Religion in which everyone gives worship. Now Traditional Catholics would never fully consent to giving worship to a pantheon of gods of course so they have to make it rather sneeky so as to deceive the elect.
That is why I can't bring myself to worship "una cuм", in union with Francis.
I don't share the same religion as him.
I don't share the same gods.
Ex Quo: (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm)Ex Quo even gives the reason why non-una cuм is condemned, because not only is omitting the name of the pope an act of schism, it is a major cause of disunity. Per Ex Quo, una cuм "is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity" and "a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church." This is why Ex Quo teaches: "the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism." It just does.
"Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension" [...] those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world."
Well, I would still like to know what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. Certainly Satan wants to destroy the Church, I am sure that's not what sedeism means to you.
The Church has always taught that to omit the name of the pope in the canon of the mass for whatever reason, is an act of schism. Obviously sedes believe their reason is above reproach, yet the popes do say in no uncertain terms; "for whatever reason."Ex Quo even gives the reason why non-una cuм is condemned, because not only is omitting the name of the pope an act of schism, it is a major cause of disunity. Per Ex Quo, una cuм "is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity" and "a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church." This is why Ex Quo teaches: "the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism." It just does.
Yes, you're right, Satan definitely wants to destroy the Church.This still does not answer what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. I've asked this a few times over the last few years and have never gotten an answer. Yes, the Church is in a crisis, yes the popes are heretics, yes the devil wants to destroy the Church - none of these truths answer the purpose of sedeism or how one profits from it.
Well, maybe that's not the best description though.
Actually, it appears that he wants to change the Church...or change the religion of the Church into something that worships him, or at least worships false gods like Allah (as it states in V2) and Pajamamama and whatever else.
And that is a good question about the prohibition from omitting the name of the pope during Mass.In this matter, it is par for the course to be contrary to what the Church teaches when we reference wild hypothetical scenarios such as the Dali Lama or women popes or whatever, simply due to the fact that the conciliar popes have all been elected according to the laws of the Church. IOW, if you want to go contrary to the law of the Church, then go right ahead and use wild hypotheticals as a means to do so.
I can definitely see why it would scare people from assisting at a non "una-cuм" mass!
I could be wrong, but I believe that would be referring to "Catholic" popes. In other words, popes who actually practice the Catholic Faith so as to remain in the Church.
If the Dali Lama were somehow voted in as pope (hey anything could happen these days, right?)
would it be okay to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass "una cuм", in union with him?
Wouldn't that be a great sacrilege?
Yes, I see. What do you make of it, Cassini?
Were the assessments of Galileo binding on the faithful?
I'm inclined to believe her testimony is credible.
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
Gotta go with Stubborn on this one:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/
As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates ...
See, R&R don't even HAVE to blaspheme the Church and slide into Old Catholicism now that Father Chazal has proposed a system that completely salvages "the papacy" and the honor of the Holy Catholic Church, the spotless Bride of Christ. You don't have to throw out the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians prior to Vatican II. You don't have to burn all the pre-Vatican II theology "manuals" on a bonfire.
I have repeatedly asked why R&R don't jump on board with Father Chazal?
Any answer to that?
You have an "out" where you don't have to be "sedevacantists" (that dirty word) while you can also preserve the integrity of the Holy See and of the Holy Catholic Church in general. You can still have your Bergoglio walking around the Vatican gardens (or rolling in his wheelchair) while not having to throw the Church under the bus to do it.
Your opening sentence is both heretical and blasphemous:
Even R&R should admit that the "papacy" does not "deteriorate" even if unworthy men hold the office.
You need to retract this.
That could be Step 1 in a 12 Step Program to make the "Journey Home" back to Catholicism from the Old Catholicism you have slid into.
See, R&R don't even HAVE to blaspheme the Church and slide into Old Catholicism now that Father Chazal has proposed a system that completely salvages "the papacy" and the honor of the Holy Catholic Church, the spotless Bride of Christ. You don't have to throw out the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians prior to Vatican II. You don't have to burn all the pre-Vatican II theology "manuals" on a bonfire.
I have repeatedly asked why R&R don't jump on board with Father Chazal?
Any answer to that?
You have an "out" where you don't have to be "sedevacantists" (that dirty word) while you can also preserve the integrity of the Holy See and of the Holy Catholic Church in general. You can still have your Bergoglio walking around the Vatican gardens (or rolling in his wheelchair) while not having to throw the Church under the bus to do it.
You don't need to read an entire book to find the balanced Catholic view of the overall inerrancy of the Church and the Magisterium.Pope Francis and all the conciliar popes firmly believe this crap from Fr. Fenton, particularly the bolded part. YOU do not however, and neither do I for that matter. The difference between us is, I admit it.
Msgr. Fenton sums it up here --
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
I have repeatedly asked why R&R don't jump on board with Father Chazal?
This is what Fr. Chazal believes, and I don't have a problem with it:
"It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to judge him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."
~St. Robert Bellarmine
De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29
This still does not answer what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. I've asked this a few times over the last few years and have never gotten an answer. Yes, the Church is in a crisis, yes the popes are heretics, yes the devil wants to destroy the Church - none of these truths answer the purpose of sedeism or how one profits from it.
In this matter, it is par for the course to be contrary to what the Church teaches when we reference wild hypothetical scenarios such as the Dali Lama or women popes or whatever, simply due to the fact that the conciliar popes have all been elected according to the laws of the Church. IOW, if you want to go contrary to the law of the Church, then go right ahead and use wild hypotheticals as a means to do so.
This is to say the only thing using wild hypotheticals can do, is lead to schism and put one in schism.
Ex Quo does not use wild hypotheticals, it states plainly that his name is not to be omitted and why. They say this without any disclaimers or exceptions, and by the words "for whatever reason" they are saying that there are no exceptions. Which means what they are saying is absolute. As such, the presumption must be they were well aware of future heretical popes, not presume that "they only mean "Catholic popes."
All I am attempting to do is point out the teaching of the Church, not my teaching, the Church's teaching, the clear words taught by the Church that cannot err, which is the Magisterium's teaching which is always without error, and the teaching of popes who, per most sedes, cannot teach error - all teach that the name of the pope, for whatever reason, is not to be omitted - and that to do so is the cause of disunity and is an act of schism.
And if you believe and accept the teaching of the Church via Ex Quo without exception, then your meme would not only apply to the conciliar popes, it would also apply to sedes who celebrate Mass non-una cuм - per Ex Quo.
Lad’s response:
“Well, you see Meg, St. Bellermine’s response is heretical, blasphemous, and opposed by all the saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church. I gave St. Bellarmine an out, but he wouldn’t take it for some reason.”
John Daly, confronted by the blatant repudiation this quote represented to sede ecclesiology, tried to “context” his way out of it (as though St. Bellarmine’s principle was only valid for that particular instance, which is precisely what all modernists do with all preconciliar teaching: doctrinal relativism, which states doctrines are only true for the time and circuмstances in which they are written), but me thinks he doth protest too much.
Ironically, this same artifice paves the way for doctrinal evolution and the V2 apologists to bowl through all the conciliar contradictions vis-a-vis traditional doctrine.
What is the purpose of Sedeism?This still does not answer the question.
Doing our best to preserve the Catholic Faith as it was passed down from the Apostles.
As for wild hypotheticals...
Well instead of using the Dali Lama, let's use the example of someone who is elected pope with the intention of promulgating the Muslim religion.
[...]
the Concilliar Church or their popes.
I'm not "in union with" them...
Here it is:I only get an error
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cu (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cu)м-and-the-resistance/
You’ll have to copy/paste the link into your browser.
I only get an error
Cathinfo doesn’t like the weird text on the “cuм,” so you can’t just click the link. You have to actually copy/paste the whole link into your browser.I just read it again, great article! https://tinyurl.com/fr6yy9hd (https://tinyurl.com/fr6yy9hd)
I just read it again, great article! https://tinyurl.com/fr6yy9hd (https://tinyurl.com/fr6yy9hd)
But there is another one somewhere in CI land, I think maybe you posted it, but maybe not. I will see if I can find it as it went more in depth as to exactly what is being prayed in the canon when the pope's name is mentioned.
Was it this one?Yes, that's the one - thanks!Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists(a little known docuмent)
https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the “non una cuм” sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne 1 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote1sym), France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).« … And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote2sym)) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel-en-Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you’re not Catholic; you’re not this; you’re not that; you’re not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed :“We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope.”It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have …, nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little:“In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Botte O.S.B. 3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote3sym), the UNA cuм or “in union with” of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction “and ” reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic Tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.Let us collect the good grain, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be “kept in the holy religion” the “holy orders” and the “Apostolic Lord” himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS.”It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said “There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility”. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints!
What happens when a one decides to dump the True Religion instead or replace it with false worship and the like? I guess their office is impounded or something? Or maybe they receive a Thumbs-Down from the CathInfo water cooler crowd?If they die in that state then they will end up in hell. I guess whatever happens to their office happens without us having anything to say about it. Of course, us peons could quote theologians and etc. and insist they lost their office, but to what purpose?
I thought Lefebvre drew one of his lines in the sand just before the Apostasy at Assisi.
This still does not answer the question.
I think it was Sean who posted a quote some time ago beautifully explaining all about una cuм, which agreed with +ABL saying that was not the meaning at all, because it's not.
But again, forget about hypotheticals in this matter. I say this only because they do not apply in this matter. The reason that they do not apply is because the conciliar popes were all elected according to the law established by popes themselves. Even Fr. Cakada (rip) agreed that according to the law, a heretic could indeed be elected pope and he was right. Either way you have got to stick with the law, that's why it's there.
Regardless of all that, it is the teaching of the Church that to omit the popes' name for whatever reason causes disunity and is an act of schism.
What constantly amazes me is sedes ignore this Church teaching from a Church that cannot err, from a magisterium that is infallible, and from popes who cannot teach error.......I ask the reason for this and cannot get an answer.
Popes Innocent III & Paul IV
Even popes have raised the possibility that a heretic could somehow end up on the throne of Peter. Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), one of the most forceful champions of papal authority in the history of the papacy, teaches:
"Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged. [Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.]
During the time of the protestant revolt, Pope Paul IV (1555–1559), another vigorous defender of the rights of the papacy, suspected that one of the cardinals who stood a good — 6 — chance of being elected pope in the next conclave was a secret heretic. On 16 February 1559, therefore, he issued the Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio. "
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints!
You're right. The law says you cannot omit the pope's name.
Well, there isn't a pope to name.
I don't know why there are certain people here who think that by quoting another obscure
passage by Bellarmine for the millionth time is going to finally resolve the question of
legitimacy regarding the VII papal claimants.
How more bloody obvious does it need to be that these men not only hate Catholicism but
have intentionally tried to destroy it?
Seriously, would the devil be doing ANYTHING differently through these men if his
plan was to destroy the church?
In what way is the Novus Ordo sect not teaching and behaving as the whore of Babylon would?
Well, that certainly is convenient.
I would argue that it's all very inconvenient actually. Attending illegal chapels not sanctioned or recognized by the Catholic Church, or its canonized popes... Yes, I'd say it's all very inconvenient.
The entirety of the Crisis is definitely inconvenient. I agree. I was speaking to Miser about one aspect.
I agree, no doubt. Apostates in white are the very reason we have a Crisis.
Not to mention that God allowed it to happen. The question is.....why?
I'd say it's to make the distinction between the City of Man and the City of God all the more clear. 2000 years of Catholic history has been reduced to practical rubble in 50 years. Folks in trad circles generally know why - Alta Vendita the plan, Modernist heresy the vehicle, etc. It's the Ape Church spoken of by Fulton Sheen vs. the Catholic Church established by Christ.
Not to mention that God allowed it to happen. The question is.....why?
Preserving the Catholic Faith isn't a good enough reason?That is not a reason at all. If that is the reason, then you are saying one of two things:
And again, we are not talking about hypotheticals.
This is reality.
As a Catholic am I allowed to worship with non Catholics?These are fundamental Catholic truths, these do not answer how sedeism profits souls unto salvation or the purpose of sedeism.
Am I allowed to worship with those who worship Allah? (VII)
Am I allowed to worship with those who worship the Moshiach? (Benedict)
Am I allowed to worship with those who worship Pajamamama? (Francis)
According to basic catechism, no.
Fr Cekada stated that fear of a heretic getting elected is why Pope Innocent III and Pope Paul IV provided for that possibility. Their statements make it clear these imposters are not popes.No, Fr Cekada stated that *according to the law* a heretic could indeed be elected as the pope. No secrecy, no imposters - he said according to the law, and he was correct, and even if he never said it, that *is* the law. This means that there is a pope to name in the Mass and that non-una cuм breaks the law. And in the breaking of that law is the cause of disunity and is an act of schism - not according to me, according to Ex Quo, which means according to:
[...]
So yes, a secret heretic might be elected and when found out, the election would be void.
We aren't dealing with secret heretics.
We are dealing with blatant public apostates before they were elected.
These post Council elections were void from the get go.
No consecration could take place because non Catholics are invalid matter.
You're right. The law says you cannot omit the pope's name.
Well, there isn't a pope to name.
That is not a reason at all. If that is the reason, then you are saying one of two things:
1) "If the pope is the pope we cannot persevere in the faith."
2) "We are only able to persevere in the faith because the Chair is vacant."
Without confirmation from you, I refuse to believe this is what you are saying Miser.
These are fundamental Catholic truths, these do not answer how sedeism profits souls unto salvation or the purpose of sedeism.
No, Fr Cekada stated that *according to the law* a heretic could indeed be elected as the pope. No secrecy, no imposters - he said according to the law, and he was correct, and even if he never said it, that *is* the law. This means that there is a pope to name in the Mass and that non-una cuм breaks the law. And in the breaking of that law is the cause of disunity and is an act of schism - not according to me, according to Ex Quo, which means according to:
1) The Church which is infallible
2) The magisterium which is immune from error
3) The law established and taught by true popes
4) Popes who cannot teach error
5) I could go on and on
It fascinates me to hear that all of these infallible sources and teachings are able to be rejected from us peons because peons ranging from old grannies to bishops, cling to their opinion that there is no pope while one sits right in the chair - according to the law.
But even more fascinating is that not one sede can give a clear answer as to what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits souls unto salvation. This in and of itself speaks volumes imo.
Please quote Father Cekada saying that a heretic can be “elected as the pope”. Please reference any pre VII *authority* that agrees with what you just wrote stating a heretic can be “elected as the pope”.
First, the pre-V2 authority:
Please quote Father Cekada saying that a heretic can be “elected as the pope”. Please reference any pre VII *authority* that agrees with what you just wrote stating a heretic can be “elected as the pope”.
Called it. Father Cekada does not mean they legitimately held the office but merely that there any impediments to legitimate elecction from CANON law were lifted, but the entire point of Bellarmine's thesis (to which Father Cekada adheres) is that heretics are impeded by DIVINE law from holding the office. If the Canon Law that says only men could be elected to the papacy were lifted, a woman who somehow got elected would be disqualified by divine law.Another question that remains unanswered is: Which Divine Law?
This actually speaks to a mistake made by +Lefebvre in one of his talks where he speculates that the See might be vacant if one of the popes had been excommunicated for joining the Masons, but that would be incorrect, as such excommunications were in fact lifted by St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII.
First, the pre-V2 authority:
Pope St. Pius X's Vacante Apostolica Sede December 25, 1904:
"29. None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other
ecclesiastical hindrance, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any
way; indeed, we suspend such censures and excommunications only for the effect of this election, to those
who will otherwise continue in their strength."
Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis December 8, 1945:
"34. No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the
Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or
other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the
effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."
Second, Fr. Cekada: (http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope/)II. SUSPENSION OF CENSURES AND IMPEDIMENTS
"Having established the meaning of these terms in paragraph 34 of Pius XII’s Constitution, we can easily see the point of the law: to avoid endless wrangling about the validity of papal elections.
It then becomes easy to answer the second question: “Does it lift all excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures for all the participants in a papal conclave?”
The answer is yes.
Does paragraph 34 also cover the case of an excommunicated cardinal who has been elected pope?
Again, the answer is yes, because the Constitution used the terms active and passive election, which mean, respectively, being able to vote and being able to be elected. So it is indeed correct to say that Pius XII’s Constitution explicitly allows an excommunicated cardinal to be validly elected pope."
Of course later in the article he effectively makes all of this utterly meaningless by using his own interpretations and theological wizardry, but at least he did say the above truth.
“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
• Canon law imposes an automatic excommunication on a heretic.
• Excommunication prevents a cleric from voting to elect someone to office, being elected to office himself, or remaining in office once he has become a public heretic.
• Paul VI and his successors incurred this excommunication for public heresy.
• Therefore, they were not true popes.
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
Called it. Father Cekada does not mean they legitimately held the office but merely that any impediments to legitimate election from CANON law were lifted, but the entire point of Bellarmine's thesis (to which Father Cekada adheres) is that heretics are impeded by DIVINE law from holding the office. If the Canon Law that says only men could be elected to the papacy were lifted, a woman who somehow got elected would be disqualified by divine law.
Another question that remains unanswered is: Which Divine Law?
Another question that remains unanswered is: Which Divine Law?
Question: That would apply to John XXIII then? He would have been properly elected (putting aside any Siri issues) even if a Mason?
Yes, since Pope Pius XII explicitly lifted any impediments of Canon Law from disqualifying anyone from being legitimately elected, and excommunication on account of Masonry is one such law.
Yes, since Pope Pius XII explicitly lifted any impediments of Canon Law from disqualifying anyone from being legitimately elected, and excommunication on account of Masonry is one such law.
See, I hold that Roncalli was impeded by the fact that Siri was the legitimate Pope, Gregory XVII. Siri was elected, accepted, took the name Gregory XVII, but then was threatened / blackmailed to step down. Canon Law explicitly states that resignations made under grave duress are invalid. IMO, that is why they waited for Siri to accept the election (at which point, as per Pius XII, he immediately became the pope) to threaten him. They could have threatened him beforehand. But they needed Siri to be the legitimate Pope, because they knew that if they got their man (Roncalli) legitimately elected, the Holy Ghost would prevent him (and his successors) from wrecking the Church, due to the promises of Our Lord regarding the Papal Office.
Question: That would apply to John XXIII then? He would have been properly elected (putting aside any Siri issues) even if a Mason?
Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis December 8, 1945:
"34. No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the
Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or
other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the
effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."
Very interesting theory, I think it’s far fetched, but it is a possibility.We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists. Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days. Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.
“Pigeon perches on Cardinal’s Cap – Genoa, Italy – Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, remained unperturbed when a pigeon perched on his cap as he celebrated Mass in the arena of the Orfei Circus here. The pigeon was one of a flock released in tribute to the Cardinal. The Mass, said on an altar set up in the center ring of the Big Top, was attended by circus entertainers and a crowd of Genoese.”
Another question that remains unanswered is: Which Divine Law?
Finally, it should be noted that Suarez’s contention that there is no Divine law whereby heretics are automatically deprived of their offices is not correct. The words of St. Paul and St. John forbidding communication between the faithful and heretics (as quoted by Suarez himself) constitute just such a law, 48 as the unanimous teaching of the Fathers to the same effect, vouched for by St. Robert Bellarmine, proves beyond question. Consequently the automatic exclusion of even uncondemned heretics from all ecclesiastical offices pronounced by cuм Ex Apostolatus and in recent times by Canon 188§4 do indeed “bind the pope”, because although promulgated by his equal, they are interpretative of Divine law.
48 Although the law is implicit rather than explicit in the Apostles’ words, it is nonetheless inescapable, as it would certainly not be compatible with these apostolic injunctions to recognize a heretic as having authority in the Catholic Church. Many other laws recognized to be Divine in origin – such as that prescribing the seal of confession – are deduced from passages of Scripture in which they are even more implicit, but nonetheless certain.
(Page 162).
And to top it all off, this happened shortly before the conclave:
(https://i.ibb.co/b3rK1hM/siridove.jpg)
This White Dove / Pigeon landed on Cardinal Siri's head as he offered Mass. He reportedly continued with Mass while ignoring it. White Doves are universally acknowledged to be the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and this incident was taken to suggest that the Holy Spirit would choose him to be the next pope. Perhaps a coincidence, but I don't think so.
Ah, another problem, a dove or a white pigeon?
https://www.godwhospeaks.uk/o-for-the-wings-of-a-dove/
"Few symbols across many faiths are as enduring as the dove. In the history of art and iconography, the dove often represents an aspect of the divine and so its depiction has been adapted by many ancient cultures and belief systems. While it is a sacred bird of ancient Egypt, Greece and Phoenicia, in Greek mythology, the dove is the emblem of the goddess Athena. Doves are respected in Islam because they are believed to have assisted the final prophet of Islam Muhammad in distracting his enemies outside the cave of Thaw’r, in the great Hijra. Doves are associated with peace and pacifism in heraldry and secular society. These are just some of its attributes that provide us with a visual motif complex in meaning and rich in appropriation for Christianity.
Uhm, no, the Siri Theory is not the least bit far-fetched. There's a significant amount of evidence for it. One of the most succinct and yet comprehensive that I've seen is here:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9rfpc5
This doesn't consist of merely fantasizing about the smoke signals coming from within the conclave, although those help corroborate the abundance of other evidence in favor of the Theory.
There are a number of independent sources, and one of them, Scortesco, a counsin of the Vatican Noble Guard, who were responsible for guarding the conclaves, was burned alive in his bed shortly after he published his letter with the details.
Paul Williams, former FBI, wrote a book where he mentioned in passing, in a footnote, that Siri had been elected and had taken the name Gregory XVII, citing classified docuмents. Williams is not a Catholic and didn't consider this particularly important. While the docuмent has never been found, presumably RE-classified after the book, it's unlikely that Williams just made this up. He gives the exact name and date of the docuмent and mentions a detail about the papal name, Gregory XVII ... that a non-Catholic wouldn't even understand the significance of, i.e. that it means he had accepted the election, and for him to land on "Gregory" as a non-Catholic was also unlikely. We can hardly doubt that both the US and USSR had agents in the conclave reporting back to them.
And it's the perfect plan, if you think about it. Let Siri be elected (his election was considered a foregone conclusion, as he was considered THE papabile for that election), then force him out uncanonically, so that their agent would not legitimately hold office, and therefore would not be protected by the Holy Spirit. These enemies of the Church had more "faith" in the protection of the Holy Spirit over the papacy than R&R do. They knew that if Roncalli had been legitimately elected, that God would cause him to drop dead before he and his successors could damage the Church as much as they wanted to. I look at this as the "uncanonically-elected pope" reference in the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi, not Bergoglio. Bergoglio was just the last in a line of illegitimate usurper Antipopes, who were not merely otherwise-sincere people with confused minds who got elected due to the overall liberalization of the Church ... as the R&R narrative holds. Regardless of how "confused" they were, the Promises of Our Lord for the assistance of the Holy Spirit for the papacy (something +Lefebvre ackowledged) would absolutely have prevented a legitimate "confused" pope from wrecking the Church.
But I urge people to look the link above. There's a ton of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.
As for the Bennyvacantist equivalent, while the non-resignation theory is absurd, the St. Gallen mafia collusion has actually been admitted by one of the participants, and that's actually a legitimate reason for Bergoglio to have been disqualified, as JP2 explicitly stated that collusion over the election would render it illegitimate in his docuмent about the conclave that would occur after his death. Where the Bennyvacantists miss the mark is in believing that the Crisis in the Church started with Bergoglio and in thinking that we don't have a bigger problem here that goes all the way back to Vatican II. Bergoglio was simply the most brazen about it, but the heresies of Wojtyla and Ratzinger make his absolutely pale by comparison.
And to top it all off, this happened shortly before the conclave:
(https://i.ibb.co/b3rK1hM/siridove.jpg)
This White Dove / Pigeon landed on Cardinal Siri's head as he offered Mass. He reportedly continued with Mass while ignoring it. White Doves are universally acknowledged to be the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and this incident was taken to suggest that the Holy Spirit would choose him to be the next pope. Perhaps a coincidence, but I don't think so.
This is from the accompanying
Was that a Novus Ordo mass?
PS - no . . . Just saw the date.
But we do know “pope” Siri had no issues with mass in the new rite.
We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists. Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days. Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.
Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff | From Rome (https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/03/within-a-month-the-catholic-church-will-have-a-new-roman-pontiff/)
And when Bergoglio released doves for world peace, it was attacked (and presumably killed) by a crow --
(https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2020/08/14/d99ae2b1-fd42-4436-990b-97b197977537/thumbnail/1280x720/00d52542d5e566f1f016f77424201650/ctm-0127-doves-640x360.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IAa8zl-Or0
Stubborn, you don’t even realize it, but you have in essence become your own pope. YOU decide what is Catholic or not. What is divine law or not. Which Council decrees to adhere to and which ones to disregard. After all, according to you, Church Councils are not infallible. You decide if pope or a supposed pope’s teaching’s should be followed or not. You make the rules, not the Church and certainly not the pope.I showed you what you asked for and ^^ this ^^ is your reply? Thanks for another side tracking attempt at ad homineming me while COMPLETELY ignoring the questions - again. What is the sede's major malfunction anyway?
I showed you what you asked for and ^^ this ^^ is your reply? Thanks for another side tracking attempt at ad homineming me while COMPLETELY ignoring the questions - again. What is the sede's major malfunction anyway?
I asked "Which divine law?" - Do you even know what a Divine Law is? If not, then be honest and say you have no idea what Divine Law even is. If so, then answer my question.
I asked "what purpose sedeism serve and how it profits souls unto salvation." - Do you even know why you're a sede? If you know the answer, then answer the question, if you are clueless, then be honest and say you have no idea why you're a sede, do not know how sedeism profits anyone, and have not figured out what purpose sedeism serves.
I fully expect you to ignore the questions as you take your bat and ball and leave, claiming something's wrong with me - as you've done whenever I've backed you against a wall in the past. Pitiful actually.
You've been arguing against sedevacantism for how long and you aren't aware of what +Bellarmine wrote about this?That is NOT Divine Law. By definition, Divine Law is a Law given to us directly from the mouth of God, hence the name, "Divine Law" aka the Ten Commandments. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
Divine Law that someone who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head (I urge you to look up +Bellarmne). Other Divine Law includes that a woman cannot be elected, and that to fully exercise the office one has to be a bishop, etc. Even if there were no Canon Law against a female being elect it, Divine Law would render the election of a woman null and void.
See, your problem is that you falsely follow the Wathenian error that the character of Baptism suffices for membership in the Church, that all the baptized are members of the Church. This is an opinion that was held by exactly one guy, but Pius XII put the nail into the coffin when he taught clearly that heretics and schismatics cease to be members of the Church.Nope, that is not what Fr. Wathen says at all, so whomever that one guy was, it was not Fr. Wathen. And for the record, Pope Pius XII never taught that heretics and schismatics cease to be members of the Church - you need to get your facts straight instead of shooting from the hip.
Stubborn, this isn’t fun and games. I will quote what the theologians say AGAIN:Why do you ignore my questions? Why do you bring up my position when my position has nothing to do with anything?
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
You of course will dismiss them because YOU are your own pope. YOU decide what is divine law because YOU are more qualified and are the ultimate authority. :facepalm:
I’m a reasonable man, if you can find a single pre VII authority that supports your position, I will look at your evidence, evaluate it and possibly reconsider my position. Get to work…..
Why do you ignore my questions? Why do you bring up my position when my position has nothing to do with anything?
Pretend I am considering becoming a sede with the questions I am asking for myself and on behalf of all those also thinking of becoming a sede. I will put the questions in caps this time......
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…"
WHICH DIVINE LAW?
WHAT PURPOSE DOES SEDEISM SERVE AND HOW DOES IT PROFIT SOULS UNTO SALVATION?
Stubborn, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.I will pretend like I am QVD.
Do you believe that JPII, Ratzinger and Begoglio are all legitimate popes and as
such we should show unwavering obedience to them?
If Bergoglio and any future papal claimant mandates the NO mass exclusively
are you on board with that?
Do you believe that we should just ignore the heretical statements and actions of
these men or do you believe they haven't committed heresey?
The only clear and consistent thing I've arrived at from reading your many posts
is that this minuscule small group of Catholics who call themselves sedevacantists are in schism.
I will pretend like I am QVD.
Do you think you are your own pope?
It seems that this is about semantics. It seems to me that Stubborn is stating that the only divine "law" in the Catholic Church are the 10 Commandments. However, I thought as Catholics we understand that divine truth is not just limited to the 10 Commandments and that God speaks to us through the Catholic Church. Is there a better term possibly?
Please!? Are you serious??? THE DIVINE LAW is that a heretic is NOT PAPABLE material. The only two reasons that I can see why you are deliberately being evasive, is either you are completely stupid or you refuse to admit that you are wrong since your whole house of cards will crumble. I know you are not stupid. :facepalm:
Please!? Are you serious??? THE DIVINE LAW is that a heretic is NOT PAPABLE material. The only two reasons that I can see why you are deliberately being evasive, is either you are completely stupid or you refuse to admit that you are wrong, since your whole house of cards will crumble. I know you are not stupid. :facepalm:
You STILL don't get it, apparently. Divine Law is a law given to us by God Himself. Do you understand this?
Please!? Are you serious??? THE DIVINE LAW is that a heretic is NOT PAPABLE material. The only two reasons that I can see why you are deliberately being evasive, is either you are completely stupid or you refuse to admit that you are wrong, since your whole house of cards will crumble. I know you are not stupid. :facepalm:
Give me a break. He’s asking you the source of the divine law. Theologians can quote it, but they can’t source it. I didn’t see any divine law quoted by your theologians.THANK YOU DR!
At least I quoted Daly in basing the claim on divine law (Scripture) and what he maintained were necessary conclusions from it .
Give me a break. He’s asking you the source of the divine law. Theologians can quote it, but they can’t source it. I didn’t see any divine law quoted by your theologians.
At least I quoted Daly in basing the claim on divine law (Scripture) and what he maintained were necessary conclusions from it .
:facepalm: You are really pathetic, is it too difficult to ascertain what the theologians are alluding to? So “smart guy” are you calling those theologians liars since they “can’t source it”?
I will pretend like I am QVD.I asked some honest questions about your positions since I'm relatively new on this forum.
Do you think you are your own pope?
It seems that this is about semantics. It seems to me that Stubborn is stating that the only divine "law" in the Catholic Church are the 10 Commandments. However, I thought as Catholics we understand that divine truth is not just limited to the 10 Commandments and that God speaks to us through the Catholic Church. Is there a better term possibly?No 2V, not semantics, Divine Law means one thing and one thing only - namely, a Law given to us directly from the mouth of God. Whoever did not know this, knows it now.
:facepalm: You are really pathetic, is it too difficult to ascertain what the theologians are alluding to? So “smart guy” are you calling those theologians liars since they “can’t source it”?
It seems that this is about semantics. It seems to me that Stubborn is stating that the only divine "law" in the Catholic Church are the 10 Commandments. However, I thought as Catholics we understand that divine truth is not just limited to the 10 Commandments and that God speaks to us through the Catholic Church. Is there a better term possibly?
I asked some honest questions about your positions since I'm relatively new on this forum.I do apologize, I gave you a reply that I should have given to QVD. I will give you a reply to that post.
If you don't feel like answering them that's fine but why respond in such a pointless way?
No 2V, not semantics, Divine Law means one thing and one thing only - namely, a Law given to us directly from the mouth of God. Whoever did not know this, knows it now.
I point blank asked Fr. Cekada which Divine Law he and his sources were referring to, and like everyone else here, he totally ignored the question as if I never asked it. There is no doubt in my mind that a) he fully knew what a Divine Law is and b) he ignored answering the question on purpose.....the same as is happening here.
Stubborn, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.1) Yes, they are all legitimate popes and no as regards unwavering obedience to them, see my signature as it explains the Church's principle regarding our obedience.
1) Do you believe that JPII, Ratzinger and Begoglio are all legitimate popes and as
such we should show unwavering obedience to them?
2) If Bergoglio and any future papal claimant mandates the NO mass exclusively
are you on board with that?
3) Do you believe that we should just ignore the heretical statements and actions of
these men or do you believe they haven't committed heresey?
4) The only clear and consistent thing I've arrived at from reading your many posts
is that this minuscule small group of Catholics who call themselves sedevacantists are in schism.
Why don’t you tell us, since they don’t?
Is it Divine law that a woman can’t be a priest?Which Divine Law states a heretic cannot be pope?
Answer me first, “smart” guy, is it Divine law that a woman can’t be a priest?
Which Divine Law states a heretic cannot be pope?
There’s a bit of a divine law line I’m afraid, and you’re at the counter, and I’m a bit further back.
So do resolve your issue first, and I’ll move up.
Did God give the Catholic Church the commission to interpret His Divine Law? If so, wouldn't that include determining who can be a pope and who can not?I would like to know this too. God decrees the law and the Church defends, preserves and enforces it through censures, penalties and teachings. Interprets? I don't know.
Peter was commissioned to confirm his brethren in the Faith. Obviously that would be incompatible and contradictory to his mission if he were a heretic teaching false doctrine.Still waiting to hear which Divine Law states a heretic cannot be pope.
So now, please tell me if a woman can be ordained a priest? If not, why not?
Still waiting to hear which Divine Law states a heretic cannot be pope.
By now, you really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.
Still waiting to hear which Divine Law states a heretic cannot be pope.
By now, you really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.
Answered above. Now “smart” guy, please tell me: Can a woman can be ordained a priest? If not, why not? Is it based on Divine Law?
😂😂😂 You and DR are too much! Anything but sedevacantism. You’d burn down every dogma just to say that the perverted communist in white is a pope! That is truly sick. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
😂😂😂 You and DR are too much! Anything but sedevacantism. You’d burn down every dogma just to say that the perverted communist in white is a pope! That is truly sick. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:You really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.
I would like to know this too. God decrees the law and the Church defends, preserves and enforces it through censures, penalties and teachings. Interprets? I don't know.Per the CE, yes:
Well, papal elections are an act of Church Administration, not Divine Law or Divine Election, which is not to say Divine Intervention cannot happen, but we can say with certainty literally any cardinal heretic or not, could be elected according to the laws of papal elections as established by the popes themselves.
So, like Daly, you are arguing from what you say are necessary conclusions from Scripture, and for you that’s Luke 22:32.
Was that so hard for you? So much of the above was unnecessary.
As to your question, I don’t know. I do know the Church teaches a woman can’t, and I do not question it. Since I have not made the assertion that it is divine law, I don’t need to source it the claim.
I would like to know this too. God decrees the law and the Church defends, preserves and enforces it through censures, penalties and teachings. Interprets? I don't know.
Well, papal elections are an act of Church Administration, not Divine Law or Divine Election, which is not to say Divine Intervention cannot happen, but we can say with certainty literally any cardinal heretic or not, could be elected according to the laws of papal elections as established by the popes themselves.
You really should simply admit as I have, that you have no idea which Divine Law. While you're at it, why not also admit you have no idea what the purpose of sedeism is or how it profits anyone unto salvation.
You want to know in what way “sedeism” profits me? Maybe because I have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy. Your words prove that you think otherwise. I would never dare to speak about or treat the man you consider a pope the way you do, if I thought he was a true pope, EVER!
We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists. Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days. Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.
Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff | From Rome (https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/03/within-a-month-the-catholic-church-will-have-a-new-roman-pontiff/)
How has stubborn treated Francis that you object to?
I found these quotes from Stubborn, but I apologize to him because it seems that he has restrained himself somewhat from speaking badly about his popes:
”Bergoglio and all the conciliar popes have been heretics.”
“he helped that whole treasonous effort, he left the fate of the whole world in the hands of Paul VI, Bugnini, JP2, and etc., etc.
If you can blind yourself to what you think Siri actually did, then think he would have been a better pope than Paul VI, then I can say that Paul VI was most likely the lesser of two evils. . .while being mindful that it could also be that Siri may well have handed the baton to Paul VI knowing that Paul VI was a better destroyer than himself.”
Glad you realized that stubborn generally refrains from saying much about the ill-deeds of the conciliar Popes.
I think that's illogical that a sedevacantist can say whatever he or she thinks about a heretic pope, but they don't want non-sedevacantists to do the same.
By this logic, a non-sedevacantist wouldn't even be able to consider that a pope can be a heretic. Therefore, you should never engage in conversation with a non-sedevacantist.
Or, perhaps you can say to a non-sedevacantist: "I can say whatever I like about the heresies of the non-Pope, but you are not allowed to say anything about the heresies of the so-called Pope, because you actually believe that he is the Pope."
Do you see how this could be a problem?
No, I don’t see it the way you do. Put yourself in my position. I look at these “popes” as usurpers, as evil people who have deliberately infiltrated the Church and are trying to destroy Her from within. I see them as evil people either willingly or unwittingly trying to bring souls to Hell.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care one iota what you say about them, I just believe that it’s extremely sinful to speak disparagingly about any *true* pope. If I believed that these usurpers were true popes, even if I disagreed with what they were doing, I would refrain from speaking ill of them. Again, it seems that Stubborn follows that vein of thinking.
Looking at the photo of Benedict’s coffin I see no crucifix, nor even a cross. What is the emblem at the top of the coffin, does anyone know?(https://i.imgur.com/Nz7Clzs.png)
What I highlighted in red is precisely why you should not be spouting your opinions all over the internet!The thing is, I admitted it.
You want to know in what way “sedeism” profits me? Maybe because I have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy. Your words prove that you think otherwise. I would never dare to speak about or treat the man you consider a pope the way you do, if I thought he was a true pope, EVER!So what. Non-sedes also have extremely profound respect for the Church and the Papacy - plus we embrace and obey the teachings of the infallible Magisterium when it teaches no one is permitted to omit the name of the pope during the Mass under pain of being in schism.
The thing is, I admitted it.
No, I don’t see it the way you do. Put yourself in my position. I look at these “popes” as usurpers, as evil people who have deliberately infiltrated the Church and are trying to destroy Her from within. I see them as evil people either willingly or unwittingly trying to bring souls to Hell.I see them the same way, probably most non-sede's also see them the same way. Again, so what?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care one iota what you say about them, I just believe that it’s extremely sinful to speak disparagingly about any *true* pope. If I believed that these usurpers were true popes, even if I disagreed with what they were doing, I would refrain from speaking ill of them. Again, it seems that Stubborn follows that vein of thinking.
The point I’m making is that if you don’t know such a fundamental function of the Catholic Church, then you really shouldn’t be expressing *your opinions* publicly and criticizing pre VII theologians. You should be following the theologians and learning from them.You keep side tracking - my opinion means zero - you have, can and always will trumpet that fact, who cares? What you fail to do is answer the simple questions one would think a sincere sede would be eager to answer.
You keep side tracking - my opinion means zero - you have, can and always will trumpet that fact, who cares? What you fail to do is answer the simple questions one would think a sincere sede would be eager to answer.
I criticize the theologians when they err - and the last few centuries some of them have erred a lot.
And still, after all your side tracking and ad hominems, no one has answered which Divine Law is interpreted to mean a heretic cannot be pope or elected as pope....or what purpose sedeism serves and how it profits them unto salvation.
Yet here you sit saying that I don't know the fundamentals. Check the mirror.
We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists. Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days. Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.I think Bugnolo has gone from being a kind of sordid huckster to a veritable danger to the faith of countless souls. He's become downright weaponized. Even worse, he's an unabashed liar. He told Jane Ruby outlandish and baldfaced lies; and these lies are now traveling through a very wide audience of confused men and women. Oh the damage he's doing! And who will stop him? Ann Barnhardt? And who will stop her? Just when you think the traditional faithful have been ground to powder by their self-sent overlords and masters, you realize that what's in store for them is virtual annihilation by Langoliers like Bugnolo and Barnhardt. God save us from these parasites; for they are eating us alive!!
Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff | From Rome (https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/03/within-a-month-the-catholic-church-will-have-a-new-roman-pontiff/)
During Wojtyla's funeral, there was a lot of wind, and the candles were extinguished by the wind, and there was an open Book of the Gospels (symbolizing the Book of Life) on his casket. It was literally blown shut by the wind.Muy interesante!!
During the solemn Medieval excommunication rite, a candle was extinguished and a Book of the Gospels was shut to signify the dying of grace and the exclusion of the excommunicated from the Book of Life.
You can see the book being buffeted about in the wind. Look at, 10:58-11:05 where it's still open but being blown around by the wind. At 18:07-18:10 you can see the pages being violently blown around, then again at about 19:34-19:37. By 24:37 - 24:47, you can see that it was shut by the wind, again recalling that the open book symbolizes the Book of Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IAa8zl-Or0
We will soon have a similar "Ratzinger Theory" from the Bennyvacantists. Brother Bugnolo is already stating that the Church will have a conclave in the next 30 days. Of course, this won't happen, but they will believe that there is a hidden pope....Benny's true successor, of course.
Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff | From Rome (https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/03/within-a-month-the-catholic-church-will-have-a-new-roman-pontiff/)
How does Bugnolo just pop off and start making such assertions?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Francis resign and have a conclave (but be careful what you wish for, two words, Luis Tagle), but Bugnolo to make such a bald-faced assertion that it is going to happen, is just talking b*****ks.
How does Bugnolo just pop off and start making such assertions?I'm pretty sure he's not talking about a conclave after Bergoglio potentially resigns within 30 days. He's talking about a conclave regardless of what he does (since the "true pope" has died).
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Francis resign and have a conclave (but be careful what you wish for, two words, Luis Tagle), but Bugnolo to make such a bald-faced assertion that it is going to happen, is just talking b*****ks.
The point I was making is that if you don’t know such a fundamental function of the Catholic Church, then you really shouldn’t be expressing *your opinions* publicly and criticizing pre VII theologians. You should be following the theologians and learning from them.
It's permitted to disagree with pre-V2 theologians. Unfortunately, Father Cekada exaggerated the status of theologians. But many were contaminated with Modernism going back 100-200 years. Msgr. Fenton has a good, balanced view on the role of theologians. But to dismiss all "19th and 20th century theologians" with a wave of the hand is pretty arrogant. If one disagrees, one should have the reasons (syllogisms) ready to back up said disagreement.
Absolutely, of course you can disagree with the theologians, but Stubborn stubbornly disregards almost all that they say.
Absolutely, of course you can disagree with the theologians, but Stubborn stubbornly disregards almost all that they say.
Absolutely, of course you can disagree with the theologians, but Stubborn stubbornly disregards almost all that they say.Feel free to provide some examples.
Stubborn disagrees with whatever they say that he doesn't like. But then he has the same attitude toward the Magisterium, reducing it to a tautology, where if the Pope teaches something, then it's true if it's true but false if it's false, therefore granting the Magisterium no more authority than I do whenever I make a post here on CI. There's no notion of a priori guarantee of reliability or truth. If I make a post here on CI that's true, then it's true, etc.Good heavens professor. 99% of the time you speak as if you are the magisterium, which actually is immune from error.
During Wojtyla's funeral, there was a lot of wind, and the candles were extinguished by the wind, and there was an open Book of the Gospels (symbolizing the Book of Life) on his casket. It was literally blown shut by the wind.
During the solemn Medieval excommunication rite, a candle was extinguished and a Book of the Gospels was shut to signify the dying of grace and the exclusion of the excommunicated from the Book of Life.
You can see the book being buffeted about in the wind. Look at, 10:58-11:05 where it's still open but being blown around by the wind. At 18:07-18:10 you can see the pages being violently blown around, then again at about 19:34-19:37. By 24:37 - 24:47, you can see that it was shut by the wind, again recalling that the open book symbolizes the Book of Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IAa8zl-Or0
Feel free to provide some examples.Let me rephrase that: Stubborn stubbornly disregards their opinions as having any value or weight.
Good heavens professor. 99% of the time you speak as if you are the magisterium, which actually is immune from error.:laugh1: :laugh2:
FWIW, the Santo Subito crowd are claiming that the heavy cloud and mist covering the dome of St Peter's during B16's funeral was a heavenly indicator of B16's holiness, a sort of divine approbation.
I'd rather not read too much into such 'signs'.
Right, you can't just wave them off because "19th and 20th century theologians". On MOST subjects, they're probably highly reliable ... even if they were contaminated on other subjects, particularly EENS and leaning toward religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism had to be condemned all the way back in time of Pope Pius IX, which means it was become fairly widespread by his day. But on most other subjects, they're generally very reliable.
There are some other issues I disagree with some of them about, such as about the notion that Univeresal Acceptance can convalidate an illegitimate election. In fact, I disagree with Universal Acceptance in general, because it would render cuм Ex Apostolatus moot, and so cuм ex strongly suggests that Pope Paul IV didn't beleive in UA. There's SOME place for it, but I don't think it's properly articulated. So, for instance, if Father Cekada's Aunt Helen had woke up one morning and decided that Pius XII wasn't the true pope, would she have had the right to become an SV? NOBODY doubted Pius XII. At the same time, if one believes that a Pope can BECOME a heretic as a private person (which is permitted), SOMEBODY has to be the first to call it out (despite there otherwise being UA). But then the awareness would progress from an individual doubt to more widespread doubt to ultimately universal rejection of the heretic pope. It would be a process. But according to UA, the first person to doubt it would be a heretic. I think there's something wrong with how that theory is understood.
But, apart from that, I think that 90% of work of pre-V2 theologians is reliable. Now, there are MANY issues on which there are different groups of theologians disagree, from Thomists vs. Molinists, or we had the "5 Opinions" about the heretical pope, etc. Those are fair game until the Church condemnes them.
Fr. Cekada quoted a teaching, whether from a theologian or a pope I do not know, but he said:
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…"
1) Which divine Law?
2) What purpose does sedism serve?
3) How does sedeism profit souls unto salvation?
So far every sede who has read these questions has ignored them. On that account we must presume they are sede for the sake of being sede and have no idea which Divine Law Fr. Cekada was referring to. Although ignored, and mostly ignored by QVD, he did his share of aiming ad hominems at me for asking them. same o same o.
I remember when I tried to get a sede who is no longer with us (rip) to answer similar questions, but all it did was to immensely upset the sede so I did not press it. Why the anger? Why aren't the sedes eager to answer?
Lad,
I can't imagine you writing these things with a straight face. This must be a real riot for you.
I don't mean to give you a hard time - I know I jump on you a bit - but when you write something like this while rejecting BOD, any form of BOD, based on a reading of Trent that you can't quote a single theologian in the centuries since Trent who agrees with you on (namely, that the "or" of Session VI, Chapter 4 doesn't indicate one can be justified in voto without receipt of the sacrament), not even Father Feeney . . .
:laugh1:
Fr. Cekada quoted a teaching, whether from a theologian or a pope I do not know, but he said:
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…"
1) Which divine Law?
2) What purpose does sedism serve?
3) How does sedeism profit souls unto salvation?
So far every sede who has read these questions has ignored them. On that account we must presume they are sede for the sake of being sede and have no idea which Divine Law Fr. Cekada was referring to. Although ignored, and mostly ignored by QVD, he did his share of aiming ad hominems at me for asking them. same o same o.
I remember when I tried to get a sede who is no longer with us (rip) to answer similar questions, but all it did was to immensely upset the sede so I did not press it. Why the anger? Why aren't the sedes eager to answer?
Name any other religion with a religious leader who would allow another who wasn't of the same Faith to be same leader. Could a Catholic (non-buddhist) be Dalai Lama? Could a Protestant (non-Jєω) be a Rabbi? Even false religions would never say (nor allow!) someone outside of their religion could be a religious leader in that religion. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the TRUE religion with the Vicar of Christ would expect anything less...:facepalm:
If you read my post #307, I answered your question: “Peter was commissioned to confirm his brethren in the Faith. Obviously that would be incompatible and contradictory to his mission if he were a heretic teaching false doctrine.” Even DR accepted my reasoning.
This is such an utterly fundamental Catholic teaching that even my 11 year old understands how a nonbeliever cannot possibly teach or confirm his brethren. This is why you thought I was evading your question when in fact I was mystified how anyone, who purportedly professes Catholicism, could possibly not see it.
Now, in order for my point to sink in, do you understand why I asked you: ‘is it Divine Law that a woman cannot be a priest’? Can you answer that question?
Stubborn....Ok, thanks for the feeble attempt.
1. The 1st and 3rd Commandment if you're only going by that but your premise is also incorrect in that it seems you are wanting to take each commandment at it's bare minimum and seem to think that only the 10 Commandments are binding on consciences but not Dogma. You realize that each Commandment covers a wide variety of sins correct? Do you also realize that The Church and Her Teachings are binding on consciences as well?
2. So one is not in schism by adhering to a sect that isn't Catholic.
3. Schismatics go to Hell when they die.
I don't know why Sede's don't answer these for you but there you go.
Let me rephrase that: Stubborn stubbornly disregards their opinions as having any value or weight.When they are in error, yes.
Nobody's ignored anything. You ignore (mentally filter out) the answers you're given and then claim that nobody's answer your question. I wrote a post already about your "1)". Your not liking my answer doesn't equate to "ignoring" the question. If you don't like my answer, refute it. But your claiming that we ignored it means that you either didn't see my post or ignored it.:facepalm:
As for 2) and 3), I don't see where they've even been brought up on this thread, but they've been clearly answered on other threads.
When they are in error, yes.
You're mystified because your answer is only your idea of Divine Law - God did not tell St. Peter if he ever became a heretic he would no longer be head of the Church - if He would have, THAT would be Divine Law. He commissioned St. Peter and all the Apostles to teach the faith, and even Judas was still an Apostle when he hung himself. Or do you actually think that he lost his office when he betrayed Our Lord, or lost it by committing ѕυιcιdє?
If you read my post #307, I answered your question: “Peter was commissioned to confirm his brethren in the Faith. Obviously that would be incompatible and contradictory to his mission if he were a heretic teaching false doctrine.” Even DR accepted my reasoning.
This is such an utterly fundamental Catholic teaching that even my 11 year old understands how a nonbeliever cannot possibly teach or confirm his brethren. This is why you thought I was evading your question when in fact I was mystified how anyone, who purportedly professes Catholicism, could possibly not see it. This is why the theologians that Father Cekada quoted didn’t feel the need to elaborate what Divine Law was in question.
Now, in order for my point to sink in, do you understand why I asked you: ‘is it Divine Law that a woman cannot be a priest’? Can you answer that question?
So says Pope Stubborn!It mystifies me how anyone, who purportedly professes Catholicism, could possibly say such a thing.
You're mystified because your answer is only your idea of Divine Law - God did not tell St. Peter if he ever became a heretic he would no longer be head of the Church - if He would have, THAT would be Divine Law. He commissioned St. Peter and all the Apostles to teach the faith, and even Judas was still an Apostle when he hung himself. Or do you actually think that he lost his office when he betrayed Our Lord, or lost it by committing ѕυιcιdє?
And for crying out loud already, no, a woman cannot be a priest is not Divine Law, it is against the law of the Church following the teaching of St. Paul who condemns the idea when he says "it is a shame for women to speak in the Church", he does not say it is against Divine Law for women to speak in the Church.
Name any other religion with a religious leader who would allow another who wasn't of the same Faith to be same leader. Could a Catholic (non-buddhist) be Dalai Lama? Could a Protestant (non-Jєω) be a Rabbi? Even false religions would never say (nor allow!) someone outside of their religion could be a religious leader in that religion. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the TRUE religion with the Vicar of Christ would expect anything less...:facepalm:Well gee 2V, who'd a ever guessed? All you are saying has been repeated ad infinitum on CI alone. How about taking a stab at answering:
For me, it's basic logic let alone theology.
No, not correct. Did you read what I wrote? The Church says no, St. Paul says no, even Pope JP2 said no. Stop with absurd hypotheticals.
Now we are getting somewhere. So if it’s not Divine Law and only Church Law, a pope can allow a woman to be ordained, correct?
No, not correct. Did you read what I wrote? The Church says no, St. Paul says no, even Pope JP2 said no. Stop with absurd hypotheticals.
I am done with screen time for today.
Well gee 2V, who'd a ever guessed? All you are saying has been repeated ad infinitum on CI alone. How about taking a stab at answering:Yeah, I know. I probably stated it years ago. Are you trying to tell me that you haven't stated the same thing ad infinitum on this forum for much longer than I? I'm not arguing with you Stubborn. You know I'm not interested in getting into another sede vs non-sede "debate" (and quite honestly I thought you were done with going there too). I'm already ignoring two other anti-sedes. I'm hoping I don't have to do the same with you as well.
1) What advantage over R&R does sedeism have?
2) What purpose does sedism serve?
3) How does sedeism profit souls unto salvation?
Example answers:
1) It makes me superior to R&R
2) It serves to disunify the faithful
3) It aids my salvation because what is said in the above quote is only known through sedeism.
I want to know why a sede is a sede. If you were to say because there is no pope, then all that reason does is cause disunity.
I'm pretty sure he's not talking about a conclave after Bergoglio potentially resigns within 30 days. He's talking about a conclave regardless of what he does (since the "true pope" has died).
Do you understand that there is a difference between Church Law and Divine Law? Do you understand that Church Law is changeable and Divine Law is not? So, if Fr. Cekada and the theologians that he quoted said it was Church Law instead of Divine Law, would that change anything for you? You’re really confused, aren’t you? I think you’re starting to realize that the positions that maintain your house of cards are being exposed as falsehoods.I understand Divine Law is a law given to us by God Himself. You SHOULD also understand it as I do BECAUSE that's what it is. I understand that Church Law is a law established by the Church, by popes, canon law and some are universal laws, some are not. Some are changeable and can be abrogated, some cannot. And that all Church laws include and are subservient with Divine Law, and no Church law contradict Divine Law. It's not complicated.
Yeah, I know. I probably stated it years ago. Are you trying to tell me that you haven't stated the same thing ad infinitum on this forum for much longer than I? I'm not arguing with you Stubborn. You know I'm not interested in getting into another sede vs non-sede "debate" (and quite honestly I thought you were done with going there too). I'm already ignoring two other anti-sedes. I'm hoping I don't have to do the same with you as well.No, I am not trying to tell you that I haven't stated the same thing a million times, rather, I am saying that by you repeating the same thing does not give any answer whatsoever to the questions I'm asking. All I am after is for some sede to honestly answer those questions - that is all I'm after. Again, that is all I'm after, but apparently it's asking too much for someone to actually give clear answers to the clear questions. The last 10 - 15 pages of this thread is proving no sede has an answer, which fascinates me and boggles my mind.
It just boggles my mind how anyone can really believe that a non-Catholic can be a pope. It's illogical. It makes zero sense to me, and that is why I posted what I posted.I fully understand why your mind is boggled by the idea, as to why I can only guess. For me, I believe it is due to 1) sedes making the pope something more than human but slightly less than God. The result of doing that I believe Fr. Wathen nailed when he said:
I understand Divine Law is a law given to us by God Himself. You SHOULD also understand it as I do BECAUSE that's what it is. I understand that Church Law is a law established by the Church, by popes, canon law and some are universal laws, some are not. Some are changeable and can be abrogated, some cannot. And that all Church laws include and are subservient with Divine Law, and no Church law contradict Divine Law. It's not complicated.
Fr. Cekada sites, as far as I can find, an author "Maroto" who wrote " Institutiones I.C. 2:784" in 1921 as his reference stating “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…" This is typical Fr. Cekada, using some obscure writer who, far as I can find, is not even a priest let a lone a theologian, certainly NOT any authority within the Church. The only reason he cited him was because what he wrote, fit his agenda.
This amounts to Fr. Cekada finding some nobody somewhere who wrote down error - and he ran with it to spread his opinion. And you run with it, and sedes all over the place run with it while evading the question and side tracking, not caring one iota about the truth of the matter while claiming the truth is what matters. Sadly, this is nothing new.
No need to continue evading and side tracking, we've hit the usual, and sadly expected, impasse.
No, I am not trying to tell you that I haven't stated the same thing a million times, rather, I am saying that by you repeating the same thing does not give any answer whatsoever to the questions I'm asking. All I am after is for some sede to honestly answer those questions - that is all I'm after. Again, that is all I'm after, but apparently it's asking too much for someone to actually give clear answers to the clear questions. The last 10 - 15 pages of this thread is proving no sede has an answer, which fascinates me and boggles my mind.My point was that you accused me of repeating something that was already discussed on the forum ad infinitum when you are just as guilty of repeating things through the years. Most of us long-timers are just as guilty. I mean really, what's new under the sun?
I fully understand why your mind is boggled by the idea, as to why I can only guess. For me, I believe it is due to 1) sedes making the pope something more than human but slightly less than God. The result of doing that I believe Fr. Wathen nailed when he said:
2) "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the only consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism."
In order to justify their mentality, I believe in this instance, per Fr. Cekada they pull up the "Divine Law" card, which does not exist, and at the same time does not matter. That's the mentality.
It won't offend me if you put me on ignore, I still like to read your posts. Heck, this one was one of your longer posts lol
My point was that you accused me of repeating something that was already discussed on the forum ad infinitum when you are just as guilty of repeating things through the years. Most of us long-timers are just as guilty. I mean really, what's new under the sun?I completely agree with everything you said here.
I think for those of us who have debated with you through the years, we recognize that answering your questions typically doesn't end there. Regardless of how we answer (and I actually thought that QvD *did* answer), you will continue to be anti-sede and claim that we are the source of disunity. Why would any of us want to bother with/subject ourselves to that? Years ago, I may have done so, but I have learned who is really looking to debate with me on this topic and who is not.QVD did not answer. This is because the Scripture he attributed to be a Divine Law is not a Divine Law at all, which is easily discerned by what Our Lord said in that Scripture. I mean, if that's a Divine Law, then Luke 2:49 is Divine Law, so is the story of creation in Genesis, and so on, which is simply absurd.
QVD did not answer. This is because the Scripture he attributed to be a Divine Law is not a Divine Law at all, which is easily discerned by what Our Lord said in that Scripture. I mean, if that's a Divine Law, then Luke 2:49 is Divine Law, so is the story of creation in Genesis, and so on, which is simply absurd.
So you see, neither he nor even one sede has stepped up and answered even one of my questions. I thought you would answer but, oh well. Par for the course I guess. I do find it somewhat incredible that the questions I asked are taken as being insulting or offensive rather than being looked at as an opportunity to offer clear explanations.
I completely agree with everything you said here.And this post is exactly why I won't bother.
QVD did not answer. This is because the Scripture he attributed to be a Divine Law is not a Divine Law at all, which is easily discerned by what Our Lord said in that Scripture. I mean, if that's a Divine Law, then Luke 2:49 is Divine Law, so is the story of creation in Genesis, and so on, which is simply absurd.
So you see, neither he nor even one sede has stepped up and answered even one of my questions. I thought you would answer but, oh well. Par for the course I guess. I do find it somewhat incredible that the questions I asked are taken as being insulting or offensive rather than being looked at as an opportunity to offer clear explanations.
And this post is exactly why I won't bother.The guy believes heretics are still in the Church, so idk why anyone bothers
I completely agree with everything you said here.
QVD did not answer. This is because the Scripture he attributed to be a Divine Law is not a Divine Law at all, which is easily discerned by what Our Lord said in that Scripture. I mean, if that's a Divine Law, then Luke 2:49 is Divine Law, so is the story of creation in Genesis, and so on, which is simply absurd.
So you see, neither he nor even one sede has stepped up and answered even one of my questions. I thought you would answer but, oh well. Par for the course I guess. I do find it somewhat incredible that the questions I asked are taken as being insulting or offensive rather than being looked at as an opportunity to offer clear explanations.
Galatians 1
[8] 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. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema
2 John
[9] Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.
Luke 22
[32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
I think your position is that a divine "law" is a commandment to do or not do something, ...
The guy believes heretics are still in the Church, so idk why anyone bothers
Stubborn,
Sorry that it seems that no one wants to engage you on your position, but I don't think you have directly addressed theirs either.
My purposes entering into this wasn't to engage on the issue, so I simply asked Quo for his assertion of the divine law basis for the opinion that a pope couldn't be a heretic. I for one responded to you earlier by quoting John Daly, who referred to Galatians 1:8-9 and 2 John 9-10. Quo cited Luke 22:32.
Their position is that necessary inferences from those verses are divine law supporting the position a pope can't be a heretic. To be fair, you haven't addressed directly their position, either.I understand why they need a Divine Law that in any possible light might be interpreted in such a way as to say that a heretic cannot be pope, that I understand. But for me, I still do not see a Divine Law anywhere stating “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate."
I think I can gather your position, but you haven't directly clarified it. I think your position is that a divine "law" is a commandment to do or not do something, or an indication that something is or is not, or can be or can't be - some type of prescription. I would imagine you would argue that the verses Daly and Quo cite do not necessitate their conclusions, although their inferences are allowable - but merely that.
So, for the longest time, I would argue with Stubborn by asserting that there wasn't a single theologian who ever believed that the Sacrament of Baptism sufficed for membership in the Church. I was mistaken in that I later found exactly one (as cited by Msgr. Fenton). But that's it. Every other theologian held that heretics and schismatics are not Catholics, not members of the Church, even if baptized. I should think that Pope Pius XII put an end to the question when he taught exactly that in an Encyclical, that heretics and schismatics are severed from the Church. That theologian who held the view was active prior to the Pius XII Encyclical.It doesn't say much for your advanced theological skills of finding truth when a total dumbell like me can find it.
Basically, then, Stubborn's ecclesiology is no different than that of Vatican II, which holds that all the baptized belong to the Church of Christ.
Eh, I guess I never really expected anyone to answer anyway, but still wanted to try.
Gal 1:8-9
Says to "let him be anathema", are you saying that the sedes read it as Divine Law that "he's not an angel?"
2 John 9-10
Is saying to ignore him, have nothing to do with him, per the Haydock it does not mean we cannot pray for him. Are you saying the sedes read that as Divine Law that the man is not a man i.e. the pope is not a pope aka the seat is vacant?
Luke 22:32
Yes, the faith of Peter, the Apostles and their successors is explained in the Haydock for that Scripture, and we see their successors' faith has indeed failed these last 6 decades, but that of St. Peter's successors can never fail when they speak ex cathedra. This Scripture is referenced and is explained in V1 and in that sense only, I can agree it is Divine Law, but not outside of ex cathedra declarations. Which is why it makes no sense to me how they take this Divine Revelation of Our Lord and insist it is Divine Law.
I understand why they need a Divine Law that in any possible light might be interpreted in such a way as to say that a heretic cannot be pope, that I understand. But for me, I still do not see a Divine Law anywhere stating “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate."
And I am not by any means alone here - there are many reputable trads who agree with me, Fr. Hesse for one. Listen to his talk on youtube "3500 bishops are wrong..." He spends almost 2 hours explaining.
Stubborn - no, the texts would not be relevant to the "una cuм" issue, but to the issue of whether a pope can be a heretic. I think Daly's texts and argument have a lot to say on the issue. Those Galatians 1 and 2 John texts are the ones that I struggle with on the issue not only of the pope but the whole Conciliar Church.The whole "heretic cannot be pope because it is against Divine Law" error is necessary to maintain a modicuм of validity to the sede doctrine. That's the only reason for it. Maintaining a vacant chair is of paramount importance, we can even say that nothing else really matters. IMO it is only if you can (safely) view this discussion this way will what the sedes say make some type of sense, but still only on the surface.
The whole "heretic cannot be pope because it is against Divine Law" error is necessary to maintain a modicuм of validity to the sede doctrine. That's the only reason for it. Maintaining a vacant chair is of paramount importance, we can even say that nothing else really matters. IMO it is only if you can (safely) view this discussion this way will what the sedes say make some type of sense, but still only on the surface.
All sin, every single solitary sin ever committed no matter how small or how terribly bad, is against Divine Law. The sin of heresy is against Divine Law, so is the making of a law against divine law, the sin of stealing is against divine law, the sin of lying is against divine law, etc,.
It is for a very, very good reason that the popes made it a law that the one elected, even if a heretic, is instantly pope upon his acceptance of the election. But the sedes absolutely and positively must reject this law - which, according to their own thinking, is a sin - against Divine Law.
Add to that, the popes who made the law, are ipso facto guilty of sinning against Divine Law. Which of course leads to a conclusion they completely ignore, i.e. those popes lost their office by making a law against Divine Law.
2 John says the same as Galatians, he says to not listen to "an angel from heaven" and to "let him be anathema." Why didn't St. Paul say "do not listen to him because he's not an angel from heaven?" Or "it will not be a false Gospel if he really is an angel from heaven?"
Because the only thing that matters is to not listen to false Gospels, to not listen to lies wherever they come from, we are to flee the danger, not try to decide if he's really an angel - because whether he is or is not an angel from heaven does not matter one iota, it most certainly did not matter to St. Paul and it most certainly does not matter to anyone else. The only thing that matters is to not listen. That is what that Scripture is teaching. That's why St. Paul said what he said and did not elaborate on the [im]possibility of it all, or the [il]legitimacy of the "angel from heaven".
Consider that instead of fleeing, we go contrary to that Scripture and hang around and decide he really is an angel, the danger in that is that we will listen and believe a false Gospel - because we did not flee and did not "let him be anathema." Now for the heck of it, let's say that the angel is the pope - what matters is that we do not listen - without any consideration whatsoever to his [il]legitimacy. This is what St. Paul taught us to do - and as always, for very good reason.
Do you realize that your argument, based on scripture, against ordaining women, can be dismissed in the same way as you have just done? Do you see the fallacy in your line of reasoning? Do you see how illogical it is? Spend some time and think about it.I was answering DR and your mind is still stuck on wild a hypothetical, which serves to prove what I said is true, that maintaining a vacant chair is of paramount importance, we can even say that nothing else really matters. The sede mindset, or at least your mindset revolves around an empty chair, nothing else really matters. You spend some time and think about it.
Do you realize that your argument, based on scripture, against ordaining women, can be dismissed in the same way as you have just done? Do you see the fallacy in your line of reasoning? Do you see how illogical it is? Spend some time and think about it.
I focus mostly on "let him be" rather than on "anathema." Iow, St. Paul is warning us, not the angel, and he is telling us what the correct action is that we are to take. Same as Our Lord warning us "Beware of false profits," He is not warning the false prophets, he's warning us against a mortal danger, not the false prophets. St. Paul is echoing the same message.
I don't think so, Quo. Stubborn wouldn't occupy himself with the question whether it was a "woman" talking in Church. It would suffice that it appears to be a woman, and Stubborn would insist on silence. I think he's making a valid distinction about the essence of the prohibition in a way.
What I think he's missing is the "anathema" part of Galatians, or the "receive him not into the house" part of 2 John. That suggests more than just don't listen, but rather consider the source outside the Church. It's the "anathema" part I struggle with, not the "not listen to."
I don't think so, Quo. Stubborn wouldn't occupy himself with the question whether it was a "woman" talking in Church. It would suffice that it appears to be a woman, and Stubborn would insist on silence. I think he's making a valid distinction about the essence of the prohibition in a way.
What I think he's missing is the "anathema" part of Galatians, or the "receive him not into the house" part of 2 John. That suggests more than just don't listen, but rather consider the source outside the Church. It's the "anathema" part I struggle with, not the "not listen to."
[8] 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.
Sed licet nos aut angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit.
[9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico : si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.
Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 1 (drbo.org) (https://drbo.org/drl/chapter/55001.htm)
The whole "heretic cannot be pope because it is against Divine Law" error is necessary to maintain a modicuм of validity to the sede doctrine.
This is what I mean:Yes, I've heard a few different definitions of anathema, personally I always preferred to it to mean "cursed" or "accursed" - that's just me. But by any definition, to me before anything else, anathema means "I must avoid" and that whoever dies in that state goes to hell, and I avoid so as not to join them in hell.
Here's the entry on "anathema" from a Catholic dictionary I posted a link to in the Library forum:
It doesn't say much for your advanced theological skills of finding truth when a total dumbell like me can find it.
Never, not once, not ever, did I EVER assert "that the Sacrament of Baptism sufficed for membership in the Church."
If you found one theologian who said that, he's wrong, but if you actually did look, you would've found a lot more than only one.
All this is to say you have no clue what my (Catholic) ecclesiology is.
You're either lying or so ignorant / stupid that you didn't even understand what you were saying (either one is possible). You have regularly argued that Baptism suffices for membership in the Church, citing Father Wathen (your rule of faith) along those lines. We've spent countless threads arguing about it, where you even tried to explain away Pope Pius XII as saying the opposite of what he actually taught, namely, that heresy and schism sever membership in the Catholic Church.You have next to zero reading comprehension.
If I had the time, I would find all your nonsense with the CI search engine, but you have been making this absurd claim for YEARS now.
Not to mention that you contradict yourself in this idiotic post. First you deny that you ever said that Baptism sufficed for membership, but then you claim that there are many theologians who hold this opinion (that you now claim you don't hold). No, there was exactly one theologian, and Msgr. Fenton named his name and explained that his position died with him.
You have next to zero reading comprehension.
Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain types of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See…
augustinees cited the Canonist Morato on another thread:Yep, from 1921 far as I can tell from some obscure nobody named Morato.
Let m guess, another 19th/20th century theologian, right?
Your other stupidity is the argument that the Magisterium is inerrant, but then you claim that any errors taught by the Pope are simply not "Magisterium". So if the Pope teaches and it happens to be true, then it's Magisterium, but if a Pope teaches something erroneous, then it's not Magisterium. So you defined Magisterium as the true things that a Pope happens to teach in his official teaching capacity, a definition that absolutely no one holds.
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
Yep, from 1921 far as I can tell from some obscure nobody named Morato.
You spent nearly the entirety of this thread here arguing that heretics are members of the Church.If the heretics were never Catholic, then they are not members. If they were Catholic and fell into the sin of heresy, then they are excluded from her communion (excommunicated). Should they want to repent and amend their lives, they can go to confession to be absolved - same as those who are excluded from her communion (excommunicated) for moral offenses, iow, same as all Catholics must do to be absolved from their mortal sins.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830346/#msg830346
:laugh1: :facepalm: Stubbon declares an approved and well educated Catholic Canonist to be "some obscure nobody". Instead we should listen to Stubborn, that FAMOUS SOMEBODY.Nobody even ever heard of Marato. I would like to know how long or how many books he had to page through for Fr. Cekada to find someone who fit his narrative.
You're entitled to disagree, Stubborn, but not gratuitously, simply because you don't like what someone has to say.
Nobody even ever heard of Marato. I would like to know how long or how many books he had to page through for Fr. Cekada to find someone who fit his narrative.
As I said, you're entitled to disagree and basically hold the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas opinion, as Father Chazal does, but you're not entitled to pretend that the Bellarmine opinion is made up by "sedes", some kind of invented narrative.
This is no "narrative" by Father Cekada. As I said, you're entitled to disagree and basically hold the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas opinion, as Father Chazal does, but you're not entitled to pretend that the Bellarmine opinion is made up by "sedes", some kind of invented narrative. There are many others beside Morato who say the same thing. Part of the problem is, as Decem pointed out, your notion of "Divine Law" is distorted / confused. God never issued a Canon Law. What's meant by divine law is something that proceeds inherently from the way that God has designed the Church, by the very definitions of Catholic ecclesiology. So, when St. Robert states that someone cannot be head of the Church who is not a member, that is considered to be a position from divine law, meaning, from the nature of the Church as constituted by God.I am not the one pretending anything - I've repeatedly said I don't care. What I care about is avoiding all things that could make me lose my greatest gift, my Catholic faith, which means I avoid all things NO, that's what I care about.