How many CI members now regard Pope Bergoglio as an antipope? How many of you now will acknowledge that Francis is not a legitimate pope of Rome. I am coming to think that priests like Fr. James Altman are right. Francis is not even Catholic.
I expect to hear immediately from all the usual suspects. Sean Johnson and Ladislaus, do you two believe that Pope B is a real pope? Or are the sedes, in this instance at least, right?
It is an objective fact that Bergoglio is an antipope. You can read the reason at www.antipope.com.
How many CI members now regard Pope Bergoglio as an antipope? How many of you now will acknowledge that Francis is not a legitimate pope of Rome. I am coming to think that priests like Fr. James Altman are right. Francis is not even Catholic.Mr. Bergolio preaches the false gospel of man which isn’t Catholic at all. Mr. Bergolio answers to a global government which hates our Lord. The Catholic Church was bad enough with the other popes but the laity didn’t have much exposure to their errors until the internet. Mr Bergolio has caused many people to lose their faith to become atheists. The synod is about worshipping man and mortal sin instead of God. It rejects Jesus Christ.
I expect to hear immediately from all the usual suspects. Sean Johnson and Ladislaus, do you two believe that Pope B is a real pope? Or are the sedes, in this instance at least, right?
Since you've asked me specifically, yes, Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope. I lean sedeprivationist myself, but I'm on the fence about whether that even fits here (for various reasons I don't want to elaborate upon).I regard Bergoglio as an antipope and prophet of the Antichrist. Like Ladislaus, I too lean sedeprivationist. Yet in the case of Bergoglio, he has never obtained a valid election so that the necessary elements are not peesent for sedeprivationism. Unlike Montini, Luciani, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger who all had valid elections and held at least material papacies, the situation with Bergoglio is an unnuanced vacancy of the Petrine Office.
So I presume from the comments of a number of you that Francis not a validly elected pope, an imposter, if you will, even an antipope. So the Chair is empty, or presently vacated. Do I detect a new found respect for the sedevacantist position?The comments are mainly from those who are either sedeprivationist, bennyvacantist or already sedevacantist. It would be interesting to hear if any sedeplenists have changed their views due to Bergoglio. That is why I suggest an anonymous poll.
How many CI members now regard Pope Bergoglio as an antipope? How many of you now will acknowledge that Francis is not a legitimate pope of Rome. I am coming to think that priests like Fr. James Altman are right. Francis is not even Catholic.
I expect to hear immediately from all the usual suspects. Sean Johnson and Ladislaus, do you two believe that Pope B is a real pope? Or are the sedes, in this instance at least, right?
So I presume from the comments of a number of you that Francis not a validly elected pope, an imposter, if you will, even an antipope. So the Chair is empty, or presently vacated. Do I detect a new found respect for the sedevacantist position?
Those who hold all conciliar popes up to and including Benedict XVI as valid popes are not Sedevacantists.
What are they?"Sedevacantists" is too broad of a category. If we did not know Catholic Knight's position, but we were only told he is a Sedevacantist, how many of us would assume he believes that Pius XII was the last Pope and all the consequences that follow that belief.
So I presume from the comments of a number of you that Francis not a validly elected pope, an imposter, if you will, even an antipope. So the Chair is empty, or presently vacated. Do I detect a new found respect for the sedevacantist position?I’m a Catholic clinging to my religion. We are Catholics. As Catholics, we allowed mortal sin into our church because of lukewarmness. It got worse over 50 years ago when many chose the religion of television, sports, adultery, contraceptives, politics, internet. Many Catholics make up lame excuses to continue to worship false idols. They became worldly and ditched their faith like the Israelites did during Moses time.
"Sedevacantists" is too broad of a category. If we did not know Catholic Knight's position, but we were only told he is a Sedevacantist, how many of us would assume he believes that Pius XII was the last Pope and all the consequences that follow that belief.
Sure, but some sedes say the chair emptied when John XXIII was elected, and others when Paul VI ascended, but nobody (including the sedes themselves) ever disputed both were sedes, presumably because the essential criterion is only that the chair is empty, and when it emptied.I suppose it is because the "Benny's" are still "R & R" in the they "Recognize" the current hierarchy (Cardinals and Bishops) but "Resist" them. Whereas the classic sedes do not recognize them. They have much more in common with the typical R&R that with the typical Sede.
If, therefore, Paul VI sedes are really sedes, why aren’t the Benny’s??
"Sedevacantists" is too broad of a category. If we did not know Catholic Knight's position, but we were only told he is a Sedevacantist, how many of us would assume he believes that Pius XII was the last Pope and all the consequences that follow that belief.
I suppose it is because the "Benny's" are still "R & R" in the they "Recognize" the current hierarchy (Cardinals and Bishops) but "Resist" them. Whereas the classic sedes do not recognize them. They have much more in common with the typical R&R that with the typical Sede.
It never takes long for this kind of a topic to go into the weeds with talk about "sedeprivationists" or 'hard core sedes' who date their position from John XXIII on. Let's skip all that for the time. Do any of you, like Fr. James Altman, openly declare that the man presently occupying Peter's Chair is a "fraud" and a "viper?" Easy question, and should produce and easy answer.
It never takes long for this kind of a topic to go into the weeds with talk about "sedeprivationists" or 'hard core sedes' who date their position from John XXIII on. Let's skip all that for the time. Do any of you, like Fr. James Altman, openly declare that the man presently occupying Peter's Chair is a "fraud" and a "viper?" Easy question, and should produce and easy answer.
More Catholic clergy and Catholic laity
should publicly rebuke Mr. Bergolio as Father Altman did. How many traditional Catholic clergy and laity are rebuking Mr. Bergolio. Mr. Bergolio is a communist who rejects Jesus. He believes and promotes a false gospel.
Lad: According to Meg, sedevacantists "control" this forum.
Just relax. The control of this forum should not be the issue. Who cares who controls the so-called 'forum.' Any true Catholic should be focused on who Bergoglio really is. Is he our pope, or is he an evil imposter? I think that I'm forced by the evidence to admit the latter.
Just relax. The control of this forum should not be the issue. Who cares who controls the so-called 'forum.' Any true Catholic should be focused on who Bergoglio really is. Is he our pope, or is he an evil imposter? I think that I'm forced by the evidence to admit the latter.
Just because more Catholic clergy and Catholic laity aren't Youtube celebrities, that doesn't mean they aren't "rebuking" or, rather, "calling out" Jorge for who he is. According to Meg, sedevacantists "control" this forum.
Why do we have to focus so much on Francis and "who he really is?" Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things, and why? Is there really so little else to talk about? After all, what can we really do about the status of the Pope?Yes, it matters greatly in the grand scheme of things. It matters greatly that the Vicar of Christ might be an antipope, and probably is. It matters so much that we Catholics can scarcely move forward until the matter is settled.
Yes, it matters greatly in the grand scheme of things. It matters greatly that the Vicar of Christ might be an antipope, and probably is. It matters so much that we Catholics can scarcely move forward until the matter is settled.
Yes, it matters greatly in the grand scheme of things. It matters greatly that the Vicar of Christ might be an antipope, and probably is. It matters so much that we Catholics can scarcely move forward until the matter is settled.
Just relax. The control of this forum should not be the issue. Who cares who controls the so-called 'forum.' Any true Catholic should be focused on who Bergoglio really is. Is he our pope, or is he an evil imposter? I think that I'm forced by the evidence to admit the latter.
No one will likely agree with me, but it seems that Satan may be using sedevacantism as a distraction, since some (perhaps many?) sedevacantists here seem to think that the most important aspect of our salvation rests on declaring that Francis is an antipope, and nothing is more important. That's just a little scary, IMO.
No one will likely agree with me, but it seems that Satan may be using sedevacantism as a distraction, since some (perhaps many?) sedevacantists here seem to think that the most important aspect of our salvation rests on declaring that Francis is an antipope, and nothing is more important. That's just a little scary, IMO.I agree that sedeism is a distraction, it should be obvious to everyone that the fruit of sedeism is disunity among the faithful, which makes the idea-turned-doctrine iniquitous. But the sedes cannot see it this way for some reason. I think that all the rest of us can do is just hope they guessed correctly, because if they are wrong the price is too high.
Why do we have to focus so much on Francis and "who he really is?" Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things, and why? Is there really so little else to talk about? After all, what can we really do about the status of the Pope?
Meg, this is the crux of your problem, you completely misunderstand the importance of the papacy. You also have a dangerous and nearly heretical and possibly schematic conception of the papacy. The pope is not just some elected leader who you can ignore if he is bad or if you don’t like him for some reason. He is the Vicar of Christ, he holds the keys, he is the one who Jesus appointed as head of the Church, the Rock on whom the Church was built. He who hears the pope hears Christ. To paraphrase Venerable Pius IX, he is tradition, he is the Church.Sedes forget that it is Christ who is the head of the Church, not the pope, which is to say that with today's crisis, we are to follow the rules and laws of the Church's Head, which is Christ, not the pope when he goes contrary. And contrary to the sede mindset, Christ and the pope are not one and the same, it is Christ and the Church that are one and the same. We can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one, and being one makes the Church, which is Christ, indefectible - which makes that another issue that we do not concern ourselves with.
This nonchalant disregard for the papacy, is what really disturbs me about the hazardous path the the R&R position has taken in recent years. They have made the papacy superfluous.
One hugely important reason to know if the man dressed in white is the pope is because if he is a true pope and you knowingly separate yourself from him, you become a schismatic and thus a nonCatholic. Yes, it’s extremely important to know if the man dress in white is really the pope.
This nonchalant disregard for the papacy, is what really disturbs me about the hazardous path the the R&R position has taken in recent years. They have made the papacy superfluous.
Sedes forget that it is Christ who is the head of the Church, not the pope, which is to say that with today's crisis, we are to follow the rules and laws of the Church's Head, which is Christ, not the pope when he goes contrary. And contrary to the sede mindset, Christ and the pope are not one and the same, it is Christ and the Church that are one and the same. We can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one, and being one makes the Church, which is Christ, indefectible - which makes that another issue that we do not concern ourselves with.A more complete explanation…
A more complete explanation…Explanation understood and accepted, but I did not say anything contrary to that explanation for the reason that I believe that explanation is certainly true.
Yes, people don't understand that this here is the core problem. It's less about the details regarding whether this or that guy is or is not the pope, but about the principles involved.As time goes on, I believe less and less that people "don't understand". Protestants don't care who the pope is or what the pope says and does. Catholics do.... or at least should.
Thank you for your humility and honesty.
Any true Catholic should be focused on who Bergoglio really is. Is he our pope, or is he an evil imposter? I think that I'm forced by the evidence to admit the latter.
Sedes forget that it is Christ who is the head of the Church, not the pope, which is to say that with today's crisis, we are to follow the rules and laws of the Church's Head, which is Christ, not the pope when he goes contrary. And contrary to the sede mindset, Christ and the pope are not one and the same, it is Christ and the Church that are one and the same. We can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one, and being one makes the Church, which is Christ, indefectible - which makes that another issue that we do not concern ourselves with.
if Stubborn gives the OK for it.
Prots believe we worship Mary too, they also believe, like sedes, that we're supposed to obey the pope blindly - that is, until popes say something that destroys or threatens sedeism, then it only applies when the pope is the pope.
No Catholic can deny that Christ is the head of the Church, but this is exactly what Protestants say in order to demean the papacy. You and they (the Protestants) NEED to destroy the holy office of the papacy in order to reconcile what you and they believe is the correct way Christ established His Church.
Pope is Christ's Vicar, and when we have one, for all intents and purposes related to teaching authority and jurisdiction, he IS Christ. What he binds on earth is bound in Heaven. If people believe that Jorge is pope, his edict to restrict the Tridentine Mass is now bound in Heaven. Or perhaps Our Lord didn't really mean it. What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, if Stubborn gives the OK for it.The lengths sedes go to in order to justify their doctrine continues to amaze. It is as DL, God bless him, said - there is a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair....if you have to ignore or reject all the other truths, principles, laws and rules of the Church and faith to maintain that one idea, so be it. :facepalm:
As time goes on, I believe less and less that people "don't understand". Protestants don't care who the pope is or what the pope says and does. Catholics do.... or at least should.Jorge's antics are a damaging cudgel used by Prots who hate Catholicism. He truly is a destroyer and was not canonically elected. He certainly is qualified to fulfill St. Francis' prophesy. It is thus no small irony that the man "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter chose "Francis" as his stage name.
There is a diabolical synod coming up. It is filled with the most unholy evil agendas ever. …
Prots believe we worship Mary too, they also believe, like sedes, that we're supposed to obey the pope blindly - that is, until popes say something that destroys or threatens sedeism, then it only applies when the pope is the pope.
Don't tell me what prots believe, I don't care. The dogma states it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the pope, period. Sedes conveniently add the disclaimer that the dogma is dependent up whether we believe he's the pope or not - just as if that is something they can do - because the pope is not the pope of course. Good luck with that, I truly hope it works, I really do.
The pope is not the head of the Church, accept that.
Those who follow these heretical popes into perdition, do so of their own free will - just as you would have were it not for the grace of God you corresponded to, accept that.
The graces that you accepted, the whole rest of the NO world willfully rejected and still reject, and will reject - of their own free will, accept that.
No pope/non-pope/heretical usurper pope with all the heretical NO bishops, cardinals and priests are able to destroy the Church, not even were it to go on for 10000 years if this world lasts that long, any more than they could destroy Christ.
If, God forbid, you do not make it to heaven, it will not be because heretics have sat in the Chair.
Please explain to me what is the purpose of having a pope/papacy?
The lengths sedes go to in order to justify their doctrine continues to amaze. It is as DL, God bless him, said - there is a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair....if you have to ignore or reject all the other truths, principles, laws and rules of the Church and faith to maintain that one idea, so be it. :facepalm:
That's not correct. SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.
We have a corrupt Magisterium, an entirely novel and non-Catholic system of theology (not just a few isolated statement in Vatican II), a novel non-Catholic ecclesiology where the schismatic and heretical "Churches" can be part of the Church of Christ, a complete and consistent rejection of EENS dogma (culminating in Jorge's recent declaration of schismatic "martyrs", verbatim contradicting the teaching of the Council of Florence that there can be no salvation outside the Church even if one were to shed his blood for Christ), the promotion of religious indifferentism.
We have a "Mass" that differs not a lick from Cranmer's abomination and is consistent with Luther's butchery of the Catholic Mass, complete with a replacement of the Catholic Offertory (which Luther hated with a passion), replacing it with a тαℓмυdic "table blessing".
We have masses of obviously bogus canonizations, and popes are also prevented by the Holy Ghost from issuing bogus canonizations.
There's nothing in the Conciliar Church that resembles the mark of "Holiness" nor "Oneness", as there as as many heresies floating out there as there are Conciliar bishops. Jorge promotes the heretics and Modernists and punishes the relatively-faithful bishops like Strickland.
If St. Pius X had been time-warped forward to today and been shown the Conciliar Church, would he have recognized it as the Catholic Church had he not been told that it was? Absolutely not. Ergo, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. It's as simple as that, and one need not have a degree in theology to dissect the propositions of Vatican II. Simple faithful can see that. When I first became a Traditional Catholic, I read a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori and realized, without any theological analysis, that the faith this man exhibits in his books is not the same faith and the same religion that the Conciliar Church puts into practice.
Please explain to me what is the purpose of having a pope/papacy?To govern according to Catholic principles, adhering to the traditions and precedents of his predecessors, teach the true Gospel of Christ, shepherd over the flock requiring them to do what Christ commanded. Essentially speak and preach for the Church. God gave him supreme and universal authority in order that he might do these things. God did not make him impeccable upon acceptance of his election.
Lad succinctly summarized the "truths, principle, laws, and rules of the Church" to which you are bound by your "Pope."Again, it actually is as I said Mark. I've come to believe that sedes have a blind spot because here again, what I wrote and what you just replied to are apples and oranges, as if I did not write anything at all. In the past I noted this phenomena whenever the pope is discussed, as having this discussion within the Tower of Babble.
Follow your anti-Popolatry to its logical conclusion—anti-Catholicism.
To govern according to Catholic principles, adhering to the traditions and precedents of his predecessors, teach the true Gospel of Christ, shepherd over the flock requiring them to do what Christ commanded. Essentially speak and preach for the Church. God gave him supreme and universal authority in order that he might do these things. God did not make him impeccable upon acceptance of his election.
The highest of all the Church's principles is in my signature.
So, I assume we agree that Bergoglio does none of those things. Now, if he doesn’t fulfill a single part of his duty, what is purpose?
You can put his picture up in the vestibule and say, "Look, the pope!" And, more importantly, you can say "We're not wicked sedevacantists."(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/087/153/original/e51e701d1428103f.png)
Again, it actually is as I said Mark. I've come to believe ……
You can put his picture up in the vestibule and say, "Look, the pope!" And, more importantly, you can say "We're not wicked sedevacantists."And this is really the truth of the matter. It is much easier to point the blame at sedes for the "division" in the Church than to point it at their pope.
So, I assume we agree that Bergoglio does none of those things. Now, if he doesn’t fulfill a single part of his duty, what is purpose?The purpose for him being the pope does not change just because he's a 100% disaster and has a diabolical purpose of his own, and before God he will answer for what he's doing. That much is certain.
That's a false and subjective statement of the principle, making you no different than any Prot or Old Catholic or heretic. ALL of these CLAIM that they are obeying God and that the Catholic Church has become corrupt. But God established the Papacy and the Papal Magisterium precisely in order to be that interpreter of Tradition. Your approach of appealing to "Tradition" is no different than any Prot's appeal to "Sacred Scripture," except that you have 2 sources of Revelation instead of just their 1. As St. Thomas explains, this effectively makes your own mind into your rule of faith, and it's destructive of supernatural faith. You've fallen into a heretical and non-Catholic mindset, and you need to pray to be lifted out of it.Yes, of course it's false and subjective to you and only to you (and other sedes), otherwise it defeats the the whole purpose of sedeism - you can't have that.
… a solid track record of errors.Well Mark, at least I remain faithful to the dogma, so I at least have that going for me. Good luck if that's an error to you. But please consider that I'm not the one entrapped in a self imposed conundrum.
Even your bait and switch of impeccability with infallibility is a glaring error and a straw man. Nobody advanced a claim that even a true Pope is impeccable.
Feel free to remain Stubborn in your errors. You will get no traction with errors.
And this is really the truth of the matter. It is much easier to point the blame at sedes for the "division" in the Church than to point it at their pope.No 2V, it's simple facts. Yes, the pope is a heretic and is one cause, likely even the primary cause of disunity within the Church as far as the whole Church is concerned, but before anyone knew that it even was the pope that perpetrated the NO in the 60s, the division was taking hold and happening in one dioceses after another, because an entirely new way of praying was introduced and accepted by many, causing an entirely new way of believing among many.
The purpose for him being the pope does not change just because he's a 100% disaster and has a diabolical purpose of his own, and before God he will answer for what he's doing. That much is certain.
So, basically what you are saying is that we really don’t need him or any pope for that matter. Correct?Not an unreasonable question, and one that many are probably asking. Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church." That was two thousand years ago. Christ did build His Church over that period of time. Has He finished building His Church? I don't know. But if there is more building to be done, I can assure you it will not be done through Francis. Francis tears down. He does not build up. We really do not need Francis, for sure.
That's a false and subjective statement of the principle, making you no different than any Prot or Old Catholic or heretic. ALL of these CLAIM that they are obeying God and that the Catholic Church has become corrupt. But God established the Papacy and the Papal Magisterium precisely in order to be that interpreter of Tradition. Your approach of appealing to "Tradition" is no different than any Prot's appeal to "Sacred Scripture," except that you have 2 sources of Revelation instead of just their 1. As St. Thomas explains, this effectively makes your own mind into your rule of faith, and it's destructive of supernatural faith. You've fallen into a heretical and non-Catholic mindset, and you need to pray to be lifted out of it.
And this is exactly what it amounts to, doesn’t it?(239) The Pope Speaks! YOU Decide! - YouTube
Not an unreasonable question, and one that many are probably asking. Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church." That was two thousand years ago. Christ did build His Church over that period of time. Has He finished building His Church? I don't know. But if there is more building to be done, I can assure you it will not be done through Francis. Francis tears down. He does not build up. We really do not need Francis, for sure.
But we do need a pope, I think, to fulfill the Fatima message: to fully consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart and to reveal the Third Secret, and to secure Mary's final victory. Such a pope, I am certain, is not Bergoglio. That must be some future pope.
So, basically what you are saying is that we really don’t need him or any pope for that matter. Correct?Well, the sedes have been without one for 60 years and far as they're concerned, they are essentially the only ones who have it right, SO YOU TELL ME.
excellent!Yes, excellent! Lad states that he does not know right from wrong unless a pope tells him - and you congratulate him. :facepalm:
Well, the sedes have been without one for 60 years and far as they're concerned, they are essentially the only ones who have it right, SO YOU TELL ME.
Aside from that, I think a snip from Who Shall Ascend? is well to insert here for your consideration:
"...So, what is so burdensome about all this? Who, it might be asked, has an easier assignment? Everything has been instituted with incomparable wisdom. After almost two thousand years, the Church has developed into an organization of excellent structure The doctrine is certain; the moral code is incontrovertible in the main; the divine liturgy has been (had been) refined to a perfection; the code of laws worked. In a word, the spiritual doctrine, the tradition, the authority, the experience, the customs, the supernatural objectives all have been established. With a little prudence and a little caution on the part of the pope, Holy Church will practically run itself!..."
No, lets talk about the last 2000 years. You are inferring that we really didn’t need a pope all that time, correct?
Why does it matter that there isn't a pope at any given time when this cardboard pope of theirs serves no purpose? In fact, given that the V2 papal claimants have done little besides ruining souls, we would have been better off without a pope during the past 60+ years than to have these popes. It's like when the US government goes into shut down, and no one notices, and we're actually better off without them.You know, Lad, I have to acknowledge and even commend your out-of-the-box thinking on this issue. Never thought I'd do that. You're right, V-2 popes do little except ruin souls. We could have done without them for the past 60 years. We can certainly do without this current papal knuckle-dragger, who plunges the church even more deeply into this 'Mad Max,' dystopian nightmare of a world in absolute ruin and chaos. It's Genesis one all over again, when the world was void and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. Catholics must hitch up their drawers, and finally admit that Francis is a fake and a phony, an evil interloper, who is not even Cadtholic
I love how they complain about not having a pope when for them the pope serves no purpose.
And this is really the truth of the matter. It is much easier to point the blame at sedes for the "division" in the Church than to point it at their pope.
No word is more effective than “sede-vacantist” for shutting down intelligent Catholic conversation on the Church crisis, ecclesiastical masonry or Jєω-popes.Kinda the way the Jews use 'antisemitism' to shut any discussion about their wayward race.
And this is really the truth of the matter. It is much easier to point the blame at sedes for the "division" in the Church than to point it at their pope.
(239) The Pope Speaks! YOU Decide! - YouTube
F (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp9vQJhJE8o)YI: Louie V has since taken the Sedevacantist position.
Early in the Vatican II Council, Msgr. Bugnini challenged conservative Cardinals that their opposition to Pope Paul VI’s changes meant they did not believe the pope was the pope.
The resisting Cardinals balked at Bugnini’s bluff.
In post Council years, controlled opposition trads have turned “sede-vacantist” into a talismanic word.
No word is more effective than “sede-vacantist” for shutting down intelligent Catholic conversation on the Church crisis, ecclesiastical masonry or jew-popes.
No, lets talk about the last 2000 years. You are inferring that we really didn’t need a pope all that time, correct?No. Incorrect. Did you even read the snip I posted? You should. It explains a lot in just a few sentences.
Catholics must hitch up their drawers, and finally admit that Francis is a fake and a phony, an evil interloper, who is not even CadtholicWhy must Catholics do this? I am asking you because if there is one thing that CI demonstrates, it's that it never ends there, at least not for many of those who do what you say must be done.
Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm); and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
No Catholic can deny that Christ is the head of the Church, but this is exactly what Protestants say in order to demean the papacy. You and they (the Protestants) NEED to destroy the holy office of the papacy in order to reconcile what you and they believe is the correct way Christ established His Church.
No. Incorrect. Did you even read the snip I posted? You should. It explains a lot in just a few sentences.
Let's keep on topic and talk about today and how sedes prove they do not need a pope by having kept the faith without any pope - or hierarchy or priests for the last 60 years, all the while excoriating R&R over the matter.
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.And it is you who does not adhere loyally to the man you believe to be the Vicar of Christ. You are also the one who ignores the teaching in 40 that the Vicar of Christ and Christ are one Head.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm), n. 41; underlining added.)
Yes he has.
Not entirely. Louie admittingly attends Mass at a FSSP parish. FSSP priests are ordained by bishops consecrated in the New Rite. Therefore, Louie implicitly accepts that the New Rite of Consecration is valid. If am incorrect about this conclusion, then please enlighten me. I have not once heard him state that the New Rite of Consecration is invalid or doubtfully valid.
I do believe that the pope is an essential part of the Church, but not having one for the past 60 years doesn’t preclude the papacy’s necessity or the survival of the Church. Many Church Fathers, theologians, and scholars dealing with eschatology have discussed the “end times” regarding the eclipse of the papacy. Father O’Reilly being one theologian off the top of my head. This long interregnum is something that has been speculated about in the past, so whether SV is true or not, it was not out of the realm of possibility in the minds of our betters.Ok, in answer to your question: Yes, the papacy is, was, and always will be a necessary part of the Church, I have never said or implied otherwise, yet I stand by what I said earlier; "The purpose [and reason] for him being the pope does not change just because he's a 100% disaster and has a diabolical purpose of his own, and before God he will answer for what he's doing. That much is certain."
Now, the Church is 2000 years old. You are inferring that the papacy wasn’t a necessary part of the Church since you seem to believe that the pope’s function was no more (or little more) than an ordinary bishop. Is that correct?
I’ve answered your question, now answer mine.
And it is you who does not adhere loyally to the man you believe to be the Vicar of Christ. You are also the one who ignores the teaching in 40 that the Vicar of Christ and Christ are one Head.Condemns my own position? My position has +2000 years of what the Church has always taught to back it up, your problem is your idea of what my position is has been adulterated by your sede thinking. I hope you take this in the spirit in which I said it, not an ad hominem.
These excerpts condemn your own position.
Not entirely. Louie admittingly attends Mass at a FSSP parish. FSSP priests are ordained by bishops consecrated in the New Rite. Therefore, Louie implicitly accepts that the New Rite of Consecration is valid. If am incorrect about this conclusion, then please enlighten me. I have not once heard him state that the New Rite of Consecration is invalid or doubtfully valid.
In early 2021, I received the wholly unmerited grace of a dramatic and sudden "conversion" that sent me directly to the TLM, which I'd had no exposure to prior.Well said.
Since then, I've spent too much time wrestling with this topic... I'm still very sympathetic to the sedeprivationist position, but I've come to believe that the exact situation of the papacy is not for me to know nor for me to publicly declare as a layman at this time...
Bottom line: we're experiencing a severe and well-earned chastizement.
What matters to this layman is my reaction to this chastizement--not my understanding and debating of the exact means of chastizement.
And my reaction must obviously be to flee to penance, prayer and reception of the sacraments in their traditional, time-honored forms.
TLDR version: It's ultimately a distraction for laymen to argue whether or not we have an antipope on the Chair of Peter... God is obviously using Pope Francis / Jorge Bergoglio to chastize us and we must react justly, with penance and prudence.
God allows this crisis for the same reason He permits us to be tempted, namely, for the sake of our purification ...
Yes, he's made a sudden, devoted convert out of me.Convert to what?
Bishop Williamson, it's time to fish or cut bait.
Convert to what?Why, convert to CVism, of course. Doesn't that require conversion from let-the-next-pope-set-things right to I'll do it myself using simple eye and ear tests?
Why, convert to CVism, of course. Doesn't that require conversion from let-the-next-pope-set-things right to I'll do it myself using simple eye and ear tests?CVism? Is that conclavism you are converting to? I can't tell if you're serious or not.
CVism? Is that conclavism you are converting to? I can't tell if you're serious or not.I'll make it simple: I got of the dime when it comes to Francis. Fr. James Altman convinced me that he is not a pope. I can no longer leave the question in my own mind to a future conclave and the next pope, as was my position earlier. Bergoglio is, indeed, a fraud and a viper. I'm forced to take the Bellarmine approach, i.e. that Frank is condemned and dethroned by his own behavior. His own actions decide his fate. Simple, as I said.
I'm forced to take the Bellarmine approach, i.e. that Frank is condemned and dethroned by his own behavior. His own actions decide his fate. Simple, as I said.Who is forcing you to take this approach? What will you do differently now?
I'll make it simple: I got of the dime when it comes to Francis. Fr. James Altman convinced me that he is not a pope. I can no longer leave the question in my own mind to a future conclave and the next pope, as was my position earlier. Bergoglio is, indeed, a fraud and a viper. I'm forced to take the Bellarmine approach, i.e. that Frank is condemned and dethroned by his own behavior. His own actions decide his fate. Simple, as I said.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30: "… for men are not bound, or able, to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."
Who is forcing you to take this approach? What will you do differently now?
We also have 3 Novus Ordo Bishops now, Lenga, Gracida, and Vigano who hold that Jorge is a fraud and a viper.Changed that. We actually have plenty more bishops that hold the same.
hollingsworth is defending the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Catholic Church, whereas some of you are content to throw the Holy See and the Papacy and the Church under the bus in order to salvage the legitimacy of Jorge.Salvage the legitimacy of Jorge? Throw the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Church under the bus?
Bergoglio is an anti-pope. He is not a true pope.I agree. He is a communist imposter.
hollingsworth is defending the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Catholic Church, whereas some of you are content to throw the Holy See and the Papacy and the Church under the bus in order to salvage the legitimacy of Jorge.The counterfeit church took over and left God and us.
Welcome aboard. If this man (Jorge) is a Catholic, then the term Catholic is meaningless. Even if one doesn't hold strictly to sedevacantism, Father Chazal's sedeimpoundism also addresses the situation very well (similar to sedeprivationism). Bottom line is: Does this man teach with the authority of Christ?I'm not sure what kind of a craft Im being welcomed aboard. If it's the craft of "sedeimpoundism," I simply respond, OK. But I'm not even sure what that means. Likewise for the craft of "sedeprivationism."
I'm not sure what kind of a craft Im being welcomed aboard. If it's the craft of "sedeimpoundism," I simply respond, OK. But I'm not even sure what that means. Likewise for the craft of "sedeprivationism."Level 2 layman Altman is an important hierarch to you?
Look, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. Francis quacks like a heretic and a non-Catholic, and walks like a heretic and a non-Catholic, he must, therefore, be exactly what he looks like.
Fr. Altman, (and other important hierarchs), describe clearly how Francis quacks and walks. I understand their explanations. They make sense. So I simply accede to their conclusions.
I'm not sure what kind of a craft Im being welcomed aboard. If it's the craft of "sedeimpoundism," I simply respond, OK. But I'm not even sure what that means. Likewise for the craft of "sedeprivationism."Does your conversion mean that you are now doing the opposite of what you did previous to your conversion, which is to ask you if you are now going to be "defending the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Catholic Church" as Lad said? Is that what your conversion has accomplished?
Look, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. Francis quacks like a heretic and a non-Catholic, and walks like a heretic and a non-Catholic, he must, therefore, be exactly what he looks like.
Fr. Altman, (and other important hierarchs), describe clearly how Francis quacks and walks. I understand their explanations. They make sense. So I simply accede to their conclusions.
Does your conversion mean that you are now doing the opposite of what you did previous to your conversion, which is to ask you if you are now going to be "defending the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Catholic Church" as Lad said? Is that what your conversion has accomplished?Maybe 'conversion' is the wrong term, a bad choice of words. Vision correction might be a better way to put it.
Level 2 layman Altman is an important hierarch to you?
Does your conversion mean that you are now doing the opposite of what you did previous to your conversion, which is to ask you if you are now going to be "defending the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy and the Catholic Church" as Lad said? Is that what your conversion has accomplished?
Maybe 'conversion' is the wrong term, a bad choice of words. Vision correction might be a better way to put it.Thanks for answering. I will be interested to see after a few weeks or months if this reply remains, or morphs into dedicated sedeism.
I am more than willing "to defend the honor of the Holy See and the Papacy.." But I am unwilling to defend what is presently dishonorable and indefensible. A 'pope' who opens his arms and invites in the LGBTQ+ "community, who blesses same sex couples, who pursues a Satanic climate agenda, who openly supports the globalist Jєωιѕн elite, who promotes a disgusting pervert and appoints him to the CDF, is not deserving of honor. He can not be defended. He can, only by the wildest imagination, be considered a pope.
Truth matters, Stubborn. It's not enough to just go to the Tridentine Mass. You have to defend the truth, defend the Church, and defend the Papacy. You can smells-and-bells all you want, but it means nothing if you throw the Church under the bus in order to salvage Jorge. In other words, "doing" isn't matters nothing if what you're "believing" is nothing more than a thinly-veiled Old Catholicism.Yes of course truth matters, so much so that we are bound to it. I find it somewhat remarkable that you and other sedes believe the papacy can only be defended by removing the pope, and in the process all of the hierarchy, then worry about the Church's indefectibility. Quite the self imposed conundrum you've entangled yourself in. Most of us trads find better things to busy ourselves with.
Yes of course truth matters, so much so that we are bound to it. I find it somewhat remarkable that you and other sedes believe the papacy can only be defended by removing the pope, and in the process all of the hierarchy, then worry about the Church's indefectibility. Quite the self imposed conundrum you've entangled yourself in. Most of us trads find better things to busy ourselves with.
It truly is as Digital Logos said in his last post, [sedeism] "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
I find it somewhat remarkable that you and other sedes believe the papacy can only be defended by removing the pope ...
Reject.
Stubborn, do you agree with or reject the following statement?
”Roman pontiffs and ecuмenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.”
Apart from the fact that no one's "removing" the "pope", but simply holding that the V2 papal claimants of the Conciliar era are usurpers (your diction reminds me of a 4th grader's), yes, absolutely. When you attribute grave error (that requires Catholics sever communion with the hierarchy) and the promulgation of a sacrilegious Mass to the papacy, to the papal office, then you're denigrating and wrecking the papacy.No Lad, you removed the pope, whatever the means you wish to use to justify that, that's what you did. Then you accuse me of wrecking the papacy, as if I had / have anything to do with that, but you don't. Pretty funny actually.
Vatican I: "[T]his See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples". You openly and explicitly reject this teaching of Vatican I.I'm not the one who rejects that teaching, you are. Proof of this is that you removed the pope from his See just as if that is something that the Church binds you to do.
If the Conciliar "Popes" don't blemish the See of Peter with error, then there's no such thing. Papacy can never recover from this is these guys have been "popes". Going forward, any teaching of the chair will be treated as nothing more than this guy in the papal office opining about a certain matter of Catholic doctrine.
Question -Since V2 the group of men making up the
Would the bigger problem be that the group of men making up the Magisterium are all pretty much heretics?
From what I understand, one of the major roles of the Magisterium is to "check" the Pope. Obviously, this has not been done in quite a while due to an anemic slow bleed of Dogma and Doctrines and wolves entering the seminary since the French Revolution.
If the Conciliar "Popes" don't blemish the See of Peter with error, then there's no such thing. Papacy can never recover from this is these guys have been "popes". Going forward, any teaching of the chair will be treated as nothing more than this guy in the papal office opining about a certain matter of Catholic doctrine.
Jer. 25:15-17, 31-37
15 For thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel: Take the cup of wine of this fury at my hand: and thou shalt make all the nations to drink thereof, unto which I shall send thee. 16 And they shall drink, and be troubled, and be mad because of the sword, which I shall send among them. 17 And I took the cup at the hand of the Lord, and I presented it to all the nations to drink of it, to which the Lord sent me: 18 To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Juda, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof: to make them a desolation, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a curse, as it is at this day.
. . .
31 The noise is come even to the ends of the earth: for the Lord entereth into judgment with the nations: he entereth into judgment with all flesh; the wicked I have delivered up to the sword, saith the Lord. 32 Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Behold evil shall go forth from nation to nation: and a great whirlwind shall go forth from the ends of the earth. 33 And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even to the other end thereof: they shall not be lamented, and they shall not be gathered up, nor buried: they shall lie as dung upon the face of the earth. 34 Howl, ye shepherds, and cry: and sprinkle yourselves with ashes, ye leaders of the flock: for the days of your slaughter and your dispersion are accomplished, and you shall fall like precious vessels. 35 And the shepherds shall have no way to flee, nor the leaders of the flock to save themselves.
1 Peter 4:17-19
17 For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God? 18 And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God, commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator.
undiluted ακράτου 194
3 occurrences
Ps 75:8 3754
ότι
For4221
ποτἡριον
a cup1722
ϵν
is in5495
χϵιρί
the hand2962
κυρίου
of the LORD3631
οίνου
[2wine194
ακράτου
1of undiluted],4134
πλἡρϵς
a full2768.1
κϵράσματος
mixture;2532
και
and2827
έκλινϵν
he leans it1537
ϵκ3778
τούτου
this way1519
ϵις
unto3778
τούτο
this other way;4133
πλην
but3588
ο5166.3-1473
τρυγίας αυτού
its wine with dregs3756
ουκ
was not1573.2
ϵξϵκϵνώθη
emptied out -4095
πίονται
[6shall drink it3956
πάντϵς
1all3588
οι
2the268
αμαρτωλοί
3sinners3588
της
4of the1093
γης
5earth].
Jer 25:15 3779
ούτως
Thus2036
ϵίπϵ
said2962
κύριος
the LORD3588
ο2316
θϵός
God*
Ἰσραἡλ
of Israel,2983
λάβϵ
Take3588
το
the4221
ποτἡριον
cup3588
του3631
οίνου
[2wine3588
του194-3778
ακράτου τούτου
1of this undiluted]1537
ϵκ
from out of5495-1473
χϵιρός μου
my hand,2532
και
and4222
ποτιϵίς
you shall give to drink3956
πάντα
all3588
τα
the1484
έθνη
nations4314
προς
to3739
α
whom649
αποστϵλλώ
I send1473
σϵ
you1909
ϵπ
unto1473
αυτούς
them!
Rev 14:10 2532
και
even1473
αυτός
he4095
πίϵται
shall drink1537
ϵκ
of3588
του
the3631
οίνου
wine3588
του
of the2372
θυμού
rage3588
του2316
θϵού
of God3588
του2767
κϵκϵρασμένου
being mixed194
ακράτου
undiluted1722
ϵν
in3588
τω
the4221
ποτηρίω
cup3588
της3709-1473
οργἡς αυτού
of his wrath;2532
και
and928
βασανισθἡσϵται
he shall be tormented1722
ϵν
by4442
πυρί
fire2532
και
and2303
θϵίω
sulphur1799
ϵνώπιον
before3588
των
the39
αγίων
holy32
αγγέλων
angels,2532
και
and1799
ϵνώπιον
before3588
του
the721
αρνίου
lamb.
PS 74:9 For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup of strong wine full of mixture. And he hath poured it out from this to that: but the dregs thereof are not emptied: all the sinners of the earth shall drink.
Rev. 14:10 He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mingled with pure wine in the cup of his wrath, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb.
Rev. 20:9-10, 15
9 And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast 10 And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever . . . 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.
Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
2 Th. 2:7-14
7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Question -The problem stems from at least the 13th centuries money powers
Would the bigger problem be that the group of men making up the Magisterium are all pretty much heretics?
From what I understand, one of the major roles of the Magisterium is to "check" the Pope. Obviously, this has not been done in quite a while due to an anemic slow bleed of Dogma and Doctrines and wolves entering the seminary since the French Revolution.