Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Incredulous on September 23, 2013, 03:32:24 PM
-
Link:El Pais article (http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/09/23/inenglish/1379952868_934748.html)
El Pais
Pope Francis contemplates appointing a female cardinal
Observers believe pontiff is likely to make changes to allow a bigger role for women in the Church
Juan Arias Río de Janeiro 23 SEP 2013 - 18:22 CET
(http://ep01.epimg.net/internacional/imagenes/2013/09/22/actualidad/1379871188_970752_1379873249_noticia_normal.jpg)
Nuns at a religious event in Madrid in 2011. / LUIS SEVILLANO
It’s not a joke. It’s something that Pope Francis has thought about before: naming a woman cardinal. Those who know the pope, both before and after he took over from Ratzinger, say that the first Jesuit pontiff is not only surprising people with his comments, but also with his actions. And this has been happening throughout his first six months in the role.
Those who think that Francis – who has all the simplicity of a parish priest – is a naïve man are wrong. This pope isn’t an ordinary pope. He has come to St. Peter’s with concrete plans for the Catholic Church: he wants to revive Christianity by taking it back to its origins.
The symbolism of his actions began when he first appeared on the balcony at St. Peter’s, calling himself “a bishop” and asking the people to bless him. Since then, he has wasted no time in making unexpected decisions, which have shocked those both inside and outside the Church.
And he will continue to do so, especially with his plans to appoint a female cardinal. He knows that a woman’s role in the Church is an unresolved issue that cannot wait any longer. He was clear about this during his interview with La Civiltà Cattolica last week. “The Church cannot be herself without the woman and her role,” he said. “The woman is essential for the Church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity.”
Some would argue that women are not allowed to be deacons as they were 800 years ago
In other words, it was as if Pope Francis was saying: “The Church isn’t complete because the woman’s role is missing.”
How can he introduce that essential component? He answered the question himself during the interview: “We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the Church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman.”
And that theology, according to the pope, cannot be construed within the Vatican’s walls.” The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions,” he said.
He may pave the way with discussions that urgently put the issue of a woman’s role in the Church on the table, or better yet, “in front of the altar.” And one of those gestures could be the naming of the first female cardinal. Is that feat impossible? No, because canonical law states that cardinals don’t have to be priests, they can be deacons.
Some would argue that women are not allowed to be deacons as they were 800 years ago among the first Christian communities. But this is one of the reforms that Francis has in mind; it is not based on any dogma. A woman could become a deaconess tomorrow if he so desired.
As Phyllis Zagano of Loyola University in Chicago, an expert on the issue, wrote: “A female deaconess is not an idea for the future. It is an issue for the present and today.”
Zagano brought up the matter with Cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope. “This is something that is being studied,” he told her. Pope Benedict XVI did not follow through but Pope Francis might.
The Armenian Apostolic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, which have close links to the Vatican, both have deaconesses.
Any woman who is appointed deaconess can indeed become a cardinal without having to change canonical law.
Cardinals serve as advisors to the pope and their primary function is to elect a new pontiff.
“Knowing this pope, he wouldn’t hesitate before appointing a woman cardinal,” said one Jesuit priest. “And he would indeed enjoy being the first pope to allow women to participate in the selection of a new pontiff.”
-
Highly speculative article, even for Francis.
If true, this is a big deal.
-
Nothing would be a surprise at this point :facepalm:
-
You know what? Let it happen.
By doing so, he will certainly show the world without a doubt that he is a heretic. No more claims that the media twisted his words. No more question as to whether the SV position is tenable.
And no more of my struggling not knowing what the Hell is going on these days......
Damn it. Just do it already.
-
You know what? Let it happen.
By doing so, he will certainly show the world without a doubt that he is a heretic. No more claims that the media twisted his words. No more question as to whether the SV position is tenable.
And no more of my struggling not knowing what the Hell is going on these days......
Damn it. Just do it already.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but nearly all the Conciliar Catholic world and most of the traditional Catholic world, including a lot of regular posters here on CathInfo would go along with it even if they said they didn't like it.
-
You know what? Let it happen.
By doing so, he will certainly show the world without a doubt that he is a heretic. No more claims that the media twisted his words. No more question as to whether the SV position is tenable.
And no more of my struggling not knowing what the Hell is going on these days......
Damn it. Just do it already.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but nearly all the Conciliar Catholic world and most of the traditional Catholic world, including a lot of regular posters here on CathInfo would go along with it even if they said they didn't like it.
Well then I guess we get what we deserve, no?
-
It seems Bergy is putting out several marketing "trial balloons", to see how much support or resistance he will get ?
Two weeks ago, it was an article placed in a Venezuelan newspaper by his No. 2 man, floating the idea of ending priestly celibacy.
Now the idea about a female Cardinal. The question is, when and how will the real Catholics push back and declare him an anti-Pope ?
-
El Pais[/i] (23 SEP 2013 - 18:22 CET)]POPE  FRANCIS  CONTEMPLATES  APPOINTING  A  FEMALE  CARDINAL
Observers believe pontiff is likely to make changes to allow a bigger role for women in the Church
Oddly, not a single direct quote from Bishop-of-Rome Francis contains the words "deacon" nor "cardinal". If it'd been assigned by any kind of news-editor, that editor probably would've gone ballistic after realizing that the reporter had failed to get a quote straight from Francis' mouth that would justify the controversial words in the headline.
To me, whatever part of the article was contained in the original posting, above, reads like an exercise in liberal advocacy--an editorial--that had been decorated with enough quotes to give it the superficial appearance of a genuine news article.
It seems Bergy is putting out several marketing "trial balloons", to see how much support or resistance he will get ?
So perhaps a trial balloon--albeit one with plausible deniability--really is its primary purpose.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
Thanks a lot. I just got depressed all over again. :-P
-
There are already "female" cardinals within novus ordo secretly supporting same sex marriage.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
OK, that made me feel somewhat better....lol.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
I have listened to "conservative" Catholics and, frankly, they will not object if the man they consider to be pope creates female cardinals. In fact, I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops. To them, "Modernism" is a term out of the past that may describe certain historical issues but has no real relevance today.
(I remember asking a "traditionally minded" Novus Ordo priest who had his "celebret" to say the traditional Mass, refused to give Communion in the hand, and was very orthodox in most of what he said, what value the anti-Modernist encyclicals of Pope St. Pius X and others were if they could not be applied to the people like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger? He told me, in all seriousness, that those docuмents were written to address very specific issues that were prevalent in their day but really don't apply today. This was when I began to lose faith and trust in the "conservative" Catholic apologists. I was truly trying to understand how to reconcile traditional teachings with what was being fed to us by the hierarchy, and the only response I've ever been able to get was that, somehow, the plain talk of the great popes of the past who seemed to be describing our current situation perfectly just didn't apply because...well, just because!)
Remember that every time most "conservative" Catholics draws a line in the sand and are convinced the pope would never agree to such and such (e.g., all-English Masses, girl altar boys, Communion in the hand, ordinary use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, the acceptability of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc., etc., etc.) when the line is crossed, they almost all simply accept the change as a fait accompli and move on to the next line in the sand.
The question is not what "conservative" Catholics would do, but what traditional Catholics who still think Bergoglio is the pope will do. Too many of them are so invested in anti-sedevacantism right now that it is really hard to say. Suffice it to say that I am not optimistic.
P.S. I, too, note that Bergoglio himself has not actually used these words and that it is apparent that these ideas are being leaked to a sympathetic press as trial balloons to gauge the reactions of the public and the bishops. This "papacy" is less than a year old and we're already seeing a lot of crazy things being said outright as well as being floated about. I don't think that what many people call crazy today will be the norm in one or two years.
-
It seems Bergy is putting out several marketing "trial balloons", to see how much support or resistance he will get ?
I agree. He's going as far as he can while attempting to not overplay his hand.
-
If this were to happen it would be the last straw for me. The upcoming canonizations are bad enough.
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
I have listened to "conservative" Catholics and, frankly, they will not object if the man they consider to be pope creates female cardinals. In fact, I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops. To them, "Modernism" is a term out of the past that may describe certain historical issues but has no real relevance today.
Only a tiny number of Catholics who make up the Pius Xth Society never assisted at the new mass.
Very many Traditionalists and SSPX laity were once "conservatives" going along to the Novus Ordo. Consider that.
Being late to join the side of Tradition might anger you just as the workers in the Vineyard who had worked through the heat of the day were angered. An understandable reaction.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
-
(http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/tt260/LaramieHirsch/femalepopenostradamus_zps7033fdd4.jpg) (http://s617.photobucket.com/user/LaramieHirsch/media/femalepopenostradamus_zps7033fdd4.jpg.html)
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
I have listened to "conservative" Catholics and, frankly, they will not object if the man they consider to be pope creates female cardinals. In fact, I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops. To them, "Modernism" is a term out of the past that may describe certain historical issues but has no real relevance today.
Only a tiny number of Catholics who make up the Pius Xth Society never assisted at the new mass.
Very many Traditionalists and SSPX laity were once "conservatives" going along to the Novus Ordo. Consider that.
Being late to join the side of Tradition might anger you just as the workers in the Vineyard who had worked through the heat of the day were angered. An understandable reaction.
The biological solution, but in reverse. Most Catholics at my SSPX chapel were born in the mid 1960's and after. They sit there watching the novus ordo clown show and think to themselves "This can't be Catholicism." Then, later on, they find their way to Catholicism and, God willing, start assisting at an SSPX chapel.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
So, if the Pope falls away, then God failed? No, it's the other way around. St Peter denied Our Lord while Our Lord walked this Earth. Our Lady and a few other souls remained.
The Holy Church can become really really small.
Now is one of those times.
This can all be corrected by officially proclaiming Pope Paul VI an anti-pope and declaring Vatican II null and void. John Paul II's "missteps" can be written off as just a bumbling guy unwittingly following an anti-Pope.
It's a choice. It's the church of Vatican II vs. the Catholic Church.
-
This can all be corrected by officially proclaiming Pope Paul VI an anti-pope
Then who is pope?
What transforms a pope into an anti-pope?
-
This can all be corrected by officially proclaiming Pope Paul VI an anti-pope
Then who is pope?
What transforms a pope into an anti-pope?
The Church authorities who are responsible for judging the pope are paralyzed and silent.
However, the historical standard and criteria for determining past anti-popes should exist. It would not change over time.
It is incuмbent upon the leaders of the traditional movement to weigh the evidence, determine the facts and make the declaration.
-
This can all be corrected by officially proclaiming Pope Paul VI an anti-pope
Then who is pope?
What transforms a pope into an anti-pope?
The fact that the conciliar church is following in Paul VI footsteps should trouble Catholics. Everything about the man smells of spiritual decay.
In the absence of papal leadership, and in times of ecclesial confusion, Catholics should hold tight, cling tenaciously, to the Catholic faith, as it stood pre-conciliar revolution.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Wow Laramie, what an awful and scandalous thing to say. Even if you're being sarcastic, this is in very, very poor judgement. Confirming people in their doubts is a very serious matter.
-
Guys,
We wait. If F-One appoints a female cardinal, it will be just one step in a long long march away from Catholicism.
Didn't Vatican II say that Muslims worship the One True God? Don't novus ordo presides and novus ordo popes say that Catholics and Muslims worship the same god? If so, how can we say that Muslims are wrong if they worship the same god?
Too bad Laramie was just being flippant and rather cavalier about the tens of millions of Catholic babies who were never born because the post-Vatican II concilliarists decided to have two children instead of six or seven.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Wow Laramie, what an awful and scandalous thing to say. Even if you're being sarcastic, this is in very, very poor judgement. Confirming people in their doubts is a very serious matter.
If it sound severe, it is supposed to be. It is also rhetorical.
I'm not trying to barge in on anyone and convince anyone of their direction. But I just felt compelled when I typed that earlier today.
Frankly, I simply believe in the Real Presence, and apostolic succession. One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our pope isn't want I wanted. But he has the office. Just as Obama holds the presidential office. It sucks, but that's how it is.
But crap, people. I don't know what it was about today. But it is as if people have an itchy trigger finger and are seeking out excuses to separate themselves from the Church. I do not buy this "it is a fake Conciliar Church" narrative. In that regard, I am diffrerent from most folks on Cathinfo. But at least we all agree on the insanity that we all see. Scandalous, though? No. I am saying what people are leaning towards. I've vocalized the spirit of what I've been hearing.
I could swear that what I'm seeing these days is the Devil's attempts to fracture the Church in increasingly subtle ways. Lucifer has been dividing the Catholics up for a long time, now.
That's where I stand at present. That's what my official position is. And as long as that is out on the table, folks know they can have an honest conversation with me.
-
You don't buy the 'conciliar church' narrative?
Then I'm not sure that we really do agree on the insanity we see, since it's infinitely more insane to maintain that the Bride of Christ, and His Mystical Body, would be the ecuмenical whore that the VII Church is! I don't think that things are *that* insane, Laramie.
-
You don't buy the 'conciliar church' narrative?
Then I'm not sure that we really do agree on the insanity we see, since it's infinitely more insane to maintain that the Bride of Christ, and His Mystical Body, would be the ecuмenical whore that the VII Church is! I don't think that things are *that* insane, Laramie.
Sure we agree. We agree that water is wet, the sky is blue, grass is green, and Pope Francis is bungling around in his dealings with our godless Satan-ruled world on a bi-weekly basis.
This very thread--the idea that the Pope might allow a female cardinal--demonstrates a policy that Pope Francis might take which we all here believe to be a bad idea.
Things have been going insane since Vatican II. You think so. I think so.
But the people in power have let it happen. And it has happened because of the people in power.
God allows bad priests, bad bishops, and bad popes. The Almighty allows us these bungling and abusive ministers as a punishment for our forgetfulness of Christ.
A priest can be laicized, but he remains a priest, still. And when that priest dies--and if he goes straight to Hell--that priest is still a priest. In Hell.
-
God does not allow the bad popes, priests and bishops to promulgate harmful and sinful liturgies, rites, catechisms and laws that lead people to Hell. You cannot say that the Catholic Church is responsible for these things-- the distinction between the Conciliar Church (which brought us VII, the NO, the new code of canon law, the CCC) and the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary, because our Faith does not allow us to believe that God feeds scorpions when His children ask for bread.
-
God does not allow the bad popes, priests and bishops to promulgate harmful and sinful liturgies, rites, catechisms and laws that lead people to Hell. You cannot say that the Catholic Church is responsible for these things-- the distinction between the Conciliar Church (which brought us VII, the NO, the new code of canon law, the CCC) and the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary, because our Faith does not allow us to believe that God feeds scorpions when His children ask for bread.
Apparently He does. And not only that, but God even allows priests to sɛҳuąƖly molest boys.
Why do you think God would intervene in these matters--that He would never allow this--when even Scriptures tell of a time of this kind of confusion?
The sins of the world have earned this and much more.
Our era is not the first era to have popes in place who were bought and paid for.
-
Laramie, the only thing I'm talking about is your rejection of the 'conciliar church' narrative (as you call it). Sodomite and ephebophile priests are miserable, miserable sinners, but the sin of heresy and apostasy which is enshrined in what you call the Catholic Church is a completely different animal. There a thousands of sins that one can commit, but very very few actually exclude one from being Catholic. The sins of the Conciliar Church necessarily require it to be distinct from the Catholic Church, and to argue otherwise is to call the Catholic Church a whore, at least logically, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that.
-
Laramie, the only thing I'm talking about is your rejection of the 'conciliar church' narrative (as you call it). Sodomite and ephebophile priests are miserable, miserable sinners, but the sin of heresy and apostasy which is enshrined in what you call the Catholic Church is a completely different animal. There a thousands of sins that one can commit, but very very few actually exclude one from being Catholic. The sins of the Conciliar Church necessarily require it to be distinct from the Catholic Church, and to argue otherwise is to call the Catholic Church a whore, at least logically, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that.
I am no apologist. My reaction today was quite emotional. But I come to a Catholic forum to learn and have conversation. So...
Name a sin that the Conciliar Church has committed--only one, please--that requires it to be distinct from the Catholic Church.
-
Only one?
The new code of canon law allows for Communicatio in Sacris. That's a mortal sin, and it is allowed, one might even say encouraged by the LAW.
Dignitatis Humanae taught that religious institutions have the right to act according to their own religious impulses.
The Balamand Declaration promised the Eastern Schismatics that the Church wouldn't try to convert them.
The CCC teaches that Muslims are part of the Divine plan for salvation.
The Novus Ordo mass has removed everything uniquely Catholic from it and removed the notion of sacrifice.
Lumen Gentium teaches that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ, and that the schismatic Churches are true particular churches.
-
1. The new code of canon law allows for Communicatio in Sacris. That's a mortal sin, and it is allowed, one might even say encouraged by the LAW.
2. Dignitatis Humanae taught that religious institutions have the right to act according to their own religious impulses.
3. The Balamand Declaration promised the Eastern Schismatics that the Church wouldn't try to convert them.
4. The CCC teaches that Muslims are part of the Divine plan for salvation.
5. The Novus Ordo mass has removed everything uniquely Catholic from it and removed the notion of sacrifice.
6. Lumen Gentium teaches that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ, and that the schismatic Churches are true particular churches.
I asked for only one example, but you gave me six.
So, for now, I choose #4.
Okay, so the Catechism of the 21st Century supposedly teaches that Muslims are part of a Divine plan for salvation.
Let's start with: where? Where in the Catechism does it say this?
-
Paragraph 841
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#III
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
-
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
And so, here we reach the slippery language of the modern Catechism that we've been talking about in the last year.
1. First of all, what do they mean by "plan of salvation?" Do they mean that Muslims will be saved?
2. How do the writers of this line know that? God never said that Muslims would be saved. I cannot even recall any apparitions that ever said such a thing.
-
There are already "female" cardinals within novus ordo secretly supporting same sex marriage.
name one
-
The primary job of the cardinals is to elect the next pope. There have been non bishops and non priests who have been cardinals before.
-
The primary job of the cardinals is to elect the next pope. There have been non bishops and non priests who have been cardinals before.
Really ?!?!? :confused1:
Who? When?
-
Sodomite and ephebophile priests are miserable, miserable sinners, but the sin of heresy and apostasy which is enshrined in what you call the Catholic Church is a completely different animal.
This is a very important distinction. It is the first step to recognizing just how bad things are today. Even the worst, most sinful popes in history did not teach heresy/perform heretical deeds.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Wow Laramie, what an awful and scandalous thing to say. Even if you're being sarcastic, this is in very, very poor judgement. Confirming people in their doubts is a very serious matter.
If it sound severe, it is supposed to be. It is also rhetorical.
I'm not trying to barge in on anyone and convince anyone of their direction. But I just felt compelled when I typed that earlier today.
Frankly, I simply believe in the Real Presence, and apostolic succession. One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our pope isn't want I wanted. But he has the office. Just as Obama holds the presidential office. It sucks, but that's how it is.
But crap, people. I don't know what it was about today. But it is as if people have an itchy trigger finger and are seeking out excuses to separate themselves from the Church. I do not buy this "it is a fake Conciliar Church" narrative. In that regard, I am diffrerent from most folks on Cathinfo. But at least we all agree on the insanity that we all see. Scandalous, though? No. I am saying what people are leaning towards. I've vocalized the spirit of what I've been hearing.
I could swear that what I'm seeing these days is the Devil's attempts to fracture the Church in increasingly subtle ways. Lucifer has been dividing the Catholics up for a long time, now.
That's where I stand at present. That's what my official position is. And as long as that is out on the table, folks know they can have an honest conversation with me.
I'll give you credit for going against the tide here even if I disagree with you. I understand the "feeling" you got from us in this thread. I would argue, however, that it isn't that we're "itchy" to separate ourselves from the Church but angry that the so-called leaders of the Church have separated themselves (and are planning further ways to separate themselves). If anyone's itchy to separate, it's the leaders of the VII church.
-
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
And so, here we reach the slippery language of the modern Catechism that we've been talking about in the last year.
1. First of all, what do they mean by "plan of salvation?" Do they mean that Muslims will be saved?
2. How do the writers of this line know that? God never said that Muslims would be saved. I cannot even recall any apparitions that ever said such a thing.
Here's the thing Laramie. Before VII we wouldn't need to ask these questions because you'd never see anything of the sort being taught in the Catholic Church. You'd see quite the opposite: that the Muslim faith is a false religion, that it is diabolical, etc. How did we go from diabolical to being part of the plan of salvation?
-
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
And so, here we reach the slippery language of the modern Catechism that we've been talking about in the last year.
1. First of all, what do they mean by "plan of salvation?" Do they mean that Muslims will be saved?
2. How do the writers of this line know that? God never said that Muslims would be saved. I cannot even recall any apparitions that ever said such a thing.
The language isn't really that slippery. To your points:
1. Of course that's what it means! If you have a plan for dinner, it involves everything that is going into the dinner-- it doesn't include food you're NOT going to make, does it? The plan for salvation does not include the reprobate, Laramie. If it did, it wouldn't be called the plan for salvation.
Now, it's true that this is not the LANGUAGE of the Church, but pointing that out doesn't really help you, because it would be an admission that the body which publishes these errors and heresies is not the Catholic Church, since it speaks a different language than She does.
2. How do they know what? It suffices to know that only those who die Catholic make it to Heaven. Only Catholics are in Heaven. That's not part of an apparition, that's the infallible deposit of faith.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Laramie, in response to your offensive post I have a question for you. Do you not have a line in the sand which you will not cross? I think everyone does. If it were not female cardinals but priests or bishops would you defend this? What if it were approval of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage or contraception?
You may say these are doctrinal and the question of female cardinals isn't. Is there nothing aside from doctrine that would make you question the Popes Catholicity?
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Laramie, in response to your offensive post I have a question for you. Do you not have a line in the sand which you will not cross? I think everyone does. If it were not female cardinals but priests or bishops would you defend this? What if it were approval of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage or contraception?
You may say these are doctrinal and the question of female cardinals isn't. Is there nothing aside from doctrine that would make you question the Popes Catholicity?
I don't think this is Laramie's case, but I have often wondered whether some folks would still not question the pope's Catholicity even if he said Jesus wasn't God.
-
Laramie, in response to your offensive post I have a question for you. Do you not have a line in the sand which you will not cross? I think everyone does. If it were not female cardinals but priests or bishops would you defend this? What if it were approval of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage or contraception?
You may say these are doctrinal and the question of female cardinals isn't. Is there nothing aside from doctrine that would make you question the Popes Catholicity?
I used to run into the "I'd rather be wrong with the Pope than right without him" mindset in my NO days.
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
So you still wouldn't recognize a pope as false if he said Christ was not God?
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
Laramie, the Vatican has already been sacked by a rebellion. It is full of sodomites, heretics and freemasons. These very people operate a new religion out of the Catholic Church's buildings.
-
Remember that every time most "conservative" Catholics draws a line in the sand and are convinced the pope would never agree to such and such (e.g., all-English Masses, girl altar boys, Communion in the hand, ordinary use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, the acceptability of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc., etc., etc.) when the line is crossed, they almost all simply accept the change as a fait accompli and move on to the next line in the sand.
I remember about 14, 15 years ago getting into an argument with a conservative NO priest about whether or not the Vatican had approved Hula Masses in Hawaii. He insisted it would be a blasphemous impossibility. The following day I proved to him that it had in fact happened and he said, "Oh, that's just acculturation. No big deal." Just like that.
Potentially there are some blasphemies a putative pope could perform that are so overt and in-your-face that they should constitute a line in the sand for just about anyone. You would think that kissing a Koran or accepting a "blessing" from a witch doctor would fall into that category, but somehow they didn't qualify. It would take something so graphic and horrific that its evil couldn't be denied. But these modernists are too smart for that. They seem to know just how much they can get away with, and then keep pushing the envelope. They do it incrementally, the boiling frog approach.
-
For those complaining about how "This is going to be the last straw," or "I'm not going to take this for much longer," or "If he does this or that, then that's it" ...why keep fondling the trigger? Just pull the trigger.
Give up. The Catholic Church is not real. You don't believe in it. Christ lied. It is a big failure. Break off and form your own religion or club. Or just give up on religion all together. God has failed you. God's promise has failed you.
Screw it. Do it. There is no real pope, no real Mass. It's all been destroyed at some point in the 20th century during a hippie movement. The hippies won. You lost. No more Holy Presence for you. Do something more fun on your Sundays.
Wow Laramie, what an awful and scandalous thing to say. Even if you're being sarcastic, this is in very, very poor judgement. Confirming people in their doubts is a very serious matter.
If it sound severe, it is supposed to be. It is also rhetorical.
I'm not trying to barge in on anyone and convince anyone of their direction. But I just felt compelled when I typed that earlier today.
Frankly, I simply believe in the Real Presence, and apostolic succession. One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our pope isn't want I wanted. But he has the office. Just as Obama holds the presidential office. It sucks, but that's how it is.
But crap, people. I don't know what it was about today. But it is as if people have an itchy trigger finger and are seeking out excuses to separate themselves from the Church. I do not buy this "it is a fake Conciliar Church" narrative. In that regard, I am diffrerent from most folks on Cathinfo. But at least we all agree on the insanity that we all see. Scandalous, though? No. I am saying what people are leaning towards. I've vocalized the spirit of what I've been hearing.
I could swear that what I'm seeing these days is the Devil's attempts to fracture the Church in increasingly subtle ways. Lucifer has been dividing the Catholics up for a long time, now.
That's where I stand at present. That's what my official position is. And as long as that is out on the table, folks know they can have an honest conversation with me.
This is precisely the very reason why our world is in the mess it is in. Those who know better continue to perpetuate error, if you don't know any better then remain silent. The idea of false compassion to the criminals, the need to excuse their sin and blasphemy is a participation in their sin. Instead of having pity upon those who have been given a new religion, you attack them viciously by suggesting to "leave the Church already." You seem to suggest that Sedevacantist are outside of the Church, this would be dogmatic sedeplenism and this is not welcome according to the forum rules... You can disagree all you want with our theological conclusions, but to suggest that by believing that a non-Catholic can be the head of the Church is heretical or sinful is quite an amazing claim... Most especially in the day and age of "Francis" the wonderful... Where his daily cut off remarks perplexes even the most hardened Novus Ordites and makes them wonder.
Those whose minds are getting spiritually raped were born and baptized in the institution that their fore-fathers believed in, that is the Catholic Church. They were taught that the True Church of Christ had certain qualities of which the Conciliar Church has none, but they have been slowly but surely been given an entirely substantially different religion totally foreign to the mind of the Church. But no it matters little to you, so instead of having empathy for those whose minds are constantly being raped in the Novus Ordo Lutheran pulpit. You have the audacity to accuse those whose minds are extremely troubled, perplexed and afraid as being "trigger happy." "This is the last straw" etc... Some folks actually have a Catholic formed conscience who take the faith seriously and not allegorically. This is why some have some sort of theological understanding of what it would take for them to see that this is truly and substantially a formally different religion. You would see it as "the last straw", but this is actually a good thing because it shows that they are actually using their intellects. If for some reason, the wolf dressed in sheep's clothing comes to you and all you care about is the externals then you will be deceived and let into damnation. Especially if you had the theological training to know better, to know how to recognize an apostate... Woe to those that don't actively seek for the voice of Our Blessed Lord. Let me put this clearly, it is a good and HOLY practice to draw the line in the sand of what is Catholic and anti-Catholic or not Catholic. An external objective criteria by which any man who possesses natural reason can be able to discern what is truly not from God, and what is from the Church. So if someone says, "If the canonization happens that is it for me..." "Or women Cardinals" or "women priest" etc... However absurd their ideas might be, in it of itself it is a good thing. When I ask those in the SSPX what would it take for them to become SV'ist they usually state something that has already happened and its funny because they catch themselves in a contradiction. Many of them have not kept up with the news, and have really for years abandoned all literature of what the apostate Romans are doing. There are those who rely on the SSPX for all of their news and information and I don't think that I will have to argue that DICI et al, has been hard on the Vatican II sect, for the past couple of years to say the least.
The only religious order's that show any sort of flourishing are those who have kept liturgical sanity, kept a substantial portion of the shell with just enough substance from the inside. However do not be deceived into thinking that this is somehow pleasing to God, the only thing that they do is turn good Catholics into apostates. The only thing that these people are interested is keeping people inside of the sect... Of ordaining non traditional priest (its invalid I know), and this is the experience of those who have been in the seminary for 5 years or more who in the end get kicked out of the program right before.
To be put it bluntly there is no peace, no unity in the Conciliar Church... Any external "divisions" that might be observable within the traditional movement will only matter in so far as it truly pertains to the virtue of faith. If some priest has some sort of personality conflict with another priest it matters little, you are always going to have animosity among a Church that consist of sinners.
I will below demonstrate some thoughts on the different resistance positions and the logic behind them all. There are three types of Catholics in the resistance, that objectively speaking are members of the Church who are easily recognizable, unlike in the Novus Ordo where most likely they are not:
1) Those who believe in the theological conclusions of a state of Sedevacante and totally reject the New religion, whole and entire. This position is the most clear, and without a doubt most consistent.
Its only weakness is that it takes a very good formation in order to fully be able to explain all the "consequences" of such a conclusion. By formation is understood that you are an adult in your faith, and have actually been reading lots of Catholic material of a theological/spiritual nature. The more you have read, the easier it is to see how distinct is the Catholic religion and the new apostate substitute there is. There is not anything wrong with this of course, as you are not bound to know everything that is going on in order to be saved. Just because something is confusing does not mean it has no explanation. The difficulty lies in the modern world which has every single day of every single hour totally raped our minds, and made it difficult to see what are true and false arguments. However, that difficulty is quickly solved in the mind that recognizes the spirit of lying that is all around in the modern world, if you can be able to see the multi-level of deception (GMO's, one world globalist, Jєωιѕн question, h0Ɩ0cαųst, fαℓѕє fℓαg operation, false opposition, unjustified wars through propaganda etc...) it becomes easier to understand and come to see the fruits of the solution to the problem.
The ultimate solution is simply to keep the faith, but in order to truly keep the faith and not be deceived it is of accidental consequence that we must reject the Conciliar claimants to the papacy. You cannot expect the average person in the pew to be a theologian and be able to sift through every single heresy that the modern encyclicals have, the Pontifical congregations, local parish level, diocesan level, Episcopal conferences etc... God does not expect the impossible, even a kid can understand by simply reading the first 5 chapters of their First Holy communion Catechism that a non-Catholic is not a member of the Church. So the Sedevacantist in his conclusion encompasses (just like our faith teaches us) the simple of faith down to the most learned theologians. So it passes the litmus test of Catholicity, this is not a gnostic sect (like the Conciliar sect is).
______________
2) Those who recognize that there is a false conciliar Church and a subset within that Conciliarch church is the Catholic Church (subsistit). They recognize this as the true Church of Christ, and therefore the valid authorities. Since they have the power to bind and to loose, there are certain things that we can be obedient to, under a certain set of conditions.
a) If it follows tradition with respect to the teaching of the magisterium of old, if it repeats the same old dogmas, and doctrines.
b) If it is on matters of discipline and not of faith. For example the one hour fast, the most acceptable liturgical calendar (1962), certain canonizations (it should be all of them of course).
c) Everything that is said has to be interpreted in the light of tradition, if it is contrary to tradition.
This is the position of the majority of traditionalists, and it is a position that is very much the SSPX but it is not necessarily just theirs. There are many who are not from the SSPX that associate with this position.
This position is only tenable because of the grave moral reasons why the SSPX refuses to submit to those they consider their authorities. This is an important principle to understand, but I think what many in the SSPX fail to see is the sort of schismatic spirit that they can definitely have over a long period of time. Those who do not hold the position of the SSPX need to definitely before anything else understand that the reasons why they resist the way they do are definitely sufficient under certain circuмstances, a real state of emergency. This very same state of emergency actually is the only reason why we have any existence as traditionalists... The reason why I use the broad term traditionalist is to make a distinction of those "New Order" catholics who are clearly in schism, to those who keep the Dogmas and Doctrines of old. The "New Order" catholics refuse to be in communion with the previous magisterium, this is where at the very least in spirit the traditionalist attempts in his mind to be in full communion with the previous magisterium.
Some point out the case of Paschal II who under violence and weakness ceded in to King Henry on the issue of lay investiture. You had many Saints who rose against Paschal II including the founder of the Carthusians such as St. Bruno, and many others. Even though this was before the Conciliarist heresy had been formally condemned solemnly so such an error was understandable to a certain degree they were not being pertinacious heretics in that circuмstance, since Holy Mother Church did yet authoratively speak on the issue at hand. However, some still believe that this position is legitimate despite the condemnation of the errors of Conciliarism, under certain circuмstances to resist the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith and morals, not just evil commands as St. Thomas teaches in the Summa. Of course this is not true, but some remain convinced by certain arguments. As such they should still be treated as Catholic and it really depends on whether or not they understand the teaching of the Church on the matter. Once they really understand the teaching of the Church on the matter and they still obstinately hold their view then one can safely avoid such an individual (if you are totally sure he is a heretic beyond a doubt, then even break communion with him/her). Although we do not possess the authority to formally excommunicate (for if our judgement is truly right they would ipso facto be excommunicated anyways) someone we can definitely be able to avoid people who have ideas that savour of heresy, offensive to pious ears and other theological censures. We can also be able to publicly denounce heretics that are not formally condemned also. This is the principle that is pretty much shown in Sapientiae Christianae of H.H. Leo XIII, and others who lay down the principle of lay people defending the faith where the Church has been unable to do so. The mandate however comes from the clergy and it is precisely because of this that we have the permission to do such a thing (a proper hierarchical view of the Church is thus kept).
______________
3) The third type in the resistance is the worst type of traditionalist. Although they have arrived at their first step of the long journey of what is really going on. Since this is a step that most people have taken at some point in their journey to the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, it can still be labeled as resistance because there is definitely a resistance to error going on here at the individual level of each mind, to some more and to some others less.
They are attending some sort of indult chapel, and want to do nothing with their local Novus Ordo parishes. They know that something is wrong, but they cannot put their finger to it. The reason why it is the worst part in the resistance movement is that there is still a danger to re-join the Conciliar sect or even worse believe in its errors. This danger is much more then those who currently hold a SSPX'ish or SV'ish position. Although everyone can always no matter how high he stands can fall to the lowest level, it is unlikely to happen to those who have both the virtue of faith and do everything to avoid the occasions of sin.
By the very fact that they are not totally blind to the destruction of the faith that is going on, they are potentially much closer to a much better position then those in the Novus Ordo. So we must truly do our very best to bring those who are part of this crowd to a more sane position...
Some of them remain with the Church authorities thinking because of their poor formation that they will be damned to Hell if they don't stay within the Conciliarist sect. This is what I have seen in the many friends that I have particularly talked to over the years, when they want to work "inside of the Church." What they fail to realize is simply how much of the spirit of ecuмenism they have swallowed whole and entire, in order for that argument to make any sense. You have a soul to save, and that is your own soul which is why you cannot remain inside of the Conciliar sect, most especially if those that you are trying to help will have a spirit of indifferentism by your example. There are of course certain situations where this might not apply, and there might be perfectly good Catholic reasons why they would still have some sort of association with that sect... For example, they have been working for 18 years in a "catholic school" and they need to work 2 more years for retirement (many mouth's to feed) etc... In such cases so long as there is no danger of indifferentism it might be legitimate to stay (one must talk sincerely with their spiritual director over such matters), just like it is okay in certain cases for a Catholic to work in a public school or non-Catholic institutions.
This is why some Pentecostalist remain within the movement to make them "more Catholic." To lead them closer to the Church, so goes the argument. I once had an old friend (sadly apostatized) who told me that he is going to become a protestant pastor, but internally keep the faith and convert them to the "faith." Now it goes without saying sometime later he came and told me that the true religion "is that of Judaism" and some time later confessed to me He was the Anti-Christ (yes the real one). The reality is that they are leading no one to a closer position that is Catholic, they are themselves going to be convinced by the sophistries of sophisticated heretics. They are hardly convinced by the Catholic arguments, and they are going out "there to evangelize." If you have not certitude of faith, you have no faith. If you have a doubt, you have to resolve it quickly and study in depth. To continually have doubts is mortally sinful against faith. Just read any manual of preparation for confession, when they go to the First Commandment section this will confirm what I am telling you all...
In a similar manner many lament the poor formation they received in the Novus ordo, once they have woken up to the truth, they desire to bring as many of their friends/family to tradition. So that many of them are tempted to stay within the Novus Ordo and do "lots of good." These folks follow the advice of "Father Z." who has told many who are "traditional" at heart to stay within their diocese stay low cover, and if they are seminarians, after they are ordained "come out" of the closet of being traditionalist (no pun intended). This is an understandable temptation initially, but the real question is what would be the best way to convert your loved ones? Is that done by pretending to believe in a false religion, or participating in false worship (going to the Novus Ordo protestant service). "The Jesus is being blasphemed and sacriliged", will you "abandon" him while he is in most need argument? What is amazing is they fail to see that the Sunday obligation to attend mass is for the Glory of God... What part of blasphemy and attending a protestant service will give Glory to God? This is why you cannot attend a schismatic Divine Liturgy or mass and fulfill your Sunday obligation, because as beautiful as the mass might be it is not pleasing to God (this of course does not apply necessarily universally to all Una cuм masses since the distinction we are talking about here is formal schismatics and confused Catholics of good will, two total different issues).
There is always the issue of family for example where this would lead to division within the family, this sort of division is the sort of division that Our Lord said would happen. Truth and falsity cannot mix, there can be a sort of acceptance of error, Catholics can be able to tolerate error in certain circuмstances. However, to tolerate is a total different world away from accepting error. This is so that there is no blood shed (trust me if you are truly a Catholic in the modern world your family is going to get violent in most cases), and there can be some sort of peacable living existence within the family or wherever it is you are currently living (maybe you are in some dorm room with a Muslim etc...).
+Pax vobis+
-
But these modernists are too smart for that. They seem to know just how much they can get away with, and then keep pushing the envelope. They do it incrementally, the boiling frog approach.
It's true, their slow-creep tactic seems to be working wonderfully in their favor. But what would seem clever and crafty here on earth is foolishness in they eyes of God who is eternal. When looking at their tactic from the eternal perspective, I'd say they weren't smart enough to avoid the gates of hell. Let us pray for their conversion.
-
This is why some have some sort of theological understanding of what it would take for them to see that this is truly and substantially a formally different religion. You would see it as "the last straw", but this is actually a good thing because it shows that they are actually using their intellects. If for some reason, the wolf dressed in sheep's clothing comes to you and all you care about is the externals then you will be deceived and let into damnation. Especially if you had the theological training to know better, to know how to recognize an apostate...
I feel sorry for ignorant people who cannot read. They lack that special "theological understanding of what it would take for them to see that this is truly and substantially a formally different religion," and therefore get to enjoy Hell. Their loss. Should have educated themselves, I guess.
You seem to suggest that Sedevacantist are outside of the Church, this would be dogmatic sedeplenism and this is not welcome according to the forum rules...
Then why goad me to continue?
You have your say, I don't get mine. A fun one-sided conversation. I shared my sentiment. You've attacked it. I hope you got your rocks on.
# # # #
I'm not interested in convincing anyone here. I know I cannot. I am not trying to convert anyone into anything new. I made a statement for the week.
Y'all know where I stand for the record.
-
This is why some have some sort of theological understanding of what it would take for them to see that this is truly and substantially a formally different religion. You would see it as "the last straw", but this is actually a good thing because it shows that they are actually using their intellects. If for some reason, the wolf dressed in sheep's clothing comes to you and all you care about is the externals then you will be deceived and let into damnation. Especially if you had the theological training to know better, to know how to recognize an apostate...
I feel sorry for ignorant people who cannot read. They lack that special "theological understanding of what it would take for them to see that this is truly and substantially a formally different religion," and therefore get to enjoy Hell. Their loss. Should have educated themselves, I guess.
You seem to suggest that Sedevacantist are outside of the Church, this would be dogmatic sedeplenism and this is not welcome according to the forum rules...
Then why goad me to continue?
You have your say, I don't get mine. A fun one-sided conversation. I shared my sentiment. You've attacked it. I hope you got your rocks on.
# # # #
I'm not interested in convincing anyone here. I know I cannot. I am not trying to convert anyone into anything new. I made a statement for the week.
Y'all know where I stand for the record.
As I have said before there is nothing wrong with having valid convictions based on theological proper thinking. It means that you are actually making an effort to understand these issues, instead of anathematizing without having a clue of what you are talking about. I am trying to help you see how you should approach the question everyone has gone through some journey either they have started in tradition all along since they started the faith, or you came out of the Novus Ordo (a sort of conversion process) into tradition etc... Or some come from outside the Church into tradition, or into the Novus Ordo and then into tradition. There is a method to the madness of seeing how the crisis of the Church should be approached. It helps so that people do not go into a schismatic novatianist/donatist/jansenist approach to who constitutes a member of the Church.
It is usually the "dogmatic" sedevacantist that get usually called out, and I would agree where the case would certainly apply.
I am not silly enough to think that the pope issue is something that needs to be added to the Nicene Creed. I have yet to have read someone who advocates that... After all it is the office of the papacy and not particular men, which we are demanded to assent by Divine and Catholic faith. The ample amount of anti-Popes in the history of the Church is enough to prove that there can be a reasonable assumption that there are false claimants out there etc... The failure to see how certain people think that they are dubious Popes, because they doubt that a non-Catholic can be a member of the Church based on solid theological conclusions. These shows a truly schismatic spirit if you are able to understand the argument, it is understandable how certain people who are totally unaware of tradition can see SV'ist as schismatic at first sight. In order to be a true Sedevacantist it is necessary first to be a sedeplenist, this much no one disputes even Most Holy Family Monastery (of which everyone can agree are the most rigorist SV'ist out there on most issues, the only exception being the Una cuм issue). Even if it is for a very brief or long period, however, after understanding the teaching of the Church. After seeing the evidence and how strong it is in favor of SV'ism, then after that if you still consider them outside the Church. I have nothing else but to tell you that you are schismatic in the most objective possible way. I really pray that those who hold this position who should know better, come back to the Church. Schism is a sin against Charity always remember that.
Well I hope you see what specifically was completely wrong with what you did. I hope to have just given a brief response, it could be longer but I hope it is sufficient for anyone that is still contemplating how far they are willing to allow the claimants to cross your concocted "theological" line of sand.
Who said you can't defend your position? The only difference is that I am pointing out to you how a good theological conversation should be had, especially on delicate disputed questions. So this one-sided conversation of yours is only imagined and not real. Just don't throw any anathema's out there, have some real empathy and compassion in our confusing times. Everyone seems to play the ecuмeniac part very well when it comes to the Novus Ordites who are beyond a question of a doubt in a new religion... Yet, even I am willing to grant that there are still many who are in that sect in good faith, and in ignorance of the topics at hand. How much more are we to grant to those who have actually dedicated a major part of their life in living the faith, studying the faith, evangelizing wherever we are at, some of us have even been through actual formation seminary/religious life etc... Yet still by your Divine command we are declared excommunicated with 0 theological backing... I simply can't understand it honestly, I try to put myself in your shoes and I just get the null set (no solution, for those of you that are not familiar with the mathematical pun).
+Pax vobis+
-
A female cardinal would be the worst thing, as it allows neo-cats a perfect defense of the man. Cardinals don't have to be clergy, so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
I think if someone they saw as, "otherwise conservative", did this you would be correct.
If someone they see as an out and out modernist does it they won't necessarily take that same line. How many conservatives have you spoken to recently? Are you conducting polls to gauge what they think of Francis's statements?
Everyone has a point where they stop grasping at straws. Even Jayne K, given enough pressure, would break and probably become some sort of third order rad Trad extremist.
The fence sitters when they jump off the fence often become the Tradicals because they want to flog themselves for being blind to things for so long.
Humans are funny like that.
I have listened to "conservative" Catholics and, frankly, they will not object if the man they consider to be pope creates female cardinals. In fact, I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops. To them, "Modernism" is a term out of the past that may describe certain historical issues but has no real relevance today.
Only a tiny number of Catholics who make up the Pius Xth Society never assisted at the new mass.
Very many Traditionalists and SSPX laity were once "conservatives" going along to the Novus Ordo. Consider that.
Being late to join the side of Tradition might anger you just as the workers in the Vineyard who had worked through the heat of the day were angered. An understandable reaction.
I completely agree that the workers who started early in the Vineyard of the Lord, should not complain ever! It is for the Lord God to determine to whom and to who does he give everything. We should rejoice if someone comes at the 11th hour and 59th minute and gets paid the same wages as those who started in the first hour. Deo gratias, Vengeance is His thus says the Lord, indeed indeed. Amen. So be it.
The important part is that they start before the time is up, that is what worries me.
-
I have listened to "conservative" Catholics and, frankly, they will not object if the man they consider to be pope creates female cardinals. In fact, I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops. To them, "Modernism" is a term out of the past that may describe certain historical issues but has no real relevance today.
Only a tiny number of Catholics who make up the Pius Xth Society never assisted at the new mass.
Very many Traditionalists and SSPX laity were once "conservatives" going along to the Novus Ordo. Consider that.
Being late to join the side of Tradition might anger you just as the workers in the Vineyard who had worked through the heat of the day were angered. An understandable reaction.
I think you misunderstand me here. I, too, was very late to join the side of tradition. I am not talking of traditional Catholics; I am talking of "conservative" Catholics, and I think there are many more of them than there are traditionalists. Much more of my life was spent in the Novus Ordo than in tradition but I was not simply a "conservative" Catholic. For many years, I knew something was wrong but didn't know where things were right.
Most people who follow the SSPX, I think, were as I was but have found tradition. When they found tradition is not a concern. But followers of the SSPX are not generally simply "conservative" Catholics.
The "conservatives" are the ones who want a reverent Novus Ordo or may even prefer the traditional Rite (which they probably now call the Vetus Ordo) for its beauty. They are the Scott Hahns, readers of the Wanderer, the New Oxford Review, the National Catholic Register etc., and, of course, EWTN aficionados. Now, I will agree that even some of them will find tradition, but most will not. They reject tradition where it seems to them to deviate from the Conciliar religion.
They are akin to the "patriot" who says, "My country, right or wrong!" They are politically conservative and look to conservatism in their Novus Ordo religion as well. But most of them have lost the faith and now believe according to their own hearts while defending their pope no matter what. They may heap tons of debris upon a cardinal (e.g., Ratzinger); but all is forgiven the moment he appears in the window and the announcement is made: Habemus Papam!
The "conservatives" I am talking about are not the ones who are troubled by contradictions he reads who are still searching and may even find tradition if even at the eleventh hour. They are the ones who think all will be well if only...if only the pope really knew what was going on or some other canard.
I hope this clears up my meaning.
P.S. Frankly, the people who have never actively participated in the Novus Ordo and really don't have any idea about what goes on there or within the Conciliar organization are the only traditional Catholics who are risk...At risk if the SSPX, as an organization, regularizes with the current Vatican. I was really amazed at the fear and loathing some of the people at the SSPX chapel I used to attend have for the "resistance" SSPX. In any event, I am no longer associated with any SSPX entity which is why I generally stay out of the discussions concerning the Menzingen SSPX and the Resistance SSPX.
-
Who said you can't defend your position?
You did right here:
You seem to suggest that Sedevacantist are outside of the Church, this would be dogmatic sedeplenism and this is not welcome according to the forum rules...
I've stated my position, trying to make it clear I'm not out to convert anyone. But I'm sure even stating my further thoughts will draw enough ire that the impression of rule-breaking will manifest...and...meh.
I'm not on a crusade to convert, defend, or explain my thoughts on the matter here. We disagree, and everyone knows it.
I am not pro Sede. I am not pro SSPX. I acknowledge the pope as pope, and I'm pro FSSP. That's Laramie Hirsch. I touch a bit on it on my blog. Maybe I'll have more thoughts on it later. Dunno.
-
Bah. One more.
All this talk on the matter has compelled me to iron out a current definitive statement about sedevacantism. View it here, if interested: http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/sedevacantism-part-2.html
This is an ever-solidifying opinion of mine. I suppose I've definitely had this opinion for about a week, now.
That's all.
-
In case no one wants to click on that link, which is probably the case, here's a copy and paste of what Laramie wrote:
This evening, I heard something insightful.
When Christ was on Earth in his final mortal hours, if one had seen Him getting beaten, mocked, and dangling from a Roman cross, there'd be the impression that Jesus was a pathetic, withered, earthly man in the middle of a horrible episode of suffering at the end of his mortal life. He did not appear to be God. And most in the crowd did not acknowledge that this was God on Earth. Christ did not look like God on Earth in those moments. So people went forward with mocking him, asking for his suffering and death, jeering and shouting.
Now we see the Church is in the same situation. She is bloodied. She is suffering. People mock Her and ask for Her suffering and death. The faithless jeer and ridicule the Church. People do not recognize the Church as God's Institution on Earth. And so, we have a large set of people who are missing the point entirely.
Christ wanted His followers near Him in those horrible final hours. Yet, they were not there with Him.
How many times have you said to yourself: "If I could go back in time, I would have been with Jesus until the bitter end."
Well, now the Holy Spirit desires our presence with the Catholic Church of God in these horrible (and possibly final) hours. Shall it be that here, too, God will be abandoned once again?
No wonder you didn't write it in here, because all you are demonstrating is that you have absolutely zero understanding of this issue. And that's actually fine, but when you campaign against it, you have a problem. You are making the error that you made several pages ago, the error of identifying the Church that Jorge Bergoglio/Francis is head of with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And you also seem to insist to make this about sedevacantism when I really don't think it needs to be, as the distinction between Catholic and Conciliar Church is a distinction that all traditional Catholics make, SV or not.
Your hilarious continuing to insinuate that those who recognize the Catholic Church as something separate from the conciliar Church are outside the Church is ridiculous. You do not know what you're talking about, and several posters have tried to help you understand, you go and run off and make a blog post about it using that same faulty premise.
-
In case no one wants to click on that link...
you go and run off and make a blog post about it using that same faulty premise...
I didn't think anyone here at Cathinfo cared about what I'd have to say about the sede movement. I left the link as an option. But oh well. There are many Sedes here comfortable in their belief, and I've stated a few times already that I'm not out to change minds this week.
You don't want to pray for the pope? You want to continue to hope for the death of the Church? I'm not stopping you. You know where I stand, is all. Carry on.
-
The primary job of the cardinals is to elect the next pope. [....]
I won't agree that the "job" is truly "primary". That's certainly the most news-worthy duty of cardinals as the modern secular world sees things. Altho' when a John XXIII or Paul VI or Francis I emerges from the Sacred Conclave, instead of a Giuseppe Siri reportedly Gregory XVII, their election might reasonably be said to've had more impact on the Church and its future, than anything else they could possibly have done, whether individually or collegially.
But there is also at least a hazy secular perception of some cause-&-effect connecting the top rank of the day-to-day Vatican bureaucracy with the red ceremonial attire, more like the the connection of the high offices in the British civil service with the various British honorary orders (e.g.: Order of Bath), than anything else in recent times of which I'm aware.
So, relying on the customary copyright exemption for public review and comment, I offer excerpts from a source for Catholic tradition that's much more authoritative than I:
[quote="Cardinal" (Catholic Encyclopedia 1908)]It is the duty of the cardinals to assist the pope at the chief liturgical services known as capellæ papales, to distinguish them from the capellæ cardinaliciæ, at which the pope is not present; also to counsel him and aid in the government of the Church [....]  After the death of the pope (sede vacante) the duties of the College of Cardinals differ from those exercised by them during his lifetime (sede plenâ). [....]  Their authority was exercised chiefly in two ways, in the administration of the States of the Church and in the election of the new pope. [....]  No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ, i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.
[/quote]
J.B. Sägmüller (1908): "Cardinal". C.E. vol. 3, also accessible at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm)>.
-
In case no one wants to click on that link, which is probably the case, here's a copy and paste of what Laramie wrote:
This evening, I heard something insightful.
When Christ was on Earth in his final mortal hours, if one had seen Him getting beaten, mocked, and dangling from a Roman cross, there'd be the impression that Jesus was a pathetic, withered, earthly man in the middle of a horrible episode of suffering at the end of his mortal life. He did not appear to be God. And most in the crowd did not acknowledge that this was God on Earth. Christ did not look like God on Earth in those moments. So people went forward with mocking him, asking for his suffering and death, jeering and shouting.
Now we see the Church is in the same situation. She is bloodied. She is suffering. People mock Her and ask for Her suffering and death. The faithless jeer and ridicule the Church. People do not recognize the Church as God's Institution on Earth. And so, we have a large set of people who are missing the point entirely.
Christ wanted His followers near Him in those horrible final hours. Yet, they were not there with Him.
How many times have you said to yourself: "If I could go back in time, I would have been with Jesus until the bitter end."
Well, now the Holy Spirit desires our presence with the Catholic Church of God in these horrible (and possibly final) hours. Shall it be that here, too, God will be abandoned once again?
No wonder you didn't write it in here, because all you are demonstrating is that you have absolutely zero understanding of this issue. And that's actually fine, but when you campaign against it, you have a problem. You are making the error that you made several pages ago, the error of identifying the Church that Jorge Bergoglio/Francis is head of with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And you also seem to insist to make this about sedevacantism when I really don't think it needs to be, as the distinction between Catholic and Conciliar Church is a distinction that all traditional Catholics make, SV or not.
Your hilarious continuing to insinuate that those who recognize the Catholic Church as something separate from the conciliar Church are outside the Church is ridiculous. You do not know what you're talking about, and several posters have tried to help you understand, you go and run off and make a blog post about it using that same faulty premise.
The sort of intellectual dishonesty that is required to do what this guy does is incredible. I completely agree with your analysis Mithrandylan, the distinction of a New religion is there even among some hard line FSSP'ers. Heck, I have even personally heard Mr. Michael Voris of which I have had the opportunity to meet him and talk with him personally in private. He says that the New Church and the New Religion of those whom everyone universally agrees are a bunch of heretics like "Cardinal" Roger Mahoney, and the very well known springtime prelates in the Conciliar Church. Mr. Voris even attends the New Mass, you also have others who agree that the New Mass is legitimate and valid without a question of a doubt. They do have a preference of choice always to the True and only Western Rite there is. Msgr. Luigi Villa (he celebrated the New Mass) says the same thing that it is completely a heretical new religious sect based on the principles of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Fr. James Wathen, Father Gomar de Pauw, Abbe Georges de Nantes (http://www.crc-internet.org/101-fidei-defensor.html), Fr. John Hardon (he called a majority of the Bishops in the world heretics he just turned a total blind eye to the See of Peter, understandably so) and many other non-Sedevacantist intellectually honest individuals. Now some in the indult don't like to be "so hard line" because even they self-admittedly know that it leads in its most logical form to Sedevacantism. The difference is that all of the priest mentioned without a shadow of a doubt agreed that it is a new foreign religion, THE REAL difference in the conclusions is that they don't apply the same standards to Cardinals, Bishops, priest, laity as they would to the Roman Pontiff. In everything else they are in total and complete agreement with everything Sedevacantist are saying, the only thing is the whole pope issue is untouchable. Some of them have strong reasons, which they have intellectually been able to come up with to justify their stance. However as time goes on it is completely convicting the Sedevacantist position that they were right all along, it is becoming super clear now.
I had already explained the pathetic theological puke excuse that most Novus Ordites would argue with me about "showing a good example in the Novus Ordo" with all of your "reverent attitude" and "kneeling down for communion." The Neo-SSPX sadly enough has been infected with this same pride, some have the idea that once the SSPX is "integrated" fully into the Conciliar Church that they will come with all of their nice cassocks and traditions to convert the modernist. They will be so aghast with all of our piety that their hearts will melt and convert to tradition... This is nothing but pure fantasy, of the worst kind to say the least.
You argue that the Church is going through Her passion, we completely agree! That is a total straw man argument right there, no one disputes that the Church reflects the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord. Now what you fail to see is how Our Lord has been disfigured to the point that He is completely unrecognizable, but trust me the Church is still in her full glory with her full doctrine for every single nanosecond before the second coming of Christ. This is of course contrary to the Conciliarist who believe that the words of Our Blessed Lord, "That they may be One", are a mere wish or expression but not a reality... Heretics and schismatics affect not even one little single iota or tittle the unity of the Catholic Church. Now if you venture to say that He is completely recognizable in the local Novus Ordo protestant service, it is blasphemy to suggest that Our Lord is somehow there. No the difference is that you and others completely fail to see where Our Blessed Lord truly lies, in those who totally RESIST the enemies of Our Lord. That is what is so difficult about the current situation, because you have a bunch of pseudo traditionalist who are scandalized at small things. They totally ignore the most important doctrinal stances straining a gnat and swallowing camel its incredible with what devotion they follow the Pharisees. They thus become like the Pharisees who repeat, "It is not lawful for you to do such and such a thing..." Their solution is "spiritually starve" and wait until "the Holy Father" stops being so modernist after 50 years you can kind of get the message that he is ONE of them, not a Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. This is why Home-Alonism is self-refuting it is the worst form of legalism that there is responding with the worst kind of self-righteousness "we are approved and you are not." Caring little for the faith and its substance by accepting the heresies of Vatican II both in its application throughout the world in the Novus Ordo magisterium and swallowing its errors. The indulters are the ones scared and scandalized at the Passion, not us. You have run away from Our Blessed Lord and stayed with Judas thinking you are doing a service to God by persecuting true Catholics. We are the only ones that actually stay to console Our Lord in the way that He has taught us to worship Him and be pleasing to Him. Not following our own whims and desires of what we like or not like. "I like this or that priest", we go to mass to please God, not to go do "community congregational worship services." We love hanging around other true Catholics, but we put our priorities straight.
Here is the difference between those in tradition and those who agree with the enemies of the Church. Saint John the Apostle was present through the whole passion of Our Blessed Lord, however, he did not participate with the enemies of Our Lord in crucifying Him! Huge total difference, you think that somehow blasphemy and sacrilige with enough "reverent attitude" will somehow lessen the sin? The modernist, heretics, schismatics have separated themselves from the Church and assail Her throughout the world seeking to ridicule Her, they mock Her etc... However, your sort of solution is to do precisely the same thing that they are doing by ACKNOWLEDGING their error that is precisely crucifying Our Lord.
First of all the problem is of pride, you lack real self-love. If you don't want to go to heaven, then you can't simply love your neighbor. You cannot do anything that is proximately dangerous to faith, the Fathers of the Church most especially the moral theologians following St. Alphonsus say that attending such "masses" is completely illicit. This is especially true with someone that has dedicated plenty of time reading all the issue, you will be especially held accountable if you know better.
The real truth of the matter is that 99.999% of "masses" in the Western Rite are Novus Ordo protestant services... That means if you hold the position that you have to attend any mass for Sunday obligation that you will be giving the majority of Catholics a new religion to swallow. I don't know about you, but I could never tell someone with a straight face and looking at them in the eyes to attend the New Mass, I have some dignity. I really don't understand how the Ecclesia Dei communities can be able to do that... It just boggles my mind...
Now remember the Church says that you do not have to drive more then one hour to go to mass, that alone constitutes a sufficient excuse not to drive. All canonist were pretty straightforward with regards to that, now most of your wanna be "more Catholic then the Pope" type of pseudo-traditionalists will say that they would sin mortally if they don't "drive for atleast 3-5 hours every week for mass." Never forget the whole we have a huge family, economic distress (most folks are barely living on the edge) and Rome has truly spoken on the matter so it is settled. You completely lack any sort of realism with what is going on at the "local parish level." Now its amazing how they fail to see how merciful the Church is with regards to these matters, and I never have seen any traditionalist that is of SSPX/SV'ist type who has ever argued otherwise with respect to mass attendance. The answer is easy, because those who are part of the resistance within the indult circles are a bunch of Pharisees. They are so completely scandalized at SV'ist/SSPX "disobedience" etc... However are totally completely okay with real abominations that continue to happen 24/7 within the Conciliar Church piously turning a blind eye to all the evil, the level of human respect is sickening. I love how all pious indulter's simply keep a blind eye to the news that are going on now. Honestly they can't get themselves to read anything that is going on, like a bunch of ostriches they refuse to see reality. I can't wait until the traditional missal gets revised and they add "John Paul the Great" to the missal, and the Good "Pope" John... Then the neat little situation that they will be in, once that happens those who knowingly stay within the indult mass will be sinning against faith. It will certainly be interesting to see how comfortable people have got into their little parishes thinking that "all is well, all is well." God will spit out the lukewarm, and those who because they neither want to be hot nor cold, are an abomination before God (this is assuming that they are even Catholic without a question of a doubt).
None of the arguments that we have used were ever based on straw man fallacies, all of the arguments that are used by the Conciliarist conservatives are based on fallacies, totally misrepresenting our positions. Just go and look up all the anti-SV'ist sermons on Audio Sancto and you will get an idea of what I am talking about. They do no service to truth (of which they do not have) by lying and misrepresenting their opponents, they actually do us a service because it makes it easy to refute them. Some people in my parish as a result of the gross misrepresentations have already left the Conciliar sect precisely because of this. I will later give a post dealing with all of them, one by one (audio sancto sermons). If it helps anyone out there let it be for the Glory of God. You need to upfront with those you talk to, sadly enough there are some who died before being able to know tradition because of the extremely slow approach they have had in talking to their family and friends. You don't know the time nor the hour that the Lord God will call them into eternity and as such we need to have the charity to dedicate time to those interested in seeing the beauty of the Catholic religion, how glorious and resplendent it is. As Padre Pio would say, "I need the Church, she does not need me." Amen. Amen. Can I have a Hallelujah!?
Pharisaic Scandal!
By Padre Fernado
The Catechism teaches that pharisaical scandal takes place when a word or an action, not reprehensible in itself, causes fear or scandal in some tendentious persons, who at the same time close their eyes to other facts which are truly scandalous. The name comes from the attitude of the Pharisees, of whom Jesus said that "they screen the fly and swallow the camel" (Matt 23:24). They were committing the greatest crimes and injustices, but were scandalized for example when in order to do good, Jesus did not follow the Sabbath Law as they wished. History repeats itself.
How many rend their garments as the Pharisees, scandalized because Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in order to continue the Tradition of the Church and to oppose heresy, had decided to consecrate truly Catholic Bishops. But they were not scandalized when, with several Cardinals, John Paul II, in a Lutheran Church in Rome, took part in an heretical ceremony and recited a prayer composed by Luther (December 11, 1983)!
They were not scandalized when John Paul II received a delegation of Jєωιѕн Masonry of the B'nai B'rith, calling this audience a "meeting between Brothers" (April 17, 1984)!
They were not scandalized when John Paul II sent an official representative to the laying of the foundation stone of the largest mosque in Europe at Rome (December 11,1984)!
They were not scandalized when, in Togo, he assisted in the Sacred Forest at Animist (pagan) rites (August 8, 1985)!
They were not scandalized when John Paul II, in India received from a Hindu Priestess the "Testa, sign of the Tilak" (February 2, 1986)!
They were not scandalized when John Paul II visited the great ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome in which he took part in the recitation of psalms (April 13,1986)! Neither when John Paul II invited Catholics and Jєωs to prepare the world together for the coming of the Messiah (June 24, 1986)!
They were not scandalized when in the Church of St. Peter, in Assisi, during the meeting organized by the Vatican, the Buddhist monks adored the Dalai Lama, who is for them the reincarnation of Buddha, sitting with their back towards the tabernacle, where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved (cf. Avvenire, October 28, 1986)!
Neither were they scandalized when, during the same meeting, in the same church, the idol of Buddha was placed on the tabernacle of the main altar, where it was the object of their adoration (cf. Avvenire and II Mattino, October 28,1986)!
Neither when, during the meeting of Assisi which was organized and sponsored by the Vatican, the Hindus invoked their gods, sitting around the altar of St. Mary Major (II Corriere della Sera, October 28,1986)!
Thus those who do not feel a profound sorrow in their hearts in seeing the Blood of Christ trod under foot and the Mission of the Church betrayed, will only, with a great hypocrisy, be able to rend their garments and throw stones in the face of the firm and courageous attitude of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (and all those who with him hold to the Catholic faith of all time) who was led by his love for the Holy Church of God.
As St. Gregory the Great said: "It is better that scandal takes place rather than to hide the truth." It would be a double scandal to tolerate error and hide the crime under the cover of innocence, not to say complicity.
-
In case no one wants to click on that link...
you go and run off and make a blog post about it using that same faulty premise...
I didn't think anyone here at Cathinfo cared about what I'd have to say about the sede movement. I left the link as an option. But oh well. There are many Sedes here comfortable in their belief, and I've stated a few times already that I'm not out to change minds this week.
You don't want to pray for the pope? You want to continue to hope for the death of the Church? I'm not stopping you. You know where I stand, is all. Carry on.
Yes we desire to see the death of the Conciliar Church... Just like any Catholic would wish to see the Arian heresy crushed, or false religions obliterated from the face of the earth. Just like Moses wiped out all the calf adoring Jєω's who did not repent, it was their choice not ours.
We desire to see the Church bloom and continue to grow with good and Holy vocations that are worthy of the name of Catholic. We don't care about "buildings" which are tied to schismatics as St. Athanasius said during his own day, "They have the buildings, we have the faith." Pretty simple, I have no worries or concerns about buildings that no longer offer sacrifice that is pleasing to God. As far as I am concerned sell them all to do reparation to the victims of sɛҳuąƖ abuse, or give them to the poor (who knows Francis might actually do this).
If you were not out there to "change minds" then just privately email... The fact that you are posting in a public forum, means that it is intended for a wider audience other then yourself and a few others. On top of that a blog... You claim that everyone knows your stance, be bold to defend it if you truly believe in it. Just don't give us any more of theological gobbledygook we have had enough of that from Conciliarist modernist, we don't need to hear it from someone that claims to be a part of the resistance. By the way you are not praying for the "Pope" either because there is not one to pray to only difference is we just skip the first step. Reality can be hard sometimes our prayer is that some might actually start living in it. The nature of truth demands that we assent to it as soon as we are able to grasp it, one day you might just remember all the advice that everyone has given to you. I hope you don't go to any bitter extremes once that happens. Have a good valid confessor they are definitely a great help when it comes to growing in the spiritual life. Very few FSSP priest are valid try to go and find one, its the next best option so you actually can receive something valid. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that formal schismatics do not confer grace in their sacraments so please do not follow what the New Code of Canon Law says with respect to being able to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy under any circuмstances. Its amazing how the Conciliar Church in her laws allows Catholics to attend truly schismatic sacraments, but gives mixed messages to real Catholics (SSPX).
A few factoids out there:
1) Balamand declaration with the Orthodox Schismatics.
2) Anglican communion intermixed New Mass approved service.
3) Join declaration with Lutherans
4) Join declaration of the Chaldean Church with the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorians) on Christological issues
Please wake up... There are some others that I have not mentioned because I have not fully read them, but these ones are without a doubt heretical. I will later make a post dealing with the fourth one (something that is not so frequently commonly known among traditionalist circles).
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
So you still wouldn't recognize a pope as false if he said Christ was not God?
Since you have not responded to this question and based upon your subsequent posts, I guess you would still recognize such a pope as true.
K.
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
So you still wouldn't recognize a pope as false if he said Christ was not God?
Since you have not responded to this question and based upon your subsequent posts, I guess you would still recognize such a pope as true.
K.
Sorry, been busy with real life stuff. I've been brief lately.
If a pope said that, then he would be a pope who said that. God will not likely smile on the guy.
Is there some sort of Church law that comes into play if that is said?
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
So you still wouldn't recognize a pope as false if he said Christ was not God?
Since you have not responded to this question and based upon your subsequent posts, I guess you would still recognize such a pope as true.
K.
Sorry, been busy with real life stuff. I've been brief lately.
If a pope said that, then he would be a pope who said that. God will not likely smile on the guy.
Is there some sort of Church law that comes into play if that is said?
It's called heresy. And I really can't see anyone excusing that as anything but heresy. And heretics, by definition, are outside of the Church and no longer Catholic. A non-Catholic can not be Pope.
He isn't just a "bad" pope.
-
Cardinals don't have to be clergy [....]
My reading of the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (albeit perhaps too hastily for the extensive content in multiple articles) convinces me to the contrary: A cardinal must indeed be among the clergy, not among the laity. In a strict sense, clergy is a term that encompasses all men in the hierarchy-of-orders, as initiated by receiving ecclesiastical tonsure. Thus, the strict sense does not include deaconesses, widows, nor virgins.
However, ecclesiastical history plainly shows that to become a cardinal, one is not required to have been consecrated as bishop. In recent centuries, there have been cardinal-archpriests, cardinal-priests, and cardinal-deacons. But those offices are all based on what were already considered sacred orders from the earliest days of the Church, i.e.: of Divine or Apostolic origin, and confirmed as sacred by the Council of Trent.
The minor orders were of later Church origin, and are conferred by simple nonsacrament rituals - that do not require a Mass. But in past centuries, at least as recently as the Middle Ages, there have been cardinal-subdeacons, and a cardinal-acolyte was once mentioned (whether a uniquely honored cleric, or just a unique mention that underdocuмented the honor, no clue is given). It may be especially significant that the mention was in "Commentarius electionis Gregorii VII" 
- , because when elected pope, Gregory VII (1073--1085) was not yet a bishop, nor even a priest. He did have the red hat, first as cardinal-subdeacon Hildebrand, and had kept it (or so it seems) when later elevated to "Archdeacon of the Holy Roman Church". He wasn't ordained to the priesthood until after his election as pope.
I have read "conservative" Catholics, even ones who "prefer" the traditional Mass, say that the pope's power to bind and loose would even allow him to ordain women as priests and bishops.
In between the fog of docuмents lost in the earliest centuries of the Church, and smoke of the radical Vatican II, when the popes exercised their power, they didn't overturn the Apostolic precedents that were docuмented by the New Testament.
Consider, e.g., Pope Innocent III (>=1198--1216): He was famously aggressive, among mediaeval popes, in dealing with monarchs in matters of secular politics & diplomacy. A century-and-a-fraction after Gregory's death, it was Innocent who declared the subdiaconate a major order. Although its C.E. subject-article doesn't state it as clearly as might be hoped, it appears that the practical consequence of that was to make subdeacons, after 6 months, eligible for selection to become bishops(!). But he did not change the initiation ritual for subdeacons to add the imposition of hands (which it still doesn't have in the Western Churches, unless Vatican II added it). Why might conferring that external sign matter to subdeacons? 'Twas 1/2 millennium before Innocent's declaration, 2 of the most substantial deterrents to vocations in the modern world: the vow of chastity and daily recitation of the Holy Office, were imposed on subdeacons. But perhaps those are the combination of crosses that're expected to be borne by recipients of an order whose name begins with the humbling "sub-". Could it be that Innocent believed, despite his typical boldness, that it would not be proper, not even for a pope, to change the initiation ritual for the subdiaconate?
[....] so in theory, a woman could be a cardinal. They'll simply point this out and claim that there's nothing wrong with appointing a woman cardinal.
Given that the premise about clergy (far above) is invalid, one can't derive a valid conclusion, even "in theory" (what "theory" would that be, exactly?).
Only God knows for certain what's in the mind of Bishop-of-Rome Francis; I'm not at all convinced that Francis himself always knows what he'll do or say next. So it might make more sense to speculate on whether he really has a plan for creating female cardinals, instead of what his plan might be.
------
Note #: In ecclesiastical terminology, contrary to formation rules for English, "(non)sacramental" is not the adjective corresponding to the noun "(non)sacrament". This is because the noun "sacrament" does not mean the same thing as the substantive "sacramental". Arrrgh!
Note *: "Commentarius" has multiple meanings that are significant in English: "memorandum"; "memoir" (e.g.: Caesar's Gallic Wars); or the Roman legal tech-term for a (legal) "brief". Not having seen the source, I don't know which meaning fits.
-
Alligator Dicax, you are correct. I am repeating something that I have heard, and have no primary source for. This evening I consulted a commentary on the Pio Benedictine code and came across this:
"The Cardinals are all appointed by the Roman Pontiff, and must be priests of outstanding learning, piety, judgement and ability (Commentary on Canon Law, p 159)."
I would like to know if there is any particular reason that I have heard the contrary. My guess, short of people simply lying, is that at a certain point in Church history, the law simply listed being of good virtue, judgement and ability as the prerequisite to being elected a Cardinal (along with the fact that only the Supreme Pontiff can make such an election). From here, moderns have taken the liberty to theorize that women cardinals were not forbidden by the Church during this time (which may or may not have existed). Even if this were the case, I would imagine that it would be assumed. You will not find a catechism that stipulates that marriage is between a man and a woman, it's simply assumed. Or, as I say, this idea may simply be the result of a flat-out lie.
-
Laramie, it's very clear by this point that you don't quite (or really, at all) understand what heresy is, and what effects it has on the soul. Before you continue offering your thoughts on this topic and updating your blog with various 'stands' against your fellow Catholics, you really should spend some of the time that you would spending posting by reading instead.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) on heresy. It is long, and it would be best to read the whole thing, but it would suffice for you to read the first three sections or so.
-
What, exactly, is the heresy? Can you state it in a single sentence? What precisely happened in 1968 that was completely heretical?
Completely heretical. Not sort of, kind of, or almost heretical.
-
I'm not patronizing you any further, and no one else should either. From your ridiculously offensive 'satirical' post encouraging people to leave the Church because it has failed to you maligning traditional Catholics as those who have left Our Lord while He was hanging from the Tree, I'm done.
-
I'm not patronizing you any further, and no one else should either. From your ridiculously offensive 'satirical' post encouraging people to leave the Church because it has failed to you maligning traditional Catholics as those who have left Our Lord while He was hanging from the Tree, I'm done.
Satirical. I was actually sincere.
I have not encouraged anyone to do anything yet.
I have not maligned anyone yet. Only the schism of sedevacantism, which is an abstract idea, and not a person.
-
(I've excerpted my previous posting immediately below, as a means to provide continuity for my original draft, after I divided it into 2 pieces that might be more readily digestible):
Only God knows for certain what's in the mind of Bishop-of-Rome Francis; I'm not at all convinced that Francis himself always knows what he'll do or say next. So it might make more sense to speculate on whether he really has a plan for creating female cardinals, instead of what his plan might be.
But where's the fun in simply sitting on my hands on the sidelines, when there's an tolerably functional keyboard in front of me?
Remember that every time most "conservative" Catholics draws a line in the sand and are convinced the pope would never agree to such and such (e.g., [...] girl altar boys, Communion in the hand, ordinary use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, [...]) when the line is crossed, they almost all simply accept the change as a fait accompli [....]
I'm nearly a complete stranger to the Novus Ordo of the 21st century, but I get the impression that a majority of its "lay ministers" are women. Some of those women are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as lectors. Even more countertraditionally, women distributing communion are carrying out the functions traditionally restricted to men who received at least the sacred order of the diaconate (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing about whether handling consecrated species is ever allowed to subdeacons). The "altar girls" are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as acolytes.
My best guess is that at some time in his tenure as "Bishop of Rome", Francis will issue a decree formally declaring the minor orders open to women. He'll be able to rely on immediate & uncritical emotional support from papolators around the world. By limiting his decree to the minor orders, he'll gain support from other Novus Ordo "Catholics", who'll believe him when he claims that it's simply an issue of égalité[/b]. They'll obediently agree with his claims, and those of his defenders, that he's not promoting a radical agenda that rejects the divine precedents set for the Catholic ministry by the Christ. Oh, no--not at all! It was the Church who created the minor orders, many years after the Ascension of the Christ: God giveth the grace of orders to His flock in the past, so now God giveth the grace of orders to even more of His flock.
As a practical matter, Francis would then declare that, as an act of fairness,  he  the Church will grant women credit toward the minor orders, on the basis of their "experience": whether as nuns who'd already taken vows for that traditional station in life, or as "extraordinary ministers". He, or considering his personal disorganization, his Curia, would devise & announce a "papally approved" accelerated program, to absorb all those women into the minor orders. Am I being too cynical if I assume that the accelerated program would be unlikely to impose any substantive requirements that could prevent women from receiving minor orders?
I have no doubt that Francis would want women initiated into the minor orders, accompanied by loads of liberal-media publicity, as quickly as possible, before any opposing "Catholic" groundswell could have time to develop.-   Although he'd probably publicly rebuke any opposition as an "outdated minority stubbornly determined to hold back progress in the Church", then make a show of ignoring them.
In selecting the "female cardinal", Francis might try to placate "conservatives" by appointing an abbotess or mother superior, allowing him to insist that his choice has seniority & experience that makes her "more than qualified" to serve the Church as a "cardinal-subdeacon", which is what he'll promptly proclaim her, with an implied papal dispensation for any problematic requirements. It's the lowest of the sacred orders that has a strong historical precedent for the red hat, and the highest whose initiation traditionally does not include the imposition of hands. She'll be chosen from among the most marketable of Novus Ordo religious communities for women, probably one whose attire is arguably a uniform, reminiscent enough of a habit to bring back fond memories of the once-traditional nuns who taught Baby-Boomers their Catholicism, or staffed Catholic hospitals.
What might the "female cardinal" wear? Italy is a nation of fashion fanatics; I'm sure someone will devise a stylish female costume for the Bishop of Rome's newest innovation (considering the high esteem with which Italians honor English food & fashion, there should be no doubt that Italians in the ecuмenical spirit will copy the robes of Anglican bishopesses for their precedent-setting fashion).
------
Note *: Reminiscent of a relatively new rule in American (gridiron) football, which provides a ruse to prevent game officials from starting a troublesome video review of a previous play: Whenever an on-the-field ruling is worse than questionable, and plainly advantageous to the team ruled to have the ball, if the ball can be snapped by the possessing team, before an official request is signalled to have the play reviewed on video, the new play is not allowed to be interrupted for that review, because it's then officially too late in the game for it.
-
Link:El Pais article (http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/09/23/inenglish/1379952868_934748.html)
El Pais
Pope Francis contemplates appointing a female cardinal
Observers believe pontiff is likely to make changes to allow a bigger role for women in the Church
Juan Arias Río de Janeiro 23 SEP 2013 - 18:22 CET
(http://ep01.epimg.net/internacional/imagenes/2013/09/22/actualidad/1379871188_970752_1379873249_noticia_normal.jpg)
Ah, of course he'd consider that. Thank you. This trumps the worst heresies I had imagined so far; never question how low he can go! Some wondered if SauronFrank was Catholic; not me, though. I don't think he's religious at all.
Trying to think how to explain these things to the kids (stuff like the Church, V2, girl lesbian "cardinals"); I'm going to have to try some fiction...
Soul Wars VI — SSPX: A New Hope
Soul Wars V — Darth Francis Strikes Back <-- where we are
Soul Wars VI — The Return of the LORD
Nah, I liked Vader. He was redeemable. Dressed sharp, wouldn't have been caught carrying some repulsive bent up iron crozier.
I fear this is a case where the truth is stranger than fiction. I'll just turn on the HBO and tell the kids that Rome fell again.
-
What, exactly, is the heresy? Can you state it in a single sentence? What precisely happened in 1968 that was completely heretical?
Completely heretical. Not sort of, kind of, or almost heretical.
You can't be serious. What is heretical about saying Christ is not God? Really?
You have now danced around at least my two posts. My posts said nothing about what happened in 1968. I asked you whether you would call a pope false if he came out and said that Christ is not God. You are being obtuse. You know exactly what I'm driving at and have chosen to avoid answering the question directly....twice.
It's really not a difficult question.
-
I'm nearly a complete stranger to the Novus Ordo of the 21st century, but I get the impression that a majority of its "lay ministers" are women. Some of those women are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as lectors. Even more countertraditionally, women distributing communion are carrying out the functions traditionally restricted to men who received at least the sacred order of the diaconate (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing about whether handling consecrated species is ever allowed to subdeacons). The "altar girls" are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as acolytes.
You are pretty much right on target with all your impressions here.
My best guess is that at some time in his tenure as "Bishop of Rome", Francis will issue a decree formally declaring the minor orders open to women.
The minor orders are gone in the Novus Ordo. They simply don't exist. He will not formally decree them open to women; they already do all of these functions as "ministers". In the Novus Ordo, everything people do for the parish is called a "ministry" of some sort or another and all of them are open to women.
But it is not these functions that are on the minds of the Conciliarists. And it is not the minor orders, either, because few Conciliarists would really know what the term, minor orders, even means.
The serious discussions in some Novus Ordo circles is about ordaining deaconesses. This, I think, is what Bergoglio will permit. And my "prediction" is that within 5 years of authorizing the ordination of deaconesses, they will have worked out the pseudo-theological grounds for ordaining priestesses. It may take the election of "Francis II" to get to the actual ordination of priestesses, but it will most certainly come.
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
So you still wouldn't recognize a pope as false if he said Christ was not God?
Since you have not responded to this question and based upon your subsequent posts, I guess you would still recognize such a pope as true.
K.
Sorry, been busy with real life stuff. I've been brief lately.
If a pope said that, then he would be a pope who said that. God will not likely smile on the guy.
Is there some sort of Church law that comes into play if that is said?
Laramie, if a pope solemnly declared that Christ is not God would you be obligated to believe him?
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
Um, I don't think that your description would be much of, if at all, a reach to ascribe to Vatican II. Is'nt it a rebellion, isnt' what you described EXACTLY what happened in the Church? I'm sure for years in remote parts of England and it's empire there may have existed valid orders and Catholic priests in the C of E, yet we can't call that church THE Church can we? I can't fully commit to sedevacantism yet either but it seems more and more likely every day doesn't it?
Confusing as times are today, I wouldn't be shocked if it weren't the end times themselves. Things are Baaaaadddd!!!!!
-
Here is a link explaining EXACTLY what deaconesses could and could not do in the Early Church.
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxix.html
Primarily they were for assisting women catechumenates and it states that it would have been an impossibility for a deaconess to teach a man or nurse him in illness.
Let's see what these modern day deaconess' function will be!
I would not be surprised if they receive some kind of sacerdotal function. As it has been already pointed out, lay girls and women in the Conciliar Church are already performing functions that were reserved for the minor orders.
Sorry that I could not copy and paste from the site. Please go to the link as it can tell you so much more anyway.
-
My take on this issue is that the Novus Ordo church won't even try to emulate minor Orders and major Orders. They will obsess upon the antiquarianism of "deconesses" in the primitive Church and then completely make up something totally different. That's the "modus operandi" with the Novus Ordo. They dig up something so ancient and so obscure, change it to meet their own modernistic means, then enthrone it upon a pedestal and proclaim it "Catholic". The whole Novus Ordo is based upon "making things up". "Deconesses" will be just another "make believe" fairy tale right along with the Novus Ordo "mass" they so adamantly insist that the early Church had for mass. Only the name will be based on anything legitimate (as obscure as the term "deconesses" is).
-
My take on this issue is that the Novus Ordo church won't even try to emulate minor Orders and major Orders. They will obsess upon the antiquarianism of "deconesses" in the primitive Church and then completely make up something totally different. That's the "modus operandi" with the Novus Ordo. They dig up something so ancient and so obscure, change it to meet their own modernistic means, then enthrone it upon a pedestal and proclaim it "Catholic". The whole Novus Ordo is based upon "making things up". "Deconesses" will be just another "make believe" fairy tale right along with the Novus Ordo "mass" they so adamantly insist that the early Church had for mass. Only the name will be based on anything legitimate (as obscure as the term "deconesses" is).
You make an important distinction. Thanks for your observation.
-
I'm not patronizing you any further, and no one else should either. From your ridiculously offensive 'satirical' post encouraging people to leave the Church because it has failed to you maligning traditional Catholics as those who have left Our Lord while He was hanging from the Tree, I'm done.
Satirical. I was actually sincere.
I have not encouraged anyone to do anything yet.
I have not maligned anyone yet. Only the schism of sedevacantism, which is an abstract idea, and not a person.
Alright lets go through this slowly but surely, if you claim to be sincere then ask the right questions. In order to ensure that we don't assume anything from you, whenever you can (take your time no one is in a hurry).
Is is possible to say that the Orthodox are schismatic, but not certain individuals if they would still profess Orthodoxy as the one only True Religion of Christ? Do you realize how difficult it is to swallow this for anyone who understands ecclesiology? I am not completely sure if you understand the logic behind your madness... All heresies are ideas, or maybe you can prove to us how there is such a thing as a heresy that is a person. We use a different word for that, its called a heretic someone who believes heresies (false beliefs)... We just simply call Arius the founder of this idea... Which is why we denote those who follow the heresies of him, Arians.
So now lets restart, you say that "SV'ist" are schismatic... Do you believe as a Universal principle to be applied that you cannot pray with someone who professes to be a Sedevacantist. That you should not as St. John says even greet heretics/schismatics. So lets suppose for some reason I live right across you, and for some reason I go to a local abortion clinic to pray the rosary that is close by and you also at the same time went to go pray for the unborn. You are aware that I have a SV'ist understanding of the Crisis of the Church. Would you in principle not pray with me, or anyone who is a SV'ist... This is what it comes down to, if you can't answer that question in an honest and sincere manner then I don't know what to say. You are a Pharisee as I have well proved, and you are so completely full of your own self-righteousness. You make yourself your own Pope! Even your so called "Popes" would agree that SV'ist subsist in the Catholic Church and would constitute a true particular Church, since after all along with the Orthodox we have the "Eucharist", heck we go over above that we actually accept everything the church teaches with no exceptions. If you were truly consistent then you would agree with Vatican II teaching about the pastoral mission of heretics and schismatics (what you accuse us of being). No worries, we too are going to be saved since we have a true "mission" from the Church since technically we are in partial "communion", not full communion with the Conciliar Church.
Its amazing how liberals are the worst of dictators and their real claws come out when you attack their own liberal principles (something that Bishop Williamson has explained very well). You could at the very least point to us the direction of someone that might be able to better express your stance or position. If you feel that you are inadequately able to defend your thesis, nothing wrong with that. No, what you do is totally ignore everything, spit out pure puke continually and continue in this forum + your blog + other forums, about how clueless you are about these issues. Not even once attempting to even understand those you consider your enemies of the faith (it takes no genius to know that those who are schismatic are ipso facto enemies of the faith). If you have any confusion, THEN ASK where is it particularly that you find it hard or where is precisely our "heresy." We have AMPLY demonstrated, wasted 100,000 of thousands of hours collectively and much more proving without a question of a doubt where are the specific heresies in thought, word (audio, visual, written), and deed of the Conciliar apostasy. Yet, you simply dismiss it like nothing! As if to truly have truth we need to consult your opinion so that if it does not convince you, we have to revise everything. Plenty of intelligent, good pious Catholics have seen the same evidence and changed accordingly. After I was taught the Baltimore Catechism (the most basic one for Holy communion), and I knew of what the modern Church was doing through my own eyes. The first reaction I had is that these heretics are not Catholic, and therefore infiltrators... No one had told me ANYTHING, it was after I got "re-educated" by the SSPX that I changed my mind. It's not hard, I know plenty of SV'ist who have never changed their stance on that position since a very early young age, without any of their parents being traditionalists... This proves that even the most simple child can comprehend the SV'ist argument, its so simple, maybe its too simple for our self appointed "theologians."
Now I want you to re-do this exercise again of me going to the abortion clinic, would you say that the SSPX is schismatic and because of that refuse to be in communion with them. Now please enlighten us as to what you think constitutes the sin of schism... Also do you believe that the Orthodox are in "partial" communion with the Conciliar Church? Also protestants and other Christian sect's that have more confessional creed's. All of these questions are of extreme importance because they let us know precisely where it is your totally confused about, it would HELP us greatly to know what is your stance.
What is incredible is you hear FSSP "priest" preach against Richard Mcbrien the heretical Jesuit... What I find incredible is how they call him "Fr." Richard Mcbrien still, yet they still call him heretical and would still pray with him if he was in a gathering with them. If they would refuse to pray with him, that means that they are not in communion with him which would make them schismatic since he is a priest in good standing in his diocese (the same goes with the other overt apostates like Mahony et al...), ohhh the absurdity of their position. The same goes with those who are cautious with Rahner, who has had nothing but "papal" approval since the Council. By what authority does the "FSSP" condemn what their magisterium has taught with AUTHORITY and approval. The reason why we love St. Thomas is not just because he was so genius, but because of PAPAL approbation that alone should trump anything else. In the same manner, if you were consistent you would be reading Rahner et al... You never bother to ask yourself that, within your little corner in the diocese. The candle cannot be put under a bushel and that is precisely the indult does. It puts heretics first, and faithful Catholic's as second class citizens in their little ghettoe's.
Also another question for you if you had a little/older brother/sister/aunt/cousin/uncle/mom/dad/grandpa/grandma come to you and ask for advice with regards to reading the writings of the Post-Conciliar anti-Popes. Would you tell them that is perfectly fine to read them, and the books they have written before they were elected also. They have an imprimatur absolutely full approval and all, without a doubt. They are recommended in EWTN, Catholic author's, bloggers, hierarchy, etc... Never forget that the Indult is a permitted evil for them, best case scenario it is an Anglican understanding of the Church in this case it would be High Church (smells and bells) or unity in diversity.
Or
Would you caution them to be careful? If you would tell them to be cautious what would give you the authority to go against the Vicar of Christ, what would be different between you and a Protestant who "picks" and "chooses" what is good/bad in scripture, except in your case pick and choose on what is legit or illegitimate in Denzinger (official magisterial teaching).
Sentimentalism has no place in the Church if it has no basis in theology or circuмstance, if we weep we do it because the situation calls for it the death of someone dear, our sins etc...
My last question do you believe that attending the New Mass is legitimate and valid, that it is a licit approved Rite of the Church of which is completely and without a question of a doubt Orthodox with respect to all of its liturgical calendar attached to it. This would have to include all the different "canons" used in the New Mass, including all the feast of the Saints, etc...
These questions could be directed towards anyone else that happens to agree with Laramie by the way, please step up to the plate. Don't let your schismatic comrade take all the punches for the cause of Bergoglio. So much for Catholic devotion to the Pope, regardless of the sinfulness of the man.
-
If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.
Um, I don't think that your description would be much of, if at all, a reach to ascribe to Vatican II. Is'nt it a rebellion, isnt' what you described EXACTLY what happened in the Church? I'm sure for years in remote parts of England and it's empire there may have existed valid orders and Catholic priests in the C of E, yet we can't call that church THE Church can we? I can't fully commit to sedevacantism yet either but it seems more and more likely every day doesn't it?
Confusing as times are today, I wouldn't be shocked if it weren't the end times themselves. Things are Baaaaadddd!!!!!
All Anglican Orders are null and void. You can correct me if I am wrong :baby: .
:popcorn:
I will wait.
-
God does not allow the bad popes, priests and bishops to promulgate harmful and sinful liturgies, rites, catechisms and laws that lead people to Hell. You cannot say that the Catholic Church is responsible for these things-- the distinction between the Conciliar Church (which brought us VII, the NO, the new code of canon law, the CCC) and the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary, because our Faith does not allow us to believe that God feeds scorpions when His children ask for bread.
Apparently He does. And not only that, but God even allows priests to sɛҳuąƖly molest boys.
Why do you think God would intervene in these matters--that He would never allow this--when even Scriptures tell of a time of this kind of confusion?
The sins of the world have earned this and much more.
Our era is not the first era to have popes in place who were bought and paid for.
I would suggest that you read an excellent book by a Jesuit on the providence of God (http://books.google.com/books?id=KGkrAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=heliotropium&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9glVUv7AJsqv2QXIsoCoCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=heliotropium&f=false). The topic of grace is a very difficult one, and I have found this book very helpful among others. It is extremely easy to fall into heresy when it comes to these particular topics of Divine providence/grace/justifications. I hope you find it consoling in these confusing times we face, I know it has been a great help in my moments of temporary doubt. Remain constant and firm, God is Good. This is infallibly true, He is most loving to sinners who desire to return to the Father's house.
Even the official pronouncement of a heretic as an excommunicate in the Church of God, is an act of mercy towards the person. The heretic is the one who chooses which or what doctrine to obey from Holy Mother Church.
I must also note that the author without knowing it also refuted Bergoglio's heresy with respect to the "least of my brethren." As someone who is poor, he spits upon those that really suffer from a lack of basic necessities. I have always had the basic necessities, but even if I would not have had the basic necessities it would not mean that God is injust or some idle spectator. His Divine Providence lovingly sets us assail to our Home in Heaven. Below I will just quote from one chapter particularly, but read the whole thing you will more likely get all your questions answered.
In what Way, and for what Reason, the Will of God permits this or that.
HERE the greater part of men fall into the most miserable error, since with them the Divine Permission scarcely differs from human, inasmuch as it rests in idleness, doing nothing, and does not restrain those who wish to act, even though it can. From this one error countless evils spring. In consequence of this we rush one upon another, and, as though we were the artificers of every misfortune and the authors of every evil, we mutually assail one another with tongue, and hands, and teeth; as if God all the while were an indifferent Spectator of our quarrels, and allowed the most grievous acts of injustice when He could prevent them. This is the very seed-plot of all disorders, and for the purpose of uprooting it I proceed to lay down three points to be considered in every Divine Permission. The first is the Will of permitting. The second, the Cause of permission. The third, the Will which co-operates with that which is permitted. And the better to understand this I must repeat that there are two kinds of evils. The first comprising those things which cause vexation, pain, loss, disgrace, such as poverty, imprisonment, disease, banishment, death, which are not to be called evils so much as bitter medicines, administered by the Divine Hand. The second comprising those things which are properly called evils, as sin. The former kind God truly wills, either for the punishment of the wicked (asS. Augustine says, see above chap. i. 6), or for the correction of His children. The latter God cannot be said to will, but to permit. For since God truly wills all things which truly exist (for by His Will all things are, and without it nothing exists), sin (which is improperly said to exist) He cannot will, but permits. But since God most clearly foresees all things that will be, He could easily prevent whatever He wills to prevent Since, however, He does not prevent numberless things, we must conclude that God by His Own most righteous Will, from Eternity willed, and so decreed, to permit them. God, then, suffers anything to be done, not through being unwilling, but through willing it. Men, indeed, permit many things which they either are unable to prevent, or which they certainly would prefer not to be done. But not so the Supreme Ruler of all things. There is, therefore, in God a Will of permitting, which I have set down as the first point under the head of Permission. And now the question arises, why God should will to permit sin, or what is the cause in God of this Permission.
I. Never certainly would such infinite Goodness permit so great wickedness in the world, unless it could thence produce greater good, and turn to salvation things which were devised for destruction. God permitted the jealousy of his brethren to exercise its malice against innocent Joseph; but with how great good was this Permission, not merely to his parents and brethren, but to the whole land of Egypt! God permitted guiltless David to be harassed with the most cruel injuries by wicked Saul, but it was to the greatest advantage of David himself and the entire kingdom of Israel. God permitted Daniel, most unjustly accused, to be cast into the den of lions, but it was to his own great good and that of many others. But why do I mention such as these? God permitted His Own Son to be crucified by murderers, but His Permission was for the ineffable good of the whole human race. And so from every Divine Permission there flow the greatest increase to the Divine Glory, and the richest blessings to the human race. Hence the Goodness of God and His Mercy, hence His Bounty and Power, hence His Providence, hence His Wisdom and Justice shine forth in a way which is altogether wonderful. Hence it is that the courage of many grows, the contest thickens, rewards are multiplied, and crowns of victory are increased.
... By means of seeming contraries He conducts to a happy end. By means of so many sins of men He advances His Own Glory. In such an accuмulation of wickedness He causes His Own dear ones to shine the more conspicuously. Under God's guidance, acts of fraud turn to the advantage of the person who has been deceived; vexations and injuries add strength to the vexed; the wickedness of so many abandoned men strengthens the piety of others, and preserves them from perishing; and where many are thought to be utterly swallowed up, they emerge again.
One in which they have wicked intentions towards us, and devise no common mischief against us; the other, in which they are able to effect what they have devised, and are the instrument of the Divine Justice which punishes us. If they only acted out the first character, viz. of malicious people, they would not hurt us at all ; but because they support the other also, they do the work of God, Who justly punishes us, even though they act in ignorance of His Designs. In this way Nebuchadnezzar was a servant of God; and so, too, Attila, Totila, and Tamerlane, the scourge of God. Thus also Vespasian and his son, for the love of glory, and to increase their dominion, endeavoured to destroy the Jєωs; but they erred. In reality they were the executioners and ministers of the Divine Vengeance against that impious nation. The Jєωs could not digest their happiness without the help of these Imperial warm baths.* But that we may follow out this line of reasoning more closely, let me ask a few questions.
3. I direct my questions to you, my Christian friend, to you particularly who so frequently disturb heaven and earth with your complaints. Be kind enough to tell me what you find fault with in the man who has injured you? Is it only with his will of injuring you, or only with his power, or both? With both, you will say. But I will instruct you not to find fault with either. Not with the will of injuring, for this without the power is vain, and has never done you any harm at all. Not with the power of injuring, for this is from God, and is just and right. You know that " all power is from God." {Rom. xm. i.) Why do you then complain that one is able to do to you what God permits him to do? A great injury is done to me, you will say. But what sort of injury is it, let me ask? God punishes your sins, exercises your patience, multiplies your reward, and is an injury done to you? Yes, but, you say, I am filled with indignation at this wicked man, and his will which is so thoroughly corrupt. But you persist in looking at man, while I wish you to look at God alone. However corrupt the human will may be, what has it been able to do? What has it done? You do not grieve on this account, because he willed to injure you, but because he actually did injure you, or was able to injure you. But why, I would ask, and how could he do this? Whence did he derive the power? And why had he the power? Was it not from the Divine Power and Permission? And if it is Divine, is it not also just, laudable, and holy? Therefore, either hold your peace, or else direct your complaints against the Divine Permission, and engrave this on your mind, that God never would permit that the wicked will of another should devise any evil against you, if it were not for your good, provided that you yourself do not become a hindrance. "And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?" (1 Pet. M. 13.)
... This then is the shortest way to attain tranquillity,— not to regard the man who inflicts an injury, but God Who permits it. It was the custom of the Saints to think, not of him who for any reason might do them a wrong, but of Him Who did not hinder the wrongdoer. Thus they accounted even injuries to be blessings; "for the doers of injustice," they said, " are those who make us blesied; but those who speak of us as blesied, deceive us." And so, with eyes ever fixed upon God, they rested on the Divine Will in everything, and waited to receive all things from God.
But understand from this that no man's sin merits pardon the more because God brings forth the greater good from it;—for man affords the occasion of good alone, not the cause; and even the occasion he does not afford of himself, but through the abundance of the Divine Goodness. If some wicked person has set fire to the cottage of a poor man, he has not on this account committed the less sin, because the poor man has borne his loss patiently, or some prince has erected in its place a ten times better house. Another person's virtue, and a happy circuмstance do not wipe out the guilt of the incendiary; and so sin does not acquire any excellence because it has afforded opportunity for doing good. But that we may understand this the better, we must now consider how secret are the Judgments of God.