Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on May 17, 2014, 07:32:05 AM
-
It's taken His Excellency many years to come around to this, the correct position, regarding the crisis. Welcome aboard, Your Excellency.
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe.
Without the certainty of faith in their legitimacy, they are not Popes for all intents and purposes papa dubius nullus papa and therefore can be resisted without schism. Recall that the legitimacy of a Pope must be known with certainty, the certainty of faith; it's in the category of dogmatic fact.
-
You mean the correct position while one labors in doubts?
If one is certain he is the pope, or certain he is not the pope, naturally to doubt his papacy would not be the best position!
Doubt of these papacies come with the territory. It's impossible not to doubt them.
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
-
Doubt of these papacies come with the territory. It's impossible not to doubt them.
Exactly, but very few will admit this in public. If you dig deep enough, however, and ask "Do you believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are popes?" the answer has to be "No."
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
I could get on board with that actually. However, what would that look like practically speaking?
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.
-
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.
50+ year Sedevacantism is gravely false, erroneous and no informed Catholic should in any way support such a position, especially its being publicly preached. Dropping the name of the man universally recognized as Pope from the canon is a borderline schismatic act at best, objectively speaking, it separates one from Catholic unity and teh communion of the Church. Claiming the Church can be reduced to bishops without ordinary jurisdiction is heretical. Claiming bishops can receive ordinary power of jurisdiction and formal Apostolic succession from anyone other than a real Pontiff is heterodox. There is practically no sedevacantist in the world who doesn't believe in some combination of these errors, and the Society has pointed it out many times. While some sedevacantists may be in good faith, their position is objectively erroneous, and therefore must be opposed, most of all for the sake of these souls, who are materially attached to this separatist position. Forget failing to oppose it, to even in any way indicate indifference toward the position is wrong, for as the Popes teach, to be indifferent between truth and error is to show oneself to be in error.
-
Vatican II, itself is the greatest Schism EVER.
-
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.
I agree.
It's the Schism crap I have a problem with -- the "trying to eliminate the competition" of the Fr. Cekadas of the world. Trying to convince Catholics to stay home alone when there are plenty of valid Masses around them. That is horribly evil and does the devil's work.
All that Schism and Cult crap -- that's the part of "experienced in nature" Sedevacantism that I'm quite confident about rejecting, and always will be.
-
Schism is to take a rusty saw to the most holy Mystical Body of Christ. Cutting off a priest here, a bishop there, a group of Faithful here or there...
What a damnable deception of the devil!
Unless God told you otherwise, when someone professes to be Catholic (which means they subjectively adhere to everything the Faith teaches as they understand it) it's not our place to excommunicate them!
And if a priest is validly ordained and offers a Tridentine Mass, if you are a layman YOU ATTEND THAT MASS IF YOU CAN. It's not our place to issue decrees about what version of the Missal to use, tell the priest he must not utter Francis' name in the Canon, stay home because our feelings have been hurt, etc.
That is not our place, and God will not hold us accountable. Any more than God will hold me personally accountable for Roe vs. Wade being passed in 1973. Why would He?
However, if we stay home from Mass when we could have attended Mass, God will hold us accountable for that. Be sure of it.
-
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
As long as one humbly recognizes that it is ONLY a personal opinion, but still take the Sacraments from a validly ordained priest and do not make any substantial changes in the canon or in their lives as a Catholic ( like stop praying for the Pope, seeing non-sedevacantist as condemned, stop assisting Masses altogether and being home alone, etc), it could be possible (regardless the many theological flaws that the speculation entails for a serious, well informed, Catholic). However, it is evident that this has not been the case. Many sedevacantists are actually pushing for dangerous changes which could result in schism not taken the prudent precautions.
I agree.
It's the Schism crap I have a problem with -- the "trying to eliminate the competition" of the Fr. Cekadas of the world. Trying to convince Catholics to stay home alone when there are plenty of valid Masses around them. That is horribly evil and does the devil's work.
All that Schism and Cult crap -- that's the part of "experienced in nature" Sedevacantism that I'm quite confident about rejecting, and always will be.
Just so you know, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn's ideas on dogmatic sedevacatism are not the majority of Sedevacantists.
The CMRI is by far the largest worldwide organized group of sedevacantists and they do not condemn or in any way dissuade Catholics from going to SSPX.
Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn are much louder than CMRI, but much smaller. Almost all of the "sedes" that I know do not have a schismatic spirit.
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.
How do you know that the New Religion is not the True Religion? One could just as easily say it matters not.
That doesn't follow.
We can tell when something is Catholic or not, especially if it effects our Faith. We have a Sensus Catholicus.
Being able to offer a definitive ruling on the status of the Pope is not within a mere layman's knowledge or capabilities.
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
I agree with Ladislaus.
I dont know if the pope is the pope, but it matters not, thankfully.
It is for priests and bishops to decide these things, and to lead us rightly.
How do you know that the New Religion is not the True Religion? One could just as easily say it matters not.
That doesn't follow.
We can tell when something is Catholic or not, especially if it effects our Faith. We have a Sensus Catholicus.
Being able to offer a definitive ruling on the status of the Pope is not within a mere layman's knowledge or capabilities.
I would also say that I think sg was referring to the ability to follow the Catholic Faith regardless of whether the current papal claimant is true.
-
Schism is to take a rusty saw to the most holy Mystical Body of Christ. Cutting off a priest here, a bishop there, a group of Faithful here or there...
What a damnable deception of the devil!
Unless God told you otherwise, when someone professes to be Catholic (which means they subjectively adhere to everything the Faith teaches as they understand it) it's not our place to excommunicate them!
And if a priest is validly ordained and offers a Tridentine Mass, if you are a layman YOU ATTEND THAT MASS IF YOU CAN. It's not our place to issue decrees about what version of the Missal to use, tell the priest he must not utter Francis' name in the Canon, stay home because our feelings have been hurt, etc.
That is not our place, and God will not hold us accountable. Any more than God will hold me personally accountable for Roe vs. Wade being passed in 1973. Why would He?
However, if we stay home from Mass when we could have attended Mass, God will hold us accountable for that. Be sure of it.
Perfect post, Matthew. The CMRI, who I am affiliated with, believe that we should attend any valid mass said by a valid priest if it is available . The "home aloners" are disavowed by all sedevacantist groups.
-
Here is the full article:
The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.
To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.
But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.
However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, they conclude.
Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.
Kyrie eleison.
If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.
-
I'm afraid that Bishop Williamson's understanding of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is deeply flawed. I'll get back to it this afternoon.
-
I'm afraid that Bishop Williamson's understanding of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is deeply flawed. I'll get back to it this afternoon.
Yes, this is what I took away from that as well, but I'm always unsure of myself given he's a (traditional) bishop and I'm just a lowly lay person. Can someone of his stature be that wrong? And if so, why would he say such things? I'm really beginning to think that all that matters lately is to squash sedevacantism and the ends justifies the means.
-
I always got the impression that most sedes-whatevers were in doubt.
Not the so-called dogmatic sedevacantism.
Sededoubtism is the best position by far; it leaves intact the notion that papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and that a person's private judgment does not suffice in this matter. It also does not posit a defection of the Magisterium and of universal discipline, as R&R does.
Dogmatic sedevacantism, such as that elaborated by Bishop Sanborn in his condemnation is "opinionism" is wrong. Why? Bishop Sanborn fails to distinguish between certainty (as derived by syllogism using fallible human reason) and the certainty of faith (which cannot come from any human judgment).
Why can't we just unite as Traditional Catholics along the lines of, "Look. We don't know who these guys are, but their teaching is not Catholic and does not reflect the Church's Magisterium."
Ladislaus,
The very nature of a doubt is that it must be resolved. Sede-doubtism is necessarily a transitional position while one works to resolve doubts. Which is why I do not really think of it as a position proper.
It's the best position for someone who doesn't have moral certainty (yet) on the issue. That would include all non-sedevacantist traditional Catholics, so far as I can tell. "Sede doubtism" is far preferable to R&R because it has no internal inconsistencies and does not require novel approaches to authority, infallibility and the nature of the Church.
As far as +Sanborn is concerned, he speaks for himself and (loudly) for a few others. He represents a minority. Dogmatic sedevacantism is simply a view that very few hold, and I suspect that even if you cornered +Sanborn on the issue he would ease up and offer you some sort of objective/subjective dynamic like a few American priests have offered concerning SSPX masses. Objectively you can't go but subjectively you can. Objectively you can't believe Francis is pope, but subjectively you can. I don't know if he would actually say that, I just suspect that he would-- not that it's a helpful or even meaningful distinction but it would illustrate that he's not quite as "dogmatic" as he would appear. This has been my experience with some of his "disciples" as it were. One can believe with moral certainty that these men aren't popes and not categorically condemn everyone who disagrees with them. In fact, most would fall into this category.
-
The very nature of a doubt is that it must be resolved. Sede-doubtism is necessarily a transitional position while one works to resolve doubts. Which is why I do not really think of it as a position proper.
It's the best position for someone who doesn't have moral certainty (yet) on the issue.
But that's the entire point behind my sede-doubtist position. You see, moral certainty does not suffice when it comes to papal legitimacy. Papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith. It's dogmatic fact because it HAS to be. Why? Because the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium must be known with the certainty of faith, and they cannot be known with the certainty of faith if the legitimacy of the pope issuing these teachings is not known with the certainty of faith.
Without the authority of the Church we cannot have the certainty of faith with regard to papal legitimacy. That again is the flaw with Bishop Sanborn's anti-opinionist argument. There's certainty and then there's certainty. There's moral certainty (rooted in private judgment) and the certainty of faith (which can only come from the authority of the Church).
Conversely, if Catholics are entitled to judge legitimacy, then no authoritative teaching of the Magisterium is safe. If, for example, I decided that papal infallibility were heretical, all I'd have to do is to claim that Pius IX was a heretic and that therefore I didn't have to accept his teaching. See the problem? There were in fact many Catholics who did not believe in papal infallibility right up to the Vatican I definition. But most of them simply abandoned their position and accepted papal infallibility with the certainty of faith after Vatican I taught it because they had the a priori certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of Pius IX. Some did not, and these became the Old Catholics.
-
The very nature of a doubt is that it must be resolved. Sede-doubtism is necessarily a transitional position while one works to resolve doubts.
As per my point above, we CANNOT resolve it to the extent required because the doubt must be resolved with the certainty of faith (one way or the other). We do not have the power to do this; only the authority of the Church can resolve the question to the degree necessary (i.e. with the certainty of faith).
Private judgment can do no more that to create a situation of doubt with regard to papal legitimacy. But doubt suffices to justify refusal of submission. In other words, the corollary is also true, namely that if we do not have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes we effectively do not consider them to be popes. That's why I found Bishop Williamson's statement so interesting. He clearly does NOT have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes. If you dig deep enough, very few Traditional Catholics do. And this creates a true Papa Dubius situation where a Papa Dubius is for all intents and purposes Nullus Papa until the Church were to intervene. In other words, most Traditional Catholics are in fact practical sedevacantists.
-
Reply posted here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31830&min=5#p1
-
Ladislaus,
What of those that claim to have a certainty of faith regarding the V2 popes? They would need to accept religious liberty, ecuмenism etc and attend the New Mass.
In short, the reforms of the post Vatican II era must then be Catholic.
Yes, indeed; these then must be Catholic.
Archbishop Lefebvre has said (and this is echoed by many SSPX followers) that one ceases to be Catholic to the extent that one adheres to the Conciliar Church.
All this discussion of the notes of infallibility is absolutely moot. Everyone's arguing about individual trees and completely missing the forest.
What this R&R position holds is that the Catholic Magisterium can essentially cease to be Catholic. That's nothing other than a defection of the Magisterium and a defection of the Catholic Church.
How can it EVER be said that one can cease to become Catholic by submitting to the Church's Magisterium? That's both heretical and blasphemous. People forget that the infallibility of the Magisterium actually DERIVES from the overall indefectibility of the Church. Papal Infallibility was not revealed by Our Lord in so many words. It derives implicitly from Our Lord's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church; it derives from the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church at large. In which way has the Church not defected if the Conciliar Magisterium is no longer Catholic?
-
Point #1. Vatican II in no way reflects the ORDINARY magisterium of the Church. By its very nature it's an EXTRAORDINARY magisterium. Ordinary refers to the teachings of all the bishops scattered throughout the world (in union with the Pope).
Secondly, by introducting the element of time, Bishop Williamson guts the "INFALLIBILITY" of the ordinary universal magisterium at any given point in time. This therefore means that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can defect at any given time. It also reduces the "infallibility" of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to a meaningless tautology. It's infallible if it happens to be true but not infallible if it happens to be false. That is NOT infallibility. Infallibility by its very definition involves an a priori GUARANTEE of truth. Otherwise it's not infallIBILity at all. It's just truth or falsehood.
-
Bishop Williamson hints at this problem in his mention of the "circularity" argument from sedevacantists. We'll have to see how he responds to it.
Ironically, Bishop Williamson entitles this post as the infallibility of THE CHURCH, not papal infallibility.
And, ironically, that's the level at which he fails to see the problem.
Let's see now. We have a Church that can:
1) create a body of teaching for nearly 60 years that can rightly be referred to as not Catholic (not only an Ecuмenical Council but 50 years of encyclicals thoroughly polluted and rotten to the core with error)
2) produce a Magisterium to which one cannot submit without endangering one's faith
3) produce a Magisterium where the degree to which we submit to it we also depart from the Catholic Faith
4) promulgate a harmful bastard Rite of Mass which offends God
5) produce a Code of Canon Law and universal discipline also thoroughly polluted with the same error.
This is an ANTIMAGISTERIUM.
In what way did the Church not defect? Just because you have a few bozos running around in red and white cassocks at the Vatican?
-
It's taken His Excellency many years to come around to this, the correct position, regarding the crisis. Welcome aboard, Your Excellency.
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe.
Without the certainty of faith in their legitimacy, they are not Popes for all intents and purposes papa dubius nullus papa and therefore can be resisted without schism. Recall that the legitimacy of a Pope must be known with certainty, the certainty of faith; it's in the category of dogmatic fact.
He has indeed "come around" to this conclusion as before until very recently he denied categorically that SVs could be correct. Bergolio is working miracles. I believe this miracle should count when Bergollio inevitably gets "canonized".
-
It's taken His Excellency many years to come around to this, the correct position, regarding the crisis. Welcome aboard, Your Excellency.
Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe.
Without the certainty of faith in their legitimacy, they are not Popes for all intents and purposes papa dubius nullus papa and therefore can be resisted without schism. Recall that the legitimacy of a Pope must be known with certainty, the certainty of faith; it's in the category of dogmatic fact.
He has indeed "come around" to this conclusion as before until very recently he denied categorically that SVs could be correct. Bergolio is working miracles. I believe this miracle should count when Bergollio inevitably gets "canonized".
lol
-
Bergolio is working miracles.
Isn't that the truth? I've run into some FSSP types recently who themselves expressed the possibility of sedevacantism. There's a blog in the New York Times stating that if Francis Bergoglio says divorced/remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion then these would be legitimate grounds for accusations of heresy.
-
I personally think that the V2 Popes have been infiltrators and conscious agents of destruction. Obviously that's just gut feel and not based on any hard evidence. As such, their handlers have been playing classic Hegelian dialectic.
Benedict XVI was installed so that he could play good cop towards Traditional Catholics. He spoke just enough Traditional Catholic doctrine and used enough Latin and incense to endear him to the Traditionalists. Many (like Father Kramer) now look upon him in retrospect as a great defender of orthodoxy, failing to see that the man behind the curtain is an unconverted modernist. IMO Ratzinger did this precisely in order to bait and lure in what remained of Traditional Catholicism, with the end goal of eventually neutralizing it.
I also personally believe that Bishop Fellay is an infiltrator and conscious agent of destruction who was working methodically with Ratzinger to pull off the neutralization. If I'm having sudden qualms of conscience about my lack of submission to Rome, I resign immediately from the SSPX and just submit to Rome. Instead he is on this crusade to drag the entire SSPX kicking and screaming back to Rome. Why? He's doing it at the cost of expelling people left and right and destroying the SSPX. Really the only explanation is that the destruction of the SSPX is precisely what's intended.
Unfortunately for them, that's where Bishop Williamson came in. I am actually guessing that Bishops Williamson deliberately gave the interview when he did in order to intentionally sabotage their game plan. Bishop Williamson's interview is THE ONLY REASON that SSPX couldn't be absorbed and neutralized. Were it not for Bishop Williamson, the SSPX would have been absorbed already. He single-handedly derailed the plan.
When Benedict failed in his mission to absorb the SSPX by posing as a Traditionalist at heart, he was told by his handlers to step down, since he longer had any usefulness to them. With the good cop out of the way, they roll out Bergoglio. They intend to leave him in there just long enough to alienate pretty much anyone who has any sense of Catholicism left. Once people have been sufficiently conditioned by Bergoglio, they'll install another pseudo-conservative whom everyone will hail as a champion of orthodoxy, by contrast with Bergoglio. They will then try to use this next one to absorb and neutralize Tradition.
That's how Hegelian dialectic works. By going left and right, they gradually shift people's perception of the center. It's like with gas prices. They start it at $3.25, then shoot it up to $4.00. People complain and moan. Then they come back down to $3.69 and people think that's great, having completely forgotten that they started off at $3.25. This psychological conditioning is taking place before us right now. People already miss Benedict XVI and consider him to be some kind of new St. Pius X due to the contrast with Francis. Father Paul Kramer has ALREADY fallen for this with his sedebenedictism.
After a few years of being tortured by Francis, they'll roll out a new Ratzinger-like figure whom everyone will hail as a new Athanasius and who will be assigned with completing the task of absorbing what remains of Traditional Catholicism. Perhaps they'll roll out Ratzinger himself ... again. And I don't think it'll be long, since Bergoglio is far ahead of schedule in irritating Traditional and Conservative Catholics.
-
I personally think that the V2 Popes have been infiltrators and conscious agents of destruction. Obviously that's just gut feel and not based on any hard evidence. As such, their handlers have been playing classic Hegelian dialectic.
Benedict XVI was installed so that he could play good cop towards Traditional Catholics. He spoke just enough Traditional Catholic doctrine and used enough Latin and incense to endear him to the Traditionalists. Many (like Father Kramer) now look upon him in retrospect as a great defender of orthodoxy, failing to see that the man behind the curtain is an unconverted modernist. IMO Ratzinger did this precisely in order to bait and lure in what remained of Traditional Catholicism, with the end goal of eventually neutralizing it.
I also personally believe that Bishop Fellay is an infiltrator and conscious agent of destruction who was working methodically with Ratzinger to pull off the neutralization. If I'm having sudden qualms of conscience about my lack of submission to Rome, I resign immediately from the SSPX and just submit to Rome. Instead he is on this crusade to drag the entire SSPX kicking and screaming back to Rome. Why? He's doing it at the cost of expelling people left and right and destroying the SSPX. Really the only explanation is that the destruction of the SSPX is precisely what's intended.
Unfortunately for them, that's where Bishop Williamson came in. I am actually guessing that Bishops Williamson deliberately gave the interview when he did in order to intentionally sabotage their game plan. Bishop Williamson's interview is THE ONLY REASON that SSPX couldn't be absorbed and neutralized. Were it not for Bishop Williamson, the SSPX would have been absorbed already. He single-handedly derailed the plan.
When Benedict failed in his mission to absorb the SSPX by posing as a Traditionalist at heart, he was told by his handlers to step down, since he longer had any usefulness to them. With the good cop out of the way, they roll out Bergoglio. They intend to leave him in there just long enough to alienate pretty much anyone who has any sense of Catholicism left. Once people have been sufficiently conditioned by Bergoglio, they'll install another pseudo-conservative whom everyone will hail as a champion of orthodoxy, by contrast with Bergoglio. They will then try to use this next one to absorb and neutralize Tradition.
That's how Hegelian dialectic works. By going left and right, they gradually shift people's perception of the center. It's like with gas prices. They start it at $3.25, then shoot it up to $4.00. People complain and moan. Then they come back down to $3.69 and people think that's great, having completely forgotten that they started off at $3.25. This psychological conditioning is taking place before us right now. People already miss Benedict XVI and consider him to be some kind of new St. Pius X due to the contrast with Francis. Father Paul Kramer has ALREADY fallen for this with his sedebenedictism.
After a few years of being tortured by Francis, they'll roll out a new Ratzinger-like figure whom everyone will hail as a new Athanasius and who will be assigned with completing the task of absorbing what remains of Traditional Catholicism. Perhaps they'll roll out Ratzinger himself ... again. And I don't think it'll be long, since Bergoglio is far ahead of schedule in irritating Traditional and Conservative Catholics.
It is interesting John 23 named himself after the last anti-Pope and he didn't know what he was doing? He even moved a statue of the anti-Pope to a prominent place. This seems to coincide with your theory. Also all the things Paul 6 did, abolishing he oath against modernism and renouncing the tiara as the tip of the iceburg.
Fellay? I thought it possible. You said it. Be prepared for some thumbs down. As if no one ever conspired against the Church before. He can you fool anyone if you don't pretend to be the real deal. You are certainly a thinking man that is open to truth regardless of where it leads.
-
Well done, Ladislaus. I like especially the analogy with gas prices. I told people the same thing years ago. It’s simple psychology: Raise prices to a high level, taper them down over time to a still-high (but apparent "low") price as compared with previous prices, but trumpet, “See! Look how prices are falling!” Nevermind that prices are 230% above what they were before.
-
He can you fool anyone if you don't pretend to be the real deal.
Should read:
How can you fool anyone if you don't pretend to be the real deal.
-
It is interesting John 23 named himself after the last anti-Pope and he didn't know what he was doing? He even moved a statue of the anti-Pope to a prominent place. This seems to coincide with your theory. Also all the things Paul 6 did, abolishing he oath against modernism and renouncing the tiara as the tip of the iceburg.
There are many data points that lead me to believe that this is the case.
It's well know that the Masons have been trying to infiltrate the Church for years; they have published their plans along those lines.
Bella Dodd admitted that the Communists had been systematically infiltrating the Church.
John XXIII's fraternization with Communists are legendary, and there are credible allegations that he joined the Masons. In one of his early encyclicals he wrote of a "mysterious force" rising in the world, with mysterious force being the original name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. One of the first things he did was to start brokering deals with the Communists so that they would let Orthodox observers attend V2. Masonic and Communist publications hailed his election.
Paul VI appears to be descended from rabbis on his father's side. He walked around wearing the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic ephod of Caiphas. There are credible allegations that he ratted out clandestine bishops and priests behind the Iron Curtain to the Communists. That's in addition to the other stuff you mentioned.
John Paul II was alleged to be a peace priest, a Communist collaborator. While other Polish bishops were kept under tight control or even under house arrest, he travelled the world giving lectures of phenomenology. His mother was of Jєωιѕн descent, and his best friends growing up were Jews. Jerzy Kluger, a Jew, was granted the first private audience by John Paul II after his election. John Paul II has some very public meetings with Bnai Brith.
And all of these guys have been photographed giving and receiving Masonic-looking handshakes.
There's just too much here NOT to suspect them of being infiltrators.
Our Lady of Good Success warned of the secret sect infiltrating the Church, and Padre Pio was convinced that the Masons had infiltrated high places in the Church.
-
Fellay? I thought it possible. You said it. Be prepared for some thumbs down. As if no one ever conspired against the Church before. He can you fool anyone if you don't pretend to be the real deal. You are certainly a thinking man that is open to truth regardless of where it leads.
His actions seem most consistent with a deliberate attempt to destroy or otherwise neutralize the SSPX. Plus you add to that the mysterious Krah influence and one really starts to form a well-founded suspicion. There's a picture of him exchanging a Masonic-looking handshake with Benedict XVI.
Masons and Communists have become masters at infiltrating the Church. How long do we think it would take them to infiltrate a small organization like the SSPX? Having been inside the SSPX, it's clear to me that all you would have to do is to place an intelligent polyglot into the seminary; upon ordination that priest would become an instant superior in the SSPX. If I could figure this out, why couldn't they?
-
It is interesting John 23 named himself after the last anti-Pope and he didn't know what he was doing? He even moved a statue of the anti-Pope to a prominent place. This seems to coincide with your theory. Also all the things Paul 6 did, abolishing he oath against modernism and renouncing the tiara as the tip of the iceburg.
There are many data points that lead me to believe that this is the case.
It's well know that the Masons have been trying to infiltrate the Church for years; they have published their plans along those lines.
Bella Dodd admitted that the Communists had been systematically infiltrating the Church.
John XXIII's fraternization with Communists are legendary, and there are credible allegations that he joined the Masons. In one of his early encyclicals he wrote of a "mysterious force" rising in the world, with mysterious force being the original name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. One of the first things he did was to start brokering deals with the Communists so that they would let Orthodox observers attend V2. Masonic and Communist publications hailed his election.
Paul VI appears to be descended from rabbis on his father's side. He walked around wearing the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic ephod of Caiphas. There are credible allegations that he ratted out clandestine bishops and priests behind the Iron Curtain to the Communists. That's in addition to the other stuff you mentioned.
John Paul II was alleged to be a peace priest, a Communist collaborator. While other Polish bishops were kept under tight control or even under house arrest, he travelled the world giving lectures of phenomenology. His mother was of Jєωιѕн descent, and his best friends growing up were Jews. Jerzy Kluger, a Jew, was granted the first private audience by John Paul II after his election. John Paul II has some very public meetings with Bnai Brith.
And all of these guys have been photographed giving and receiving Masonic-looking handshakes.
There's just too much here NOT to suspect them of being infiltrators.
Our Lady of Good Success warned of the secret sect infiltrating the Church, and Padre Pio was convinced that the Masons had infiltrated high places in the Church.
Truth really is stranger than fiction. I don't disagree with anything above. I find it hard to believe that they were not in willful collaboration with the devil. There is so much we will know at our particular and after the General Judgement, but we already have some good suspicions.
When the puppet-masters get their useful idiot masons in place they dictate everything that is said and done by those in their positions and successfully manipulate the masses. This is done in the secular world and in the Church.
-
Fellay? I thought it possible. You said it. Be prepared for some thumbs down. As if no one ever conspired against the Church before. He can you fool anyone if you don't pretend to be the real deal. You are certainly a thinking man that is open to truth regardless of where it leads.
His actions seem most consistent with a deliberate attempt to destroy or otherwise neutralize the SSPX. Plus you add to that the mysterious Krah influence and one really starts to form a well-founded suspicion. There's a picture of him exchanging a Masonic-looking handshake with Benedict XVI.
Masons and Communists have become masters at infiltrating the Church. How long do we think it would take them to infiltrate a small organization like the SSPX? Having been inside the SSPX, it's clear to me that all you would have to do is to place an intelligent polyglot into the seminary; upon ordination that priest would become an instant superior in the SSPX. If I could figure this out, why couldn't they?
The SSPX know that a valid Pope cannot bind on the Catholic Church what the Vatican leaders have bound on the V2 Church. Yet they insist they are Popes.
I cannot disagree with your assessment above even if I wanted to. The devil knows where the faithful are, this is why he divides traditionalists in the SSPX and SV camps. I believe you are likely dead on in your assessment.
-
Oh, yeah, and throw in the whole fake / double Sister Lucy thing. That too is downright diabolical and clearly shows a sinister hidden hand at work in the Vatican.
I don't like throwing stuff like this out there, but we have to be wise as serpents in this day and age. Otherwise we will be fooled and suckered in. I think that we sometimes, in the interests of charity, allow people like this too much indulgence, and that's a large part of how they get away with it. Nah, it can't be true, we say; which in turn gives them cover.
Whether they are direct agents or whether they were just being controlled by someone else is obviously hard to say, but the fact that other forces are at work is just plain as day.
Just look at V2. It has Masonic fingerprints ALL OVER IT, right down to the Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Liberte (religious liberty), egalite (collegiality, priesthood of the faithful), fraternite (ecuмenism).
-
Oh, yeah, and throw in the whole fake / double Sister Lucy thing. That too is downright diabolical and clearly shows a sinister hidden hand at work in the Vatican.
I don't like throwing stuff like this out there, but we have to be wise as serpents in this day and age. Otherwise we will be fooled and suckered in. I think that we sometimes, in the interests of charity, allow people like this too much indulgence, and that's a large part of how they get away with it. Nah, it can't be true, we say; which in turn gives them cover.
Whether they are direct agents or whether they were just being controlled by someone else is obviously hard to say, but the fact that other forces are at work is just plain as day.
Just look at V2. It has Masonic fingerprints ALL OVER IT, right down to the Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Liberte (religious liberty), egalite (collegiality, priesthood of the faithful), fraternite (ecuмenism).
No doubt! Well-stated. Yeah the whole double Lucy thing. Incredible!
-
I just have to say that it warms the cockles of my heart that you two are agreeing so much! LOL
-
I just have to say that it warms the cockles of my heart that you two are agreeing so much! LOL
:laugh1: Rodney King would be proud.
-
Just look at V2. It has Masonic fingerprints ALL OVER IT, right down to the Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Liberte (religious liberty), egalite (collegiality, priesthood of the faithful), fraternite (ecuмenism).
This is ALL it is about. A most perfidious infiltration in the Church hierarchy. The masonic forces have been in play all along, more evidently since the French Revolution. Perhaps before. They have had their noses poked in every communist anti-Christ revolution of the XX century. They are responsible for all the spiritual, social, and moral degradation of humankind in modern times. No wonder why if one of their main premises is: MAN IS GOD. Their approach is anti-divine, naturalistic, and humanist to the point of being demonic. Throughout 2000 years the Church actively condemned these secret societies until Vatican II when everything mysteriously changed :facepalm:
-
I just have to say that it warms the cockles of my heart that you two are agreeing so much! LOL
My cockles were warmed as well.