Admit it.
It is only a matter of time before Mario is canonized to secure the reign of the new Vatican 2 religion over the mainstream church.
Outrageous as it is, the only way to differ from the Vatican is to hold that canonisations are not infallible, and if this is the case, then perhaps he and his successor are not the pope after all. Point is, the only way to disagree with Vatican 2 is increasingly to become a holder of the sedevacante position.
I can see it and it is so wrong. As soon as you learn more about what he believes and what he does and orders, it is clear that he is there to destroy the Catholic faith. He is sucking unsuspecting people into his vortex where they get this modern bulls*t liberal Catholicism and destroying their faith and trapping their minds.
While it's reasonable to expect that the same thing that has
been going on for the past 50 years is going to keep going on,
it is not reasonable to presume that God isn't going to
intervene at some point and put things right.
It is our place to hope for the infinite mercy of God to make a
difference. But equally, do not presume that we can know
what the future holds, any more than someone could have
known that WWI or the Communist Revolution or even WWII
was about to begin. Who could have anticipated the
auto-demolition of the Church, now in progress?
You have to be very cautious of the sedevacantist view,
for it has consequences. Not the least significant is the one
by which sedes tend to group together and look down their
noses at those who do not agree with them. They console
each other with saying "Oh, that TCat isn't one of us! He
still thinks that FRANCIS is the 'pope'! (Sneer) How can he
see anything 'clearly' when he's all wet on the most basic
level?" Ultimately it becomes a new dogma, ipso facto, that
you can't know the truth until you reject the current pope,
and his predecessors back to whenever-it-was (different
sedes have different cut-off points).
And then notice if you will, that the cut-off point they have
selected becomes another dogma!
They will say, for example, that since Pope Pius XII was the
last valid pope, therefore, EVERYTHING that happened under
his watch is SQUEAKY CLEAN, etc. We can go through that
list, too, but the ELEPHANT in the living room there is, that he
is the guy who put Annibale Bugnini into his position of power,
and the rest is HISTORY. Why would a valid pope install a
Freemason to be in charge of the Liturgy? HMMMM????
Therefore, if you follow their PRINCIPLE, that if he did anything
wrong he was therefore not the pope, you'd have to go back
to what, St. Peter? Uhh...... News flash: St. Peter denied
Our Lord three times, so therefore he couldn't have been pope
either, according to their PRINCIPLE.
Popes are not omniscient so that argument can't simply apply. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason and there were many well before him. The secretary of State of Leo XIII was also a Freemason, and we know that now. How easy is it for us to see things in perspective with a 20/20 hindsight vision and be able to judge someone for failings. Sedevacantist are not concerned with failings (although that just confirms the Catholic doctrine that the Pope is not impeccable), we are talking about heresy here. Yes, that word that actually used to mean something, probably the worst possible thing you could call someone. Being a heretic is a million times worse then being a child molester, a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ etc... It is possible to have a child molester to still remain a Catholic (although a dead member), but it is impossible to be a member of the Church when you are a heretic. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs that are practising their abomination some of them even know how wicked it is what they are doing, they even accept the teaching of the Church to the letter on the topic their lust have taken over them, but none of that compares to the heretic. Now you might retort, that well none of "us" have the authority to judge anyone. Well go ahead and remain in your blind state, remain silent while the rest of all your friends + family abandon the Church. Do not then come over here for some sympathy, to hear the famous, "I told you so."
In case you were not aware it is of Divine and Catholic faith to be obedient and submissive to your spiritual superiors most especially the man that is sitting in Rome called the Vicar of Christ. So yes Sedevacantism has certain "dogmatic" elements to it because it deals with directly on matters that are De Fide Divina Catholica. Vatican II has not changed the notion of obedience one bit from the traditional doctrine of the Church, quite to the contrary to what anyone tells you. In fact they are absolutely right! The only difference would be that it has to be actually legitimate superiors, and heretics have 0 authority over Catholics. Which is why we can defy them without one little bit of a scruple. Especially since they are so public and manifest about it, which makes it easier for us to be able to discern.
What if a communist/muslim/heretic comes up to you and tells you if you are ready to die for your faith. Assuming you have prayed for this grace, you answer yes.
Now just a slightly different scenario and he asks you if you are willing to die for religious liberty/ecuмenism/collegiality. I am not so sure you would be willing to die for "Vatican II." If you are not willing to die for a "Catholic Council" and decrees that flow from there then we have a problem Houston. No amount of double-speak will fix that problem. Saint Theresa of Avila said she was willing to die, for the least of the Roman ceremonies. Even for the more "recent" human traditions that crept up recently. Maybe certain bows, gestures etc... Why was she willing to say something like that, if it was not for her total and absolute obedience to the Roman Church. She did not second guess that which flows from her Mother. False obedience is to obey sinful/evil commands like, go get me that young blonde choir boy. False obedience cannot apply to something that your so called authorities would call as binding on the minds of the faithful. If consistently over a period of 50 years they keep telling you it is binding, if they teach it continually year in and year out. If you refuse to hear the word of the Church, then you are following your own will.
We can also be able to twist the tables around and say that you are making the whole Sedeplenism thing as a new "dogma." A good fair reply would be to say that we should always be a-priori sedeplenist. This is where we are both in agreement, but where the new "dogma" is being pushed is that there is a clear case of a doubtful papacy. The fact that you refuse to see this and push dogmatically that it is absolutely necessary to be saved to acknowledge the claimants to the papacy. I would have to say that your error is more grievous, then the possibility of our being wrong with lets say the "official date" of when the modern conciliarist anti-Popes became anti-Popes.
All that we know is that after Vatican II, and after the promulgation of the New Mass. It is pretty safe to say that they lost authority, also pertinacity was present especially since they were actually warned about their errors. The question is merely academic, but the reality is there and its public. What if it was one month earlier, or later it will do little to nothing of a difference. They refused to submit to truth obstinately as the Ottaviani intervention shows. Also the repeated letters +ABL to the claimants of the papacy, that were pretty open and public. None of which changed their direction one bit, quite the contrary they only emboldened themselves down the path of heresy with a greater fervour.
Did God do something extraordinary during the Great Western Schism? Even during the Arian Crisis? What about the 70 years of Russian Communism? Woe to those who seek a sign, instead of following the safe doctrine of the Church. If God desires to intervene He can freely do so, for He is not bound by anything. However, I see that many really refuse to submit their minds to the reality of things because they are waiting for "something" to happen. Reminds me of some of the more Orthodox Bishops in Vatican II, thought that if Religious Liberty is passed that the "dome of St. Peter" would fall down. If it does not fall down on all the Bishops, then that will be a sign that it is from God. The attitude of most people now is to look to private revelation and trying to interpret it to death. Our Lady did not come and tell us anything in particular that was out of the ordinary, that is something that was not in the doctrine of the Church. She only re-iterated for the benefit of those who did not receive that instruction from the clergy. To make more lively the faith of the simple, who will be assaulted with the temptation of unbelief in our atheistic times we live in. What if God, maybe just what if the Good Lord decides to step in until after you die, whenever that might be. This whole "lets wait" business is dangerous, because you know not the day or the hour you will die and to wait for vain signs in the heavens or spiritual "phenomena." God will hold you responsible for what you know, did not know and what you should have known. Don't wait until its too late and your time of mercy is over, because this is pretty serious stuff. Nothing else is more important, then these questions and anyone that thinks otherwise really needs to study more + pray more. Be grateful for God that you are blessed enough to have an internet connection plus the ability to read, a traditional Catholic and many other things.
Also I think it is a dangerous thing to say that if SV'ism is true then God has lost His mercy. I want you to go to youtube.com and watch all the Theist vs Atheism debates and one of the most famous strongest argument of the atheists is the problem of Evil. So you are definitely not in good company when you say that because things are in the dumps, it somehow lessens even one iota the Infinite Mercy of God. I would have to say that it is close to blasphemy to suggest such a thing.
Sedeplenism has consequences too that you fail to see and they are much worse then those that SV'ism has by a long shot. You need to be able to believe that in a Universal scale you cannot trust a Catholic Council, local Bishops, the "Pope", Catechism's, Canon Law, marriage tribunals, Pontifical Congregations, but they still remain remain lawful authority. It means you have to submit to lawful authority in disciplinary matters, but I don't think I see you too enthusiastic about the "FSSP." Those who obstinately refuse to submit to lawful authorities, traditionally speaking are called schismatics, no small matter my friend. Any and every single position that you take has consequences, that is obvious. Now you choose to follow the most dangerous of all the consequences, to follow a heretical sect. It seems you are scared of SV'ism because it seems that God would never allow for such a thing to happen. Take a look at the History of the Church, and I am sure many could have said previously such a thing is impossible to happen, but yet they have happened. We know that we live closer to the end times, so you don't think that the magnitude of the evil will be that much greater then all previous centuries?
If any sedevacantist looks "down" on anyone then I would have to say it is their pride and not because of sedevacantism that is their particular problem. Would you not worry about the state of those you know are in danger of joining a cult/sect? Don't confuse the fact that we fear for the salvation of our friends/relatives and that such indifference really shows lack of true charity. It is precisely because they have ears to hear and eyes to see, and many times how long they were blind and stuck to the Conciliar Church that worries them. If you see any of the other posts that I have done, you can be able to see more in depth what I am talking about. Everything of course will happen in God's good time, but let it never be because of our inaction. If you yourself were walking over a precipice. Would you not be happy if someone would be tackling you? Even if initially painful once you see what the "other" option was you would be grateful to whoever did that to you. Let it sink a little deep and think about it from another perspective.
____________
On a different note I think this is something interesting, in all of Rome not one Requiem mass was offered for Alexander VI someone who generally is seen as a true Pope for all we know (apparently Savaranola thought otherwise and he had evidence to prove it, but he was killed beforehand inconveniently also). Now Alexander was a Holy man compared to the Conciliar Popes, because the man was a great sinner but never a public heretic (as far as we know). Yet, when the Conciliar Popes died you had everyone offering masses for his soul especially in the SSPX etc... Now they are canonizing them, just incredible how scandalous such a thing is. Just an interesting parallel observation...
Veni Jesu Domine Veni
+Pax vobis+
Topic: Canonize Francis 1?!? (Read 1122 times)