Author Topic: For all sedevacantists and conclavists (Read 7826 times)

Caraffa · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:37:08 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Raoul76
"However he comes up a winner with the idea that Ben 15 most likely is. Without even considering his doctrinal deficiencies and strange actions, the very election(???) of Della Chiesa is just about the most improbable thing I have ever heard of, moreso even than the abdication(?) of Celestine and the election(?) of the anti-pope Boniface."

Actually Boniface is not an anti-Pope because only the Church determines who is an anti-Pope ( not counting our time where the Church is in eclipse ).

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one. Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?

Here are the two prev posts on Ben and Boniface

http://www.cathinfo.com/bb/index.php?a=topic&t=4589

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=4268&f=4&min=75&num=15

Raoul is the one committing the strange sin of calling Popes anti-popes as he insists on perpetrating the myth that the French Popes of the GWS are such. The reasons for this have been explained numerous times and need no repititon here.

The one sentence of Unam Sanctam that is dogmatic was nothing new in 1303. The idea that one must remain loyal to the Roman Pope had been proclaimed already for about 1200 yrs. If a Pope is in actuality an anti-- pope, then no allegience is due as Caraffa is well aware.

Roscoe, it is not true that Benedict XV was a Zionist. From World Affairs, September 22, 1995:

Quote

The Zionist movement tried again to get papal support when Zionist envoy Nahum Sokolow met with Pope Benedict XV in 1917. Pope Benedict XV was not as negative as Pope Pius X had been, but he, too, refused to support the idea of a Jєωιѕн homeland...

Just because he, Leo XIII, and Pius XII worked with or for Rampolla doesn't make them "anti-popes," even though Rampolla's influence on all three was negative.

On Boniface VIII:
Roscoe, you do realize that Philip IV as well as Edward II of England had begun to tax the clergy which upset Boniface VIII. Philip IV was trying to increase his own Monarchial power over the Church.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:37:46 AM »

Roscoe, nothing that you're saying makes sense. Many, many Popes and bishops and doctors lived after Boniface VIII and none of them said he was an anti-Pope. YOU do not get to decide that he is one.

Whereas it HAS been established by history that the true line of Popes at the time of the Great Western Schism was the line supported by St. Catherine, the Roman line, starting with Urban VI.

The others were indeed anti-Popes because they did not have valid elections, but they were still Catholics -- so that Vincent Ferrer's soul was not harmed ( hopefully ) by his mistakenly following the French line. But St. Catherine was correct.

These anti-Popes were not like the VII Popes of today who are a new breed. See my thread "Non-popes vs. anti-Popes." These VII "Popes" are not even Catholics.

Either you are on your own with this one, or it is another crackbrained new theory of the Feeneyites who specalize in crackbrained theories. Please continue discrediting your cause. Every day the Feeney group gets more and more radical, more and more like self-appointed judge, jury and executioner, to prop up their position. Although I didn't know until just now that you had these, shall we say, "tendencies."

Caminus would help me out with this except that he is against me on other matters. But Caraffa did an excellent job in his stead.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #42 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:39:57 AM »

Do you have links of writings by or on him in Vietnamese? I can translate them for you.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:52:32 AM »

Caminus -- Don't get me started on John Lane.

He has a genius for making matters seem more complicated than they are. Though indeed they are complicated, God reveals the truth to those He chooses. You don't have to be a scholar reading Bellarmine in Latin to see the SSPX holds a contradictory position. Mr. Lane would often attempt to cow and intimidate those on his website into submission to his supposed authority and learning. But the reality is that he is a layman just like us. I much prefer his earlier writings to those of his "SSPX period."

And I didn't say that the Thuc line had ordinary jurisdiction. Thuc had ordinary jurisdiction, but the bishops consecrated by him do not. I said they had supplied jurisdiction, just as did most of the bishops and priests who participated in the Council of Constance. Their supplied jurisdiction BECAME ordinary jurisdiction once they installed Pope Martin V. Just as our supplied jurisdiction will become ordinary jurisdiction when ( a ) A true Pope is elected or ( b ) Christ returns.

But I have researched the Thuc line as far as I was able and I overcame any fear that their priests are not able to provide the sacraments -- INCLUDING confession.

Whatever faults Thuc had, which I hate to even say -- I think the man was a great saint, perhaps the greatest of the 20th century -- can be chalked up to the turmoil in which he lived. Consecrating those like Palmar de Troya is a mistake, but are we to blame any bishop who consecrates or ordains a cleric who goes wacky? Does this mean he is no longer a bishop?

Elisabeth, what is this you're saying about "12-year old bishops"? That one I've never heard. Were these "bishops" made by Palmar de Troya? I've already explained that. Plus, the rumor is that it was Lefebvre who recommended that Thuc consecrate Palmar. Thuc knew nothing about the man and probably in a moment of weariness agreed to make him bishop. At that point, he probably felt he had nothing to lose. Put yourself in his shoes -- the Church was practically dead. It was a free-for-all. Thuc probably thought "It can't get any worse!"

CM · « **Reply #44 on:** June 30, 2009, 01:15:18 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I don't know what kind of sin it is to keep saying that an accepted Pope is an anti-Pope but it is a strange one.

It's schism.

Quote from: Raoul76

Especially since Boniface VIII was behind the drafting of Unam Sanctam and was a very strong Pope. Are you related to King Philip or something?

If he's related to King Philip he's related to Rampolla too. :whistleblower:

Why are you calling Roscoe a 'feeneyite'? Roscoe do you uphold the salvation dogma and the dogma of the necessity of water baptism, that all the heretic Raoul76 thinks can somehow be heresy in the early Church but then become not heresy later?

Roscoe, you can't denounce Boniface VIII if people you hold as true popes recognized him as a true pope. Your position is illogical because if you denounce him, then you have to denounce every single pope after him who accepted him as a true pope, since they would all be in schism and antipopes themselves by the very fact.

Raoul76 once again misrepresents my reason for denouncing Benedict XV. Stop it man! I told you he taught universal salvation and denied Geocentrism, and further I add that in Inter Sodalicia in 1918, he taught that Mary together with Christ redeemed mankind- not played a part in the redemption of Jesus Christ, which is correct, but REDEEMED mankind together with Christ, which is a contradiction of Trent:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: "...God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer..."

He never taught BoD in any capacity where it could be attributed to him. The invalid 'Code of Canon Law of 1917' was promulgated in forma communi, and thus the individual authors who put it together retain their authorship of the work, unlike if it had been approved in forma specifica.

Furthermore, a Catechism, originally called "A Compendium of Christian Doctrine" and written by a man named Respighi, was later approved in forma communi by Pope Pius X who is a valid pope. It was later renamed "Catechism of Pius X" and contains multiple heresies. You don't see me rejecting Pius X. Why? Because he never publicly taught these heresies. In forma communi approbavit means that Respighi retains authorship of the work, so he is the one who publicly taught the heresies and fell out of office and out of the Church for doing so.