God preserves the Church from ex-cathedra error which we are boiund to believe for salvation and if Popes make private error, this can be ignored - Matt 23:1-3

But we are strictly bound to maintain submission:


"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

Well, where have I disputed this? Your pontificating on this point (pardon the pun) implies that I reject or question it. I do not. That you imply that I do is one example among several of the strawmen you've decided to erect and tear down in this thread in lieu of addressing my actual points.

Ask any Sedevacantist on the forum - I am not one of their rank. I find it to be an untenable solution to the current crisis as, with each year that the supposed "vacancy" persists, it grows closer and closer to formally contradicting the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.

In all of the damnable mess of this Modernist Crisis, from the Council on down to today there has been but one ex Cathedra pronouncement which demands of me the submission of my will and intellect - and that is Pope John Paul II's formal prohibition against the idea of "ordination of women" to the priesthood. And I accept, affirm and submit to that pronouncement, tranquilly and happily.

But where error is pronounced or gravely sacrilegeous scandal is committed, it will not do to merely "ignore." These must be actively, openly opposed. The majority of Conciliar Catholics ignorantly believe that anything a pope says or does is infallible and enjoys the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the danger to souls posed by these scandals and errors is very real, and our opposition to them - over and above merely "ignoring" them - is necessary to protect not only our own Faith but also that of these poor ignorant souls. This does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to the Roman Pontiff; rather quite the opposite. It is a total submission to the Roman Pontiff - all of them, 2000 years' worth, whose past judgments and pronouncements in defense of Tradition still bind us today. So condemnation of Assisi does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to Pope John Paul II, but an act of total submission to Pope Pius XI, whose pronouncements in Mortalium Animos still bind us today - and a holy and Catholic desire to see the postconciliar pontiffs affirm and submit to those selfsame pronouncements which bind them as well.

BTNYC said:

"I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence."


Yes you do and unjustly so. Your reasoning is gibbersih and your "opinions" (and in the case of Fr Martin "his guilt") do not in anyway void the credibility of the testimonies of him or Fr Amorth. Rejecting the witness of Fr Amorth, because he may believe in Medjugoje, is saying because of this he must be a liar, which is absurd.

No one is speaking of "guilt" but you, Andy.  

To wit: Fr. Amorth praises an apparition which itself unambiguously advocates the condemned error of religious indifferentism. I do not say he sins in so doing. I do not say that all else that comes from his mouth are lies. I say that it damages his credibility. It does so in much the same way that the credibility of, say, an antiques appraiser would be damaged if he were on record praising the craftsmanship of a vase he attributes to the Han dynasty... a vase which he has only to turn over to find "Made in Mexico" printed on its base.

The reason for you lack of objectivity, is because you dishonestly skew your  appraisals for fear that finding yourself wrong (which you are - and very!) and thus you will be indicted for all the hate and self-exaltation you have directed against the conciliar church under a mask of false piety and which you presently hide in your soul in false justification.

Irrational, emotionalistic pap.

Are you so frustrated in this debate, Andy, that you will toss your rational faculties to the wind so blithely; that you will criticize me for "lacking objectivity" and in the very same breath, dare to declare on behalf of Almighty God His impending "indictment" against me for my "dishonesty," "hate" and "self-exaltation" and "false justification," which you state that I "hide in (my) soul?"

How long have you had the gift of reading hearts, Andy?

Does it bother you that the repeated and rigorous distinctions I have made between the objective judgments I am required to make (and thus do) and the subjective judgments I am forbidden to make (and thus do not) now stand in stark relief in this thread against your own pronouncements on not only my interior dispositions (subjective judgment) but also the outcome of my particular Judgment by Almighty God (usurpation of judgment)?

I am satisfied that my arguments have respected the Thomistic distinctions between objective and subjective judgments far more than yours. Which of us was the more "vapid" and which of us employed "gibberish" in his reasoning? Let the reader read and decide; but, far more importantly, let Almighty God Who alone knows men's hearts and Who alone Judges men's souls accordingly, decide. His Will be done.  

ANDYSLOAN,

Look up on your computer Fr. Malachi Martin Grave in the Gates of Heaven Cemetery
at Long Island, NY. Why is he buried next to a woman who purported to be his
girl friend?
And it was previous mentioned, he said what a particular audience wanted to hear
and paid money for.

Malachi claimed also that Pius XII consecrated him a bishop, and that he was also a cardinal in pecto (sp?), that he read the Third Secret of Fatima, that he knew the exact dates and nature of the Garandabal miracle, that he had been present at the conclave that elected Cardinal Siri, that Our Lord was humiliated in His passion by the soldiers in a way I simply can't mention, that baptisms with Amen at the end are invalid, that UFO are real and that they are demons, that God could have incarnated as a cow if He wanted, that male chauvinists got in the way of women priests, that he had names and dates of human sacrifices in black masses, lists of pedophile bishops and priests, and on and on and on...

And please come forward if you ever attended or have seen a picture of a mass, baptism or wedding celebrated by Malachi, or witnessed or heard firsthand of an exorcism performed by Malachi. Or if you ever saw him in church or praying.

Time to leave him to rest in peace along Mrs. Kakia Livanos.

I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it.

That's all great, Andy. You're still an idiot.

Recognising that Pope John Paul 2 is a saint would destroy the platform of their self-exaltation. So one cannot expect objectivity;
   

Mark 3:2

And they watched him whether he would heal on the sabbath days; that they might accuse him.


And they are prepared to sin, in order to defend their own "glory"; hence:

John 8:41-44

We have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:  Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

As can been seen, they have no love of God or neighbour and are commensurately blinded:

1 John 2:11

But he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth; because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.


1 John 4:20
If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?

Quote from: Charlemagne

I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it.

Where have you been?  :nunchaku:

I appreciate a few lines of sense thrown in here and there when the Andybot is in town.

Busy with work and five children, mainly. It's nice to see that Andy is still around to provide much-needed comic relief from the Crisis.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I know someone who followed Malachi Martin around on a lecture tour.

He told me that Malachi addressed a group of SSPX supporters and referred to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century".  About two weeks later, addressing a group at Saint Benedict Center, Malachi referred to Father Feeney as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century".  Just one anecdotal incident.  ....

So what?  You damn someone for being the sort to be over generous in his praise?

So far on this thread, no one has done any bona fide damning apart from Andys Loan.

As for Malachi Martin, his damnation or salvation is for God to decide, but this is certainly reason to regard him as suspicious: