Author Topic: Roscoe (Read 2185 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:03:26 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

Quote from: roscoe
Imo Pius XI and XII are true Popes.

If Benedict XV was an anti-pope, and Pius XI & XII never abjured, then how are they true popes? Its not like bishops turn apostate overnight. I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world. By the anti-papacy of John XXIII, the poisonous fruit of Vatican II was more than ready to bloom. Again, just speculation, just thinking out loud here.

If you believe Ben 15 is an anti-pope how comes it that you are referring to him in roman numbers?

What do Pius XI and XII have to abjure from?

I cannot comprehend a statement that 'Satan allowed Pius XI an XII to reign.'

As far as why Pius XI and XII did not recognise Ben 15 as an anti-pope, I do not know. I do know however that it is near if not impossible for even a true Pope to direct the Barque of St Peter while caught in a Typhoon.

roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:10:57 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: DeMaistre
Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.

This line of confusion has been present here b4. The only 'popes deposed throughout history' are Boniface, Urban VI( I believe he was validly elected but lost his office by his actions. Even if one does not preach heresy, actual actions that show one to be a heretic despite words to the contrary is the same thing) and Ben 15.

I am hardly the first person to speculate on whether these clowns are anti-popes-- especially Boniface. How did you vote in the Templar s poll?

Sorry, I meant "declare to be an anti-pope".

I didn't vote. Quite frankly, I'm undeducated in that matter, so I wasn't comfortable voting for something that I did not know much about.

Even though there was no printing press during the times of the Templars and Boniface, many historians and monks chronicled the late mid ages. Extensive records exist of the Templars/ Philip/ Boniface saga-- even in the English which I am restricted to.

roscoe · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2009, 11:12:10 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: spouse of Jesus
Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.

To what exactly are you referring, Spouse?

She is referring to 'sede vacantism' -- what ever that is.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2009, 12:27:36 AM »

"I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world."

You don't become an anti-Pope by paving the way for a takeover of the Church. You don't even become an anti-Pope by having an invalid election, because if the world approves of someone as Pope, they're Pope until proven otherwise, such as through being a pertinacious and manifest heretic.

If Catholics were getting sound Catholic doctrine from Benedict XV-Pius XII, no matter if they were appointing modernist cardinals or whatever, they were Popes. In the public forum they said nothing that should make us think otherwise -- except that of course Benedict XV issued the book of Canon Law that is pro-BoD, making him an anti-Christ to certain segments of the population.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2009, 12:59:46 AM »

I wasn't saying that he was anti-pope because of that. I think he was a manifest heretic.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2009, 07:23:33 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

"I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world."

You don't become an anti-Pope by paving the way for a takeover of the Church. You don't even become an anti-Pope by having an invalid election, because if the world approves of someone as Pope, they're Pope until proven otherwise, such as through being a pertinacious and manifest heretic.

If Catholics were getting sound Catholic doctrine from Benedict XV-Pius XII, no matter if they were appointing modernist cardinals or whatever, they were Popes. In the public forum they said nothing that should make us think otherwise -- except that of course Benedict XV issued the book of Canon Law that is pro-BoD, making him an anti-Christ to certain segments of the population.

Not really. He was also a "co-redemtrix" heretic and said other heretical things in his encyclicals. You can really see the similarities between his writings and those of the Conciliar anti-popes.