Author Topic: He's Our Pope (Read 2169 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** February 11, 2010, 12:30:03 PM »

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382. :devil2: :devil2:)

One can see how this dastardly concept of a "reconciliation" had been condemned so prophetically by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2010, 12:38:10 PM »

Well, some have taken to personally depose him from the papacy -- i.e., embraced the sedevacantist position.

What do you have then? A few splinter groups, complete chaos, cults of personality (laymen, priests, and bishops) clashing with one another, and lack of unity even among those who have rejected the pope.

And no answer whatsoever to the question "what now?" To put it succinctly: Sedevacantism solves nothing. You're left with more questions than you had when you started.

You just push off the "mystery of iniquity" to a different stage. Instead of "Why did God allow this?" you ask, "When will God mercifully intervene and restore His Church"? In fact, we ask the same question -- when will God restore the Church to Her former glory?

Like I said, it doesn't accomplish a whole lot. You're still left just as empty-handed, and wondering about the future, dependent on God's good time, as you were "before" you embraced the Sedevacantist position. Your circle of like-minded Catholics will be small, with or without the sede position.

How is that fundamentally better than just holding to what you know WITHOUT COMPROMISE, and leaving the Pope to God's judgment (as is done in the SSPX, for example)

Anyhow, this has all been rehashed here on CathInfo a million times. Don't think you've brought some kind of bombshell or slam-dunk to the argument, because you haven't.

Matthew

Belloc · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2010, 01:01:56 PM »

I have read the SV arguements and have deep concern like that of our thread starter, but ahve to leave it to God....the alternative to me is far, far more ambigous and far more problematic...true SV leads to Dolans, Cekedas,Ibryani's(?),etc....one is left home, alone or losing Faith all together....

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2010, 03:34:33 PM »

Nothing to say about my other recent posts? Belloc's response is decent apart from the end where we have the guilt by association tactic. Takes away from the debate itself.

Is it true or not? Which leads to Matthew. What does truth matter if it "solves nothing"? It shows the ROOT CAUSE of our dilemma. Don't care about why things are the way the are?

Not if you have to change your life a bit. Your initial response to me way back had nothing to do with whether it is true or not but how it would affect your family.

You look at a topic to see how it affects you FIRST rather than looking to see if it is true FIRST. Not a Catholic way to go about things.

The arguments which you conveniently (convenience seems to be key with you) ignore is that first:

We do not depose him, his not being pope has nothing to do with my deposing him the thought of which is absurd. If he was never Pope to begin with (a heretic cannot be Pope) there is no one to depose anymore than a dead person needs to be declared dead in order to be really dead.

What we have then:

Is hard-headed fools who want to have their Pope and eat him too which is much easier and funner (in a numbish sort of way) to do than to face the facts head on.

Before I realized a Pope has to be Catholic (cannot be a heretic) I thought I was fighting from "within". Thankfully, I solved the dilemma and got out of the anti-Church structure headed by the anti-Pope leader. Solves alot in my book. Oh, and by the way, its true, not that that matters much in your book. A lot less empty-handed than fighting from within the anti-Church headed by apostates. It is the best Catholics that cause the confusion by putting a Catholic varnish on the white-washed tomb!

I fight within the true Church now and readily call the true clergy out for their errors I do no cosmetic surgery on the Catholic Church or its head(s) - Christ and the Bishops who do not acknowledge an apostate heretic as their leader - as the SSPX must do on the anti-Church and its anti-head. Big difference in my opinion.

Read my recent posts, I am glad to slam-dunk your willful blindness even if I'm the millionth person to do it. There is always hope it might sink in before you die and you might face the truth first and THEN worry how the facts might affect your family.

The truth sets you free from the anti-Church and from having to admit SV is not convenient for you.

Just some thoughts. No need to get angry - unless you hold the wrong position I suppose. But realizing you are wrong is a reason for rejoicing rather than for anger unless you prefer to be willfully blind for the sake of convenience.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2010, 03:53:15 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Read my recent posts, I am glad to slam-dunk your willful blindness even if I'm the millionth person to do it. There is always hope it might sink in before you die and you might face the truth first and THEN worry how the facts might affect your family.

Just some thoughts. No need to get angry - unless you hold the wrong position I suppose. But realizing you are wrong is a reason for rejoicing rather than for anger unless you prefer to be willfully blind for the sake of convenience.

So says just about every Sedevacantist. Nothing new here.

I just told you your post was not a slam-dunk. Quit trying to twist my words.

Go back and read my posts, and we can talk.

Deposing a pope is not the same as determining whether a man is dead. The Pope has no superior on earth who can depose him. It's not our place as laymen to excommunicate, reject, or depose a Pope.

Most people will acknowledge the evils of home-alone Catholicism -- but the fact is that home alone-ism is the logical conclusion of sedevacantism. Once you split from the mainstream Church, how easy is it to leave Fr. X's parish and go it alone? A much smaller step.

I have a question for the home aloners out there -- how come you didn't have any home aloners before Vatican II, even though -- according to many homealoners -- the papacy has been vacant for over a century? (I think I'll post this in general discussion, so CM can respond to it)

The fruits of Sedevacantism only serve to emphasize the truth of my position.

Matthew

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2010, 03:55:30 PM »

MO is that LoT is correct and the v2 'popes' have deposed themselves. Even that is not necessary as they are not truely elected in the first place.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2010, 05:33:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Read my recent posts, I am glad to slam-dunk your willful blindness even if I'm the millionth person to do it. There is always hope it might sink in before you die and you might face the truth first and THEN worry how the facts might affect your family.

Just some thoughts. No need to get angry - unless you hold the wrong position I suppose. But realizing you are wrong is a reason for rejoicing rather than for anger unless you prefer to be willfully blind for the sake of convenience.

So says just about every Sedevacantist. Nothing new here.

I just told you your post was not a slam-dunk. Quit trying to twist my words.

Go back and read my posts, and we can talk.

What would you like to talk about?

Deposing a pope is not the same as determining whether a man is dead. The Pope has no superior on earth who can depose him. It's not our place as laymen to excommunicate, reject, or depose a Pope.

My point is there is no one to depose. Saying I deposed a Pope is absurd on its face. Please let me know if you grasp this point or if I need to explain it further. I am not being sarcastic here.

Most people will acknowledge the evils of home-alone Catholicism -- but the fact is that home alone-ism is the logical conclusion of sedevacantism. Once you split from the mainstream Church, how easy is it to leave Fr. X's parish and go it alone? A much smaller step.

I'm not sure how "evil" home-alone Catholicism is. Obviously it depends on the circuмstances and the individuals consciences. But again we leave the thrust of the topic whether it is to quibble with "guilt by association" "who the anti-Christ is" or "home-aloners". If you would like to speak to the topic at hand I am all ears. What is the mainstream Church. We assume since it is mainstream it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Majority rules? You speak of the Church that has been ruled by Apostate heretics since its inception in 1964. You make no point against SV here. Do you see that? The logical conclusion of SV is that we have no Pope. If those who want to be real Catholics without (not following) their apostate heretical leader would admit that we might get somewhere. But the diabolicalness of our times will not let that happen as people prefer their convenience over truth.

I have a question for the home aloners out there -- how come you didn't have any home aloners before Vatican II, even though -- according to many homealoners -- the papacy has been vacant for over a century? (I think I'll post this in general discussion, so CM can respond to it)

Here we again do not speak to the issue. We have home-aloners, conservatives, liberals, charismatics, recognize and resisters because V2 is a heretical council that cannot be approved by a valid Pope. How come you didn't have any recognize and resisters? Can you please speak to the issue or is this impossible for you to do without looking foolish?

The fruits of Sedevacantism only serve to emphasize the truth of my position.

The fruits of a heretical council approved by a heretical anti-pope serve to emphazise the truth of the SV position.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2010, 09:29:20 PM »

Matthew said:

Quote

The fruits of Sedevacantism only serve to emphasize the truth of my position.

Home-aloners are actually a fruit of the SSPX position. We are where we are because you guys have turned your backs on reality. You want your pretty little Mass and your Little House on the Prarie fantasyland with the long-skirts and the apple pie on the hearth and you refuse to accept that what you call the Church and the Pope are impostors.

If all the traditional bishops were sedevacantist a long time ago, if they said what was obvious, that Rome had been hijacked, and elected a new Pope, the fruits would be entirely different. But for this to happen, they would have to really be traditional in the first place. That is another problem for another thread.

The Church can be flawed in its members, not in its teaching -- trying to heal the Church "from within" is futile because the faith is NOT THERE. This reminds me of some girl who dates an ex-convict rapist because she wants to "cure" him, to show him true love, then ends up getting raped and killed. Really this is pure sympathy for the devil. You are saying the Church could be run by people who are bitter enemies of the Church; heretics. Heretics by definition don't have the faith. They are rapists and murderers of souls, and they aren't in the Church!

For the millionth time, we aren't talking about a sick Church that can be healed by a St. Francis or St. Catherine, a Church with indifferent, amoral or even wicked members. We're talking about an impostor Church. Can the true bride of Christ be teaching fatal, anti-Christ doctrine? Do you not see how absurd this is? No matter how bad the immorality in the Church was before, the Magisterium was immaculate, because by definition, it is immaculate.

SSPXers, if they really want to be consistent, should be like Caminus. They should try to reconcile all the teachings of VII with the traditional Magisterium ( which will make them schizophrenic, by the way, as well as heretics ). But then if you do this the question remains -- why not go to an Indult?

We're backed into this home-alone corner partly because of YOU, SSPX-ers. Stop buying the lies; and no one will be able to sell them anymore. The bulk of traditionalists are content to go halfway towards the truth, they'll go as far as is comfortable, and then they stop. They don't want the UGLY TRUTH. They want the PRETTY HALF-TRUTH.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2010, 10:17:24 PM »

Lover of Truth said:

Quote

It is the best Catholics that cause the confusion by putting a Catholic varnish on the white-washed tomb!

Abso-freaking-lutely. Well said. Huzzah!

Do you know who I think the most dangerous member of this board is? Is it those who disagree with me on EENS and other matters like 008, like Caminus, like SJB? Nope -- it is Caraffa. His posts emanate a certain sanctity, wisdom and piety, yet he adheres to the VII sect, without hardly ever even talking about it.

This kind of attitude, seeing a pious person who just goes about their business from within the anti-Church, is devastatingly seductive.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:30:52 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Lover of Truth said:
Quote
It is the best Catholics that cause the confusion by putting a Catholic varnish on the white-washed tomb!

Abso-freaking-lutely. Well said. Huzzah!

Do you know who I think the most dangerous member of this board is? Is it those who disagree with me on EENS and other matters like 008, like Caminus, like SJB? Nope -- it is Caraffa. His posts emanate a certain sanctity, wisdom and piety, yet he adheres to the VII sect, without hardly ever even talking about it.

This kind of attitude, seeing a pious person who just goes about their business from within the anti-Church, is devastatingly seductive.

No, Raoul, this is called being a good Catholic, acting with humility and realizing one's own limits.

With some of you sedes, the entirety of the Catholic Faith revolves around your opinion of the Pope. Pope here, Pope there, Pope Pope everywhere! It's like a manic obsession with you guys. You make Catholics sound like the papolators the Baptists are always accusing us of being. In fact, to me it seems like a very Protestant concept this obsession with the doctrinal purity of the pastor, the Bishop, the head of the conference or synod. That's why Protestants skip from one church to another; always in search of pastor who agrees with their interpretation of Scripture. You guys do the same thing, only you're searching for a priest/Bishop/Pope who shares your particular reading of certain docuмents. When inevitably you can't find him, you stay home.

Tied into this is your sour grapes attitude towards the SSPX. The SSPX is doing something positive about the situation, and you hate that. You would prefer the rest of us were all holed up somewhere wringing our hands and picking over every word some prelate or theologian from two hundred years ago ever set to paper.

If you can't see the obvious comparisons between yourselves and the Pharisees of Jesus's day, I'm sorry for you. The Pharisees would go get ritually purified if even the shadow of a sinner or non-Jєω crossed theirs; you do the same with your absurd fear of "communion with heretics."

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:42:12 AM »

One thing is for sure-- the Caraffa Pope would never recognise the v2 'council' or anti-popes.

Clovis · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2010, 05:39:12 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

I have read the SV arguements and have deep concern like that of our thread starter, but ahve to leave it to God....the alternative to me is far, far more ambigous and far more problematic...true SV leads to Dolans, Cekedas,Ibryani's(?),etc....one is left home, alone or losing Faith all together....

Actually I think thats a very valid point. Richard "move in with me and do what I say" Ibryani is a very frightening sign of the times....But we see similar signs in the Novus Ordo Church, for instance in Ireland where all the Bishops are utterly "liberal" there is this pseudo-stigmatic "visionary" called Christina Gallagher who has made a fortune off her followers...Pious people know that their Bishops cant be trusted so they flock to her for the authority and guidance that the Novus Ordo hierarchy just isnt giving and have handed over fortunes...Shades of the old monatist heresy in both cases...Christ set up a a hierarchal Church in order to avoid people following after self appointed prophets...But where is the Magisterium today? How solid is the canonical foundations of the SSPX?

Belloc · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2010, 07:03:00 AM »

SSPX is solid, but there is a drive to wedge SSPX, between Williamson and Fellay,etc.

Your liberal Irish bishops-no different in the States-hold a legitimate office, hence some of their teaching is legit, but also we are to avoid, disregard and oppose moral evil and false teachings...look at Judas, John calls him a thief, Sheen stated Judas stopped beleiving on John 6, but stayed in to disrupt from within...still, Judas held the valid office of Bishop, as we see in the beginning of Acts, whereas the Apostales voted a new man to fill the office.......

Clovis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2010, 07:32:04 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

SSPX is solid, but there is a drive to wedge SSPX, between Williamson and Fellay,etc.

Your liberal Irish bishops-no different in the States-hold a legitimate office, hence some of their teaching is legit, but also we are to avoid, disregard and oppose moral evil and false teachings...look at Judas, John calls him a thief, Sheen stated Judas stopped beleiving on John 6, but stayed in to disrupt from within...still, Judas held the valid office of Bishop, as we see in the beginning of Acts, whereas the Apostales voted a new man to fill the office.......[/quote

We can argue whether they are legit or not but the point is that they are not giving proper guidance to their flock like say the great Archbishop Mc Quaid did (who died of a broken heart over Vatitican II) and most Novus Ordoites who still have some Catholic Faith left that I have talked believe that they are Freemasons and so dont trust them at all...So in a way they have as little authority over them as a home aloner. in reality.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2010, 12:09:57 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Matthew said:
Quote
The fruits of Sedevacantism only serve to emphasize the truth of my position.

Home-aloners are actually a fruit of the SSPX position. We are where we are because you guys have turned your backs on reality. You want your pretty little Mass and your Little House on the Prarie fantasyland with the long-skirts and the apple pie on the hearth and you refuse to accept that what you call the Church and the Pope are impostors.

If all the traditional bishops were sedevacantist a long time ago, if they said what was obvious, that Rome had been hijacked, and elected a new Pope, the fruits would be entirely different. But for this to happen, they would have to really be traditional in the first place. That is another problem for another thread.

The Church can be flawed in its members, not in its teaching -- trying to heal the Church "from within" is futile because the faith is NOT THERE. This reminds me of some girl who dates an ex-convict rapist because she wants to "cure" him, to show him true love, then ends up getting raped and killed. Really this is pure sympathy for the devil. You are saying the Church could be run by people who are bitter enemies of the Church; heretics. Heretics by definition don't have the faith. They are rapists and murderers of souls, and they aren't in the Church!

For the millionth time, we aren't talking about a sick Church that can be healed by a St. Francis or St. Catherine, a Church with indifferent, amoral or even wicked members. We're talking about an impostor Church. Can the true bride of Christ be teaching fatal, anti-Christ doctrine? Do you not see how absurd this is? No matter how bad the immorality in the Church was before, the Magisterium was immaculate, because by definition, it is immaculate.

SSPXers, if they really want to be consistent, should be like Caminus. They should try to reconcile all the teachings of VII with the traditional Magisterium ( which will make them schizophrenic, by the way, as well as heretics ). But then if you do this the question remains -- why not go to an Indult?

We're backed into this home-alone corner partly because of YOU, SSPX-ers. Stop buying the lies; and no one will be able to sell them anymore. The bulk of traditionalists are content to go halfway towards the truth, they'll go as far as is comfortable, and then they stop. They don't want the UGLY TRUTH. They want the PRETTY HALF-TRUTH.

I must say that what you write above is very well stated. Far better than I could have put it.

Author Topic: He&#039;s Our Pope (Read 2169 times)

Author Topic: He's Our Pope (Read 2169 times)