Author Topic: Is the SSPX and the Resistance Imploding? (Read 8713 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #75 on:** November 16, 2014, 07:48:59 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

A true Catholic Bishop will tell you that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff. You are not subject to Pope Francis. Therefore, your statement is false. The Pope, whatever his personal mistakes, is the regent of Christ.

What you are offering us, Andy, is two irreconcible choies, if what you are saying is, in fact, true (Francis is a true Vicar of God who is to be obeyed):

1) Burn in eternal Hell for the sin of schism for having refused to embrace the manifest and public heresies of Francis.

2) Burn in eternal Hell for the sin of heresy for having embraced the manifest and public heresies of Francis.

I have already given you (and the board) my "choice" to the above dilemma, but as I, perhaps, should have made clearer, there is a third alternative:

3) Francis is a manifest and public heretic who has severed himself from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and therefore, is no longer the Roman Pontiff (her Head), and hence, is not to be followed and/or obeyed.

Your claim that we are only bound by the ex cathedra decrees of a Pope is just plainly and manifestly false:

Quote

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" 422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

If Francis would declare "gαy sex" to be "righteous and holy", you, Andy, would at least be required "to adhere to it with religious assent."

Cantarella · « **Reply #76 on:** November 16, 2014, 08:16:57 PM »

It is de fide that the Roman Pontiff can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church; for example John XXII who submitted himself to a commission on his heretical teaching of the Beatific Vision.

As far as the loss of Office, cuм Ex Apostalus Officio DOES NOT APPLY, it has been abrogated AT LEAST 3 times by three different Pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII. It does NOT constitute Divine Law, but Ecclesiastical Law that can be changed. If it were Divine Law, Pius X would have committed heresy, because he abrogated it. So did Benedict XV with the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and so did Pius XII, which all issued docuмents that changed this docuмent:

Quote from: Pope St. Pius X

“None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Quote from: Pius XII

“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

andysloan · « **Reply #77 on:** November 16, 2014, 08:17:40 PM »

Jehanne:

Francis has not made any solemn definitions as so:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-are-extraordinary-magisterium-and-ordinary-ma.html

that are contrary to infallible teaching. Neither have the other conciliar Popes.

This because as has been demonstrated to you on several occasions, God preserves the Church from dogmatic error.

Thus, when you say:

"If Francis would declare "gαy sex" to be "righteous and holy", you, Andy, would at least be required "to adhere to it with religious assent."

such an announcement in dogmatic terms is impossible, because it would be contrary to the promise of Christ (Matt 23:1-3; 1 Tim 3:15)

The fact you don't believe Christ when He gives this guarantee, no doubt finds nexus with your disobedience to Him in making private judgement of heresy and your refusal to accept the conciliar Popes as true Popes, despite dogma 6:6.

You are obsessive to prove yourself in the right, because at root, your heresy is framed to your personal glory in distinction of others.

Hence it is observed 1 Tim 6:4

He (a heretic) is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words;

St Thomas

Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.

The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

Cantarella · « **Reply #78 on:** November 16, 2014, 09:59:19 PM »

The Holy Ghost will not permit the Roman Pontiff or a doctrinal council in union with him to formally teach and bind under pain of sin beliefs that contradict the Apostolic faith. No Pope has done so to this day, even though some of the Popes, as far back as the Arian crisis, held errors but never officially and infallibly promulgated as such.

BTNYC · « **Reply #79 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:07:15 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

BTNYC

"Our Lord commanded us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, He made no such command with regard to God's enemies and those who persecute God. Quite the contrary, Scripture commands us to hate God's enemies with perfect hatred (Psalm cxxxviii:xxi-xxii)."

This is a terrible deviation from the truth and a licence for crime.

How so? The example I gave of the perfect application of this holy zealous hatred of God's enemies was St. Pius V's just adjudications against Jews and Sodomites. Modernists certainly would view those actions as crimes, but we know better - His Holiness had the duty and the right to pass those judgments. What "crimes" have I given licence to in adhering to the plain meaning of Holy Scripture?

Our Lord admonishes us to forgive our debtors, to pray for those who persecute us, to love our enemies. Where does Our Lord say to love and forgive God's enemies? Nowhere that I can see.

Instead, we have this:

Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me.

Psalms cxxxviii:xxi-xxii

The meaning seems pretty clear - how else would you interpret it?

The righteous man forgives his own enemies because he has died to himself. He instead makes God's enemies his enemies, and hates them with a perfect hatred (which you presumptuously - and quite wrongly - seem to have presumed means enacting some kind of vigilante justice against them. It doesn't... and nowhere in my post did I imply it does - the examples I cited were executed by a man with the authority to do so, the very highest authority on earth, in fact).

andysloan · « **Reply #80 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:42:00 AM »

To BTNYC

You make a distinction that our enemies are to be loved but not God enemies.
This is false. If we (as good Catholics) have enemies, they too will be enemies of God, because they are our enemies because of their opposition to Christ:

Matt 12:30

"He that is not with me, is against me."

You do not make a distinction between hatred of sin and love of persons in themselves:

"Secondly love of one's enemies may mean that we love them as to their nature in general: and in this sense charity requires that we should love our enemies, namely, that in loving God and our neighbor, we should not exclude our enemies from the love given to our neighbor in general." - St Thomas

The reason this gives licence, is precisely what we witness so regularly today, in example, when Trads especially launch the most fierce invective against the conciliar church and even Popes, under the guise of justice, when in fact it is a mask for a venting of hatred of neighbour and self exaltation.

1 Thessalonians 5:15

"See that none render evil for evil to any man; but ever follow that which is good towards each other, and towards all men."

The adjudications of St Pius V are acts of justice, but that does not mean we hate the persons convicted, hence St Thomas :

"For the purpose of punishment is to bring man back to the good of virtue."

and Aristotle

"Punishments are a kind of medicine"

Proverbs 21:21

"He that followeth justice and mercy, shall find life, justice, and glory."

Nishant · « **Reply #81 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:54:19 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

As the Church herself has never defined the length of an Interregnum, we are free to say that such could last 5 years, or 5,000 years.

1. I'm sorry, but to say an interregnum could last 5000 years is expressly and manifestly heretical. The Papacy is not something of a divine afterthought but is the very foundation of the Church. The powers the previous Pope has already communicated to Cardinals and Bishops do indeed remain when the See is vacant, but no new powers can be granted to them (no new Cardinals or Bishops appointed to office) while the See remains vacant. This is why a sede vacante is necessarily a transient state, which cannot last indefinitely and for 5000 years, and it would be heretical to say or think that it could.

To say an interregnum could last forever or even for 5000 years is heretical because it reaffirms the proposition condemned at Constance, "there is nothing whatever to show that the spiritual order demands a head who shall continue to live and endure forever with the Church militant" (Denz. 653)

It is also condemned, despite sedevacantist denial in Vatican I. There are two consequences of a supposed 5000 year interregnum, the Catholic Church would cease to be Apostolic (when every bishop appointed by the last Pope dies), the Catholic Church would cease to be Roman (when every Cardinal or Roman cleric incardinated by the last Pope dies. But this is impossible, and therefore the Petrine succession, which is inseparable from the Apostolic succession, and uniquely continued in the local Church of Rome, cannot cease indefinitely.

2. I await your response if you disagree, Jehanne, but are you now a formal heretic for having said so, or merely a Catholic erring in good faith? And if you protest you only desire to be a good Catholic, even if in error on this or that point, then why cannot the same be true of the Pope? And if you are only a Catholic in material error, then why is it impossible that Pope Francis is the same? Do you know St. Montfort says whoever prays his Rosary every day will never become a formal heretic, however grievously he may err materially? By the way, I would recommend you do the same, if you don't already do, and you will never go to hell, and have nothing to fear. If you fall into material error in this great trial the Church is undergoing, Our Lady will mercifully keep you from sin.

Pertinacity of the will is everything in heresy, it is what gives heresy its "form". The "matter" of heresy is error in the intellect. A person in material error is not strictly speaking a heretic, of such persons St. Augustine says, "they are not to be accounted heretics" and St. Thomas says, "If he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy, but only in error."

This is the same response Cardinal Billot gives to the sedevacantist Savonarola, because the whole Church professed communion with Alexander VI, it is impossible that the Pope was a true heretic at the time Savonarola was writing his letters calling for a Council. However, this does not preclude that if Pope Alexander VI had been admonished by the Cardinals or bishops, and after this had carried himself obstinate, he would indeed have become a manifest heretic, and then fallen ipso facto from his charge. This fact of the loss of office, once the pertinacity had become manifest, could then be subsequently declared by these same Cardinals and Bishops, after which they would immediately elect another Pope in his stead.

Quote from: Fr. Ballerini

“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic.

Nishant · « **Reply #82 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:58:13 AM »

3. So, if you really want to do something, you should complain to the Cardinals and Bishops, and it is their right to threaten the Pope when the Faith is in peril because of his actions. If he carries himself obstinate, he will become a formal heretic and lose the pontificate. If, however, upon this public admonition, he retracts his mistake, and recants his error, he will remain only materially in error, and material error does not cause the loss of the pontificate.

Quote

Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him.

Recall that St. Peter, Prince and head of the Apostles, Rock and foundation of the Church, denied his Master on the day of the greatest trial, when he should have been first to defend Him. St. Francis, commenting on this passage, says that St. Peter did not really deny Christ in his heart, but outwardly denied what he inwardly believed, through fear. The same that was true of St. Peter in the day of Christ's Passion is now true of St. Peter's successor in the day of the Church's Passion.

We know this with certainty, because the acceptance of a Papal election by the Church, in particular by the Cardinals and Bishops "is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election. (Billot, Van Noort, etc). It is easily provable as well, for if Pope Francis were at this moment outside the Church, then all Ordinaries who profess communion with him would also be outside the Church. But that is impossible, for it is de fide that there must always be Ordinaries in office in the Church. And therefore their acceptance of him in this sense proves that at this moment, he is not outside the Church, and so not a heretic. He may become a formal heretic, though, after he is publicly reprimanded as in the circuмstances mentioned above, and even then only if he carries himself obstinate, and refuses to repent. Otherwise, he is materially in error and so may be resisted by anyone, and rebuked in public when necessary, as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter, while "resisting him to the face", because "he was to be blamed".

An evil Vicar is a trial from God, and the eyes of Faith have always seen in such a one the wrath of divine Justice come upon a faithless and unbelieving people. St. John Eudes and Cardinal Cajetan teach this expressly, it is because of the sins of the people that a hypocrite rules over the people, it is because of their lack of faith, their inconstancy in prayer, their wavering in unbelief. St. Catherine of Sienna, whose devotion to her "Sweet Christ on Earth" is entirely beyond question does not hesitate to say, "Even if that Vicar be a devil incarnate ... whoever rebels against our Father is condemned to death. For all that we do to Him we do to Christ." So do not fall into the easy temptation of 56+year sedevacantism, which is nothing new, but a very old and oft-refuted error, which does not have good fruits and will needlessly imperil your soul.

Cantarella · « **Reply #83 on:** November 17, 2014, 03:42:23 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

The righteous man forgives his own enemies because he has died to himself. He instead makes God's enemies his enemies, and hates them with a perfect hatred (which you presumptuously - and quite wrongly - seem to have presumed means enacting some kind of vigilante justice against them. It doesn't... and nowhere in my post did I imply it does - the examples I cited were executed by a man with the authority to do so, the very highest authority on earth, in fact).

Very interesting. St Thomas is an excellent source to understand what Catholic "Perfect Hatred" consist of and how virtuous hatred actually belongs to the realm of charity (something utterly incomprehensible for the modern "sentimentalized" man).

From the Summa:

Quote

Whether Sinners Must Be Loved Out of Charity:

Objection 1: It seems that we should not love sinners out of charity. For it is written in the Psalms: "I have hated the wicked" (Ps 118:113). Now, David had perfect charity. Therefore, sinners should be hated rather than loved, out of charity.

Objection 2: Further, "love is proved by deeds," as St. Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. 30). But good men do no works of love to the wicked: on the contrary they do works that appear to be of hate, according to the Psalm (100: 8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land;" also, God commanded in Exodus (22:18): "You shall not suffer a witch to live." Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 3: Further, it is proper to friendship that one should desire and wish good things for one's friends. Now the saints, out of charity, desired evil things for the wicked, according to Psalm 9:18: "May the wicked be turned into Hell." Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 4: Further, it is proper to friends to rejoice in and desire the same things. Now charity does not make us desire what the sinners desire, nor to rejoice in what gives them joy, but rather the contrary. Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 5: Further, it is proper to friends to associate together, according to Ethics (chap 5, n. 3). But we should not associate with sinners, according to 2 Cor 6: 17: "Wherefore come out from among them and be separate." Therefore, we should not love sinners out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctrina Christi I, 30), "When it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor." Now, sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity.

I answer to these arguments that two things should be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for eternal happiness upon which the relationship of charity is based. as stated above (A. 3, q. 23, a. 1-5). Wherefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity in respect to their nature.

On the other hand, their guilt offends God and is an impediment to their eternal happiness. Wherefore, in respect to their guilt, so long as they offend God all sinners ought to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke (14:26). For it is our duty to hate in the sinner his being a sinner, and to love in him his being a man capable of achieving eternal happiness. This is to love him out of charity for the love of God.

Reply to objection 1: The Prophet hated the iniquitous as such, and the object of his hate was their iniquity. This is the perfect hatred of which the same Prophet says (Ps. 139: 22): I hate them with a perfect hatred. Now, for this same reason one hates what is bad in a person and loves what is good in him. Hence also this perfect hatred belongs to charity.

Reply to objection 2: As the Philosopher observes (Ethics, 9, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we should not deny them the benefits of friendship so long as there is hope of their mending their ways. And we should help them regain virtue more readily than to regain money, had they lost it, for virtue means more to friendship than money.

When, however, such persons fall into very great wickedness and become incurable, we should refuse them friendly treatment. It is for this reason that both divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because it is more likely that they will harm others than mend their ways.

Nevertheless the judge issues such sentences not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of love of charity, because he prefers the public good to the life of one single person. Moreover, the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner if he converts, as expiation for his crime; and if he does not convert, it profits him by putting an end to his sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin more.

Reply to objection 3: Such like imprecations that we come across in the Holy Scripture may be understood in three ways: First, by way of prediction, not by way of wish, so that the sense is: "The wicked shall be turned into Hell."
Second, by way of wish, so that the wishers desire refers not to the punishment the man receives, but to the justice of the punisher, according to Psalm 58:11: "The just shall rejoice when he shall see revenge." For according to the Book of Wisdom (1:13), not even God "delights in the perdition of the wicked" when He punishes them, but He rejoices in His justice, according to the Psalm (11:7): "The Lord is righteous and He loves righteousness."
Third, so that this desire refers to the removal of the guilt, not of the chastisement, in such a way that the sin be destroyed, but the man may live.

Reply to objection 4: We love sinners out of charity not so as to desire what they desire and to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them desire what we desire and rejoice in what makes us rejoice. Hence it is written (Jer 15:19): "Let them convert unto you; but you shall not convert unto them."

Reply to objection 5: The weak should avoid communicating with sinners on account of the danger of being perverted by them. But it is commendable for the perfect, whose fall is not to be feared, to communicate with sinners in order to convert them. Thus, the Lord ate and drank with sinners as reported in Matthew 9:11-13. Yet all should avoid the society of sinners when it means participation in sin. Thus it is written (2 Cor 6:17): "Go away from among them and touch not the unclear thing," that is, what is in accordance with sin.

Jehanne · « **Reply #84 on:** November 17, 2014, 06:19:06 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

2. I await your response if you disagree, Jehanne, but are you now a formal heretic for having said so, or merely a Catholic erring in good faith? And if you protest you only desire to be a good Catholic, even if in error on this or that point, then why cannot the same be true of the Pope?

As I have said, repeatedly, I am just a sededoubtist.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #85 on:** November 17, 2014, 08:44:15 AM »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/vSkwPiqyv-k[/youtube]

While he is giving this he is writing on a board resulting in his pause from time to time.

BTNYC · « **Reply #86 on:** November 17, 2014, 01:43:03 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: BTNYC

The righteous man forgives his own enemies because he has died to himself. He instead makes God's enemies his enemies, and hates them with a perfect hatred (which you presumptuously - and quite wrongly - seem to have presumed means enacting some kind of vigilante justice against them. It doesn't... and nowhere in my post did I imply it does - the examples I cited were executed by a man with the authority to do so, the very highest authority on earth, in fact).

Very interesting. St Thomas is an excellent source to understand what Catholic "Perfect Hatred" consist of and how virtuous hatred actually belongs to the realm of charity (something utterly incomprehensible for the modern "sentimentalized" man).

From the Summa:

Quote

Whether Sinners Must Be Loved Out of Charity:

Objection 1: It seems that we should not love sinners out of charity. For it is written in the Psalms: "I have hated the wicked" (Ps 118:113). Now, David had perfect charity. Therefore, sinners should be hated rather than loved, out of charity.

Objection 2: Further, "love is proved by deeds," as St. Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. 30). But good men do no works of love to the wicked: on the contrary they do works that appear to be of hate, according to the Psalm (100: 8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land;" also, God commanded in Exodus (22:18): "You shall not suffer a witch to live." Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 3: Further, it is proper to friendship that one should desire and wish good things for one's friends. Now the saints, out of charity, desired evil things for the wicked, according to Psalm 9:18: "May the wicked be turned into Hell." Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 4: Further, it is proper to friends to rejoice in and desire the same things. Now charity does not make us desire what the sinners desire, nor to rejoice in what gives them joy, but rather the contrary. Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.

Objection 5: Further, it is proper to friends to associate together, according to Ethics (chap 5, n. 3). But we should not associate with sinners, according to 2 Cor 6: 17: "Wherefore come out from among them and be separate." Therefore, we should not love sinners out of charity.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctrina Christi I, 30), "When it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor." Now, sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity.

I answer to these arguments that two things should be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for eternal happiness upon which the relationship of charity is based. as stated above (A. 3, q. 23, a. 1-5). Wherefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity in respect to their nature.

On the other hand, their guilt offends God and is an impediment to their eternal happiness. Wherefore, in respect to their guilt, so long as they offend God all sinners ought to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke (14:26). For it is our duty to hate in the sinner his being a sinner, and to love in him his being a man capable of achieving eternal happiness. This is to love him out of charity for the love of God.

Reply to objection 1: The Prophet hated the iniquitous as such, and the object of his hate was their iniquity. This is the perfect hatred of which the same Prophet says (Ps. 139: 22): I hate them with a perfect hatred. Now, for this same reason one hates what is bad in a person and loves what is good in him. Hence also this perfect hatred belongs to charity.

Reply to objection 2: As the Philosopher observes (Ethics, 9, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we should not deny them the benefits of friendship so long as there is hope of their mending their ways. And we should help them regain virtue more readily than to regain money, had they lost it, for virtue means more to friendship than money.

When, however, such persons fall into very great wickedness and become incurable, we should refuse them friendly treatment. It is for this reason that both divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because it is more likely that they will harm others than mend their ways.

Nevertheless the judge issues such sentences not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of love of charity, because he prefers the public good to the life of one single person. Moreover, the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner if he converts, as expiation for his crime; and if he does not convert, it profits him by putting an end to his sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin more.

Reply to objection 3: Such like imprecations that we come across in the Holy Scripture may be understood in three ways: First, by way of prediction, not by way of wish, so that the sense is: "The wicked shall be turned into Hell."
Second, by way of wish, so that the wishers desire refers not to the punishment the man receives, but to the justice of the punisher, according to Psalm 58:11: "The just shall rejoice when he shall see revenge." For according to the Book of Wisdom (1:13), not even God "delights in the perdition of the wicked" when He punishes them, but He rejoices in His justice, according to the Psalm (11:7): "The Lord is righteous and He loves righteousness."
Third, so that this desire refers to the removal of the guilt, not of the chastisement, in such a way that the sin be destroyed, but the man may live.

Reply to objection 4: We love sinners out of charity not so as to desire what they desire and to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them desire what we desire and rejoice in what makes us rejoice. Hence it is written (Jer 15:19): "Let them convert unto you; but you shall not convert unto them."

Reply to objection 5: The weak should avoid communicating with sinners on account of the danger of being perverted by them. But it is commendable for the perfect, whose fall is not to be feared, to communicate with sinners in order to convert them. Thus, the Lord ate and drank with sinners as reported in Matthew 9:11-13. Yet all should avoid the society of sinners when it means participation in sin. Thus it is written (2 Cor 6:17): "Go away from among them and touch not the unclear thing," that is, what is in accordance with sin.

Thank you for this. I will certainly defer to the Angelic Doctor's impeccably precise formulation over my own less precise one and certainly over Andy Sloan's wishy washy, emotionalistic pontifications which gloss entirely over the "perfect hatred" for God's enemies spoken of in the Psalm.

andysloan · « **Reply #87 on:** November 17, 2014, 07:05:36 PM »

BTNYC said:

"Thank you for this. I will certainly defer to the Angelic Doctor's impeccably precise formulation over my own less precise one and certainly over Andy Sloan's wishy washy, emotionalistic pontifications which gloss entirely over the "perfect hatred" for God's enemies spoken of in the Psalm."

What I said is the same in substance as the replies of St Thomas to objections 1 & 2.

Nishant · « **Reply #88 on:** November 17, 2014, 11:31:50 PM »

Jehanne,

You are a good man, so do not worry, but pray. I believe it is the Rosary that has saved these Popes from becoming formal heretics, St. Montfort says, "dear brothers of the Rosary Confraternity, if you genuinely wish to reach a high level of prayer in all honesty and without falling into the traps that the devil sets for those who pray, say your whole Rosary every day, or at least five decades of it ... For never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic or be led astray by the devil. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood. "

Prophecy and private revelation, written for our time, confirms what we know from theology. St. John Bosco, exactly one hundred years before the Second Vatican Council told us this, "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady."

which again shows us both that Marian devotion is the real solution to the crisis in the Church and that there really are perpetual successors to St. Peter during and after it. St. John Bosco also speaks of two Papal elections in this famous "Two Pillars Prophecy". Anne Catherine Emmerick also saw in our times (she said Lucifer would be freed and given great power around 50 years before 2000 A.D.) the satanic sect of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ given great power to attack and subvert the Church of St. Peter.

She saw there in Rome beside the Pope, many clergy and ecclesiastics, the vast majority of whom she said were lukewarm and indifferent. Her solution too was that we must pray night and day for the darkness to be lifted and for the good to prevail. So keep the Faith, continue fighting the good fight and do not be needlessly distressed. Turn to God and Our Lady in prayer and total consecration, for this is the time for Saints. The good God is with us always, even till the end of days, as He has promised. And as He said to His Apostles, He has told us all these things beforehand, so that when they come to pass, we may not away faint away with fear. The same is true for all striving to be good Catholics, even if they are more or less tempted by sedevacantism and despair.

Finally, Pope St. Pius X, whose first name was Giuseppe or Joseph, saw in a vision a Pope of the same name fleeing over dead bodies in Rome. Pope Benedict XVIs first name is also Giuseppe or Joseph, and personally I think there is a good chance, he is the Pope who is spoken of. That is only a guess, but if true, it means significant events are closer than we think, given that the former Holy Father is quite old and will probably not live much longer. Perhaps it will be the Russian invasion of Rome and of Europe, spoken of in many prophecies, that will finally bring the Roman authorities to their senses, prove to them incontrovertibly that Russia is in need of specifically being consecrated to the Immaculate Heart. In that case, it could well be Pope Francis and the bishops with him of whom Christ said at Fatima, that "they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late." Let us pray every day with the holy children of Fatima, "Sweet Heart of Mary, be the salvation of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the whole world." and "By Thy Pure and Immaculate Conception, O Mary, obtain for me the conversion of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the whole world." God has promised us that after we have sufficiently prayed and worked for it, the Pope and the Bishops will consecrate Russia, Her Immaculate Heart will triumph and a period of peace will be given to the world.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #89 on:** November 18, 2014, 01:54:43 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

This thread is a prime example of dialectic meets rhetoric. Explanation and analysis meets sloganeering. Quite typical.

If only there was an uncorrupted bishop or cardinal who would happily address all of this.

Such is our times.

Sedevacantism is schismatic.

:reading:

Why are we having these times, Laramie?

Why are there no uncorrupted bishops or cardinals?

When a Cardinal become Pope, from that corrupted lot, does he automatically becuмe purity?

By the way, the Pope should be held to a higher standard and not this whole "as long as he doesn't state his errors Ex Cathedra he's okay with whatever he does" as if the Pope could hang out in a brothel all day long so long as he doesn't make any Ex Cathedra statements.

Again, look to the example of Our Lord on the Cross. He did not condemn those at the foot because they followed Our Lord to his Death on the Cross and did not follow St Peter into the dark night of denial.