Author Topic: Michael Voris "clarification" (Read 2878 times)

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **on:** October 26, 2014, 03:17:58 AM »

I retract my words, I finally saw this .

If he had remained silent on the topic, or just made a mere retraction because of his troubled conscience... I would be more willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt, but he has wickedly not only suggested that his reporting of truth was mortally sinful. This video is riddled with so many errors, so many problems that it is truly undefensible.

Michael Voris has without a doubt, demonstrated with his words in this video to be a liberal and the most pernicious enemy of the faith. My sincerest apologies if I had made the suggestion that indeed Voris was heading in the right direction, that is certainly the impression that he gave. I took him at his own word, and now that he has made it abundantly clear that he stands to defend modernist heretics. Then I have no choice but to condemn the man, this is sad because he certainly seems for a second, to be heading towards the right direction.

Certainly keep him in your prayers, but nevertheless he has made it clear that he is an enemy of the faith. That much we can be able to know, that objectively speaking he is not to be treated as a friend of tradition.

Shows no signs, that he is even a bit troubled. He has made up his mind at the moment, and as long as he continues on that sure path to perdition then we must call him out on it. I am certainly very saddened by Mr. Voris, he certainly could do a lot of good for the cause of truth.

He is in a current state of blindness, and he has shown his bad will by opposing Catholic truth. For there are many ways in which one can participate in the sin of another, and by his retraction he has exactly done that in so many ways. This for all tense and purposes, any good he has done so far is completely utterly null and void now.

I would highly recommend for everyone if they haven't already to read, Liberalism is a Sin... It is truly a book that complements many of the anti-modernist encyclicals of the Popes. It helps you better be able to identify a confused Catholic and an enemy of the Catholic faith. Truth is objective and can certainly be known by natural reason enlightened by faith.

Anyone that thinks an anti-Church, the false bride with her ecuмenism (like a whore) is perfectly synonymous with the true Church of Christ the immaculate spouse of Christ. Is simply a blind and wicked man. For he knows better, given the books that I know he has personally read. I have spoken to him and asked him, unless he lied to me which I cannot presume such a thing. Taking him by his word, he should know better, but yet he shows himself to be intellectually dishonest, showing no sort of sign that he even doubts whether his current position is the true one. Some sort of remorse for such a change of heart, that he has to take some time off to think about it. Nope no indication... So be it, you have self-condemned yourself by your own judgment. What an unhappy state, truly terrifying.

+Dominus maneat sit semper vobiscuм+ Amen.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2014, 08:26:09 AM »

Thumbs up my friend.

andysloan · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2014, 09:24:36 PM »

ThomisticPhilosopher said:

"Then I have no choice but to condemn the man."

Well, I am sure Mr Voris is quaking in his shoes at your anathema.

And let's hope St Catherine of Siena repented:

"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

It is in fact you who are blind; who say:

"Anyone that thinks an anti-Church, the false bride with her ecuмenism (like a whore) is perfectly synonymous with the true Church of Christ the immaculate spouse of Christ. Is simply a blind and wicked man."

Luke 18:11

"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."

As Pope Francis said:

"A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others." —POPE FRANCIS, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 94

Despite the fact that we have Traditional & NO forms of the Mass at present, the Pope is the Pope if he is canonically elected and that is the end of the matter. Mr Voris is right; all must submit to him in heart for salvation.

Colossians 2:18-19

"Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God."

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #3 on:** October 26, 2014, 11:36:34 PM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Michael Voris has without a doubt, demonstrated with his words in this video to be a liberal and the most pernicious enemy of the faith.

Overreact much?

:read-paper:

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2014, 06:40:26 AM »

Is there a link to the clarification?

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2014, 12:18:18 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Is there a link to the clarification?

Yes its in the initial o.p. the highlighted video part.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #6 on:** October 27, 2014, 12:59:20 PM »

He stands self-condemned. I am just pointing out as a watch dog, to warn other's that might have been deceived or even just thought that he somehow was heading in the right direction.

Your quotes of private revelation prove nothing. I have already refuted your claims in another post. The fact you keep quoting it, just shows that you only know how to copy paste and have no love for truth.

Your argument is a straw man, how did I in any way shape or form say or suggest, that I was more virtuous then him? He is an enemy of the faith, I never judged his personal deeds. For I know that Mr. Voris actually is a man who is personally a man who has many natural virtues. I have said this in other post's, and I even waited years before making this judgment. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, that many others have already said before. He is a de facto Liberal as outlined by that book I told you to read.

Your quoting of a known public manifest heretic, just shows how bad willed you are. Your quoting of Bergoglio stands as proof that indeed I am right. That man is a wicked apostate, and your using him as "ammunition" comes to show that your totally immersed in the new religion.

null

Quote

That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgment of the Church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means. If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which to practically annul all the Church's condemnations of Liberalism. The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right, juris et facti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments, less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are:
1. Judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. Judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. Judgments of directors of consciences.
4. Judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.

These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider. There is another factor in this matter entitled to respect and that is:

5. The judgment of simple human reason duly enlightened.

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illuminated by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all, because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes.-----"It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.

Your the one with itching ears, and coming out with sentimentalist arguments that have long been refuted. To be obedient to heretical superiors is sinful, its that simple. St. Alphonsus writes that someone who is in an institute that is notorious for not following the rule (really bad), or there is public manifest scandal, or even worse God forbid heretics. That one MUST immediately be transferred or get out of there, as soon as possible.

What you and your apostate kind would have us believe, that the Church as such is paralyzed and that it is impossible to be ever to know whether a man is a heretic or not. For it would be absurd to expect for every single man to be named by an ecclesiastical court. Imagine every single protestant named by name, which we "must avoid." No instead what the Church rightfully does, is she tells us anyone who follows x and y beliefs are to be anathematized ipso facto.

Denzinger:

Quote

763 23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not
deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church. Condemned

Quote

1546 46. The proposition asserting that "the effect of excommunication is
merely exterior, because by its nature it merely excludes from exterior
communion with the Church"; as if excommunication were not a spirit-
ual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls (from St. August.,
Epistle 250 to Bishop Auxilius; Tract 50 in lo., 12), — false, dangerous,
condemned in art. 23 of Luther [see n. 763], at least erroneous.

1547 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, accord-
ing to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for
suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, there-
fore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a
serious threat without any actual effect, — false, rash, pernicious, injurious
to the power of the Church, erroneous.

49. Likewise, the proposition which condemns as null and invalid 1549
"suspensions imposed from an informed conscience," — false, pernicious,
injurious to Trent.

Notice also I did not call Mr. Voris a heretic, but a Liberal and a destroyer of the faith. For it is not heresy alone that can damn you to hell, but the defense of heresies/heretics that leads to the complete paralyzing of the faithful. For if the liberals had their way, there would no one left and their opinions would be left to roam freely and infect poor souls who do not know better. This is why he must be condemned, because he participates in their sin by his grave sins of omission. Even going so far as to suggest that what he did was "mortally sinful", which is a hint to all those who are defending the faith against the onslaught of modernist/heretics also need to go to confession, because they are sinning mortally. It was chiefly this that gave me a clue as to why this man is indeed false under the anathema of St. Thomas sermon, Attendite (deals with false teachers, and false shepherds). Here is the text: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Serm14Attendite.htm which you can see here, Geremia has uploaded it the audio to youtube

Quote

This point is illustrated in Exodus where it says that if anyone digs a well and opens the pit and does not cover it, and if their neighbor's ox comes along and falls into the pit, the person who opened the pit is held accountable for its restitution. That person who instills doubt about those things which belong to faith opens a pit; he does not cover the pit who does not resolve the doubt, even though he himself possesses sound and clear understanding and is not deceived. Nonetheless the other person who does not possess such clear understanding is truly deceived, and so that man who instilled the doubt is held accountable for restitution, since it was through him that the other man fell into the pit.

This is why he must be publicly recognized as a deceiver, because even if a traditionalist might not be "fooled" by Voris, there are many conservatives who do follow his opinions. We are just being zealous for the faith, and pointing out where precisely he is being a destroyer of the faith as I have clearly outlined in my post and response to you.

Quote from: andysloan

ThomisticPhilosopher said:

"Then I have no choice but to condemn the man."

Well, I am sure Mr Voris is quaking in his shoes at your anathema.

And let's hope St Catherine of Siena repented:

"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (Letter to Bernabo Visconti)

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

It is in fact you who are blind; who say:

"Anyone that thinks an anti-Church, the false bride with her ecuмenism (like a whore) is perfectly synonymous with the true Church of Christ the immaculate spouse of Christ. Is simply a blind and wicked man."

Luke 18:11

"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."

As Pope Francis said:

"A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others." —POPE FRANCIS, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 94

Despite the fact that we have Traditional & NO forms of the Mass at present, the Pope is the Pope if he is canonically elected and that is the end of the matter. Mr Voris is right; all must submit to him in heart for salvation.

Colossians 2:18-19

"Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God."

andysloan · « **Reply #7 on:** October 27, 2014, 05:31:43 PM »

To Thomisticphilosopher

Approved private revelation is a gift of God to assist the faithful:

1 Corinthians 14:6

"But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?"

And St Catherine of Siena is a doctor of the Church

http://www.catholic.org/saints/doctors.php

Here is another private revelation that may prove instructive; the testimony of devils through a possessed woman, who was exorcised by 8 traditional priests in the 1970's

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B56CLP0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00B56CLP0&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

TRADITIONALISTS

Exorcist: In the name...!

Demon Beelzebuub: There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.” That is pretty close to the sects: they say the same thing. Those up there (he points upward) do not like this behavior at all.. They do not love men very much who are righteous in their own eyes.

If, in this book, it has been necessary to speak about the Mass and about the Church, and amongst other things, the Mass of Saint Pius V, that does not mean to say that certain “traditionalists” should exalt themselves above the modernists, as if they were the only ones who know how to make a sound judgment, in a suitable way, and with all the necessary competence. That is not what this book is all about. It is simply intended to expose all the abuses in the Church, such as they exist today.

But, to complete the picture, we must still say this: The priests who say: “It is better for you to stay at home rather than go to such Masses”, are making a mistake. If the Mass is degraded to that point where the priest himself no longer believes in the words of the Consecration, and no longer pronounces the words as they should be pronounced, if he no longer has the intention of consecrating, then the host is not consecrated, it is true... but, for all that, people can still pray in the church.

I have to say this also: they are defrauded of Christ and of the fullness of the graces, it is true, but certain graces are still attached to it. Especially when good Christians, of deep faith, go to Mass and Communion full of devotion, with the intention of receiving Christ, then Heaven is fair enough not to say simply: “Because the priest is not doing things properly, there will be no graces here!” Those people nevertheless do receive certain graces.[54]

B: If the people have the opportunity of going to a Mass of Saint Pius V, then Heaven prefers that, very much so. But if there is no other possibility, they may go to another Mass. After the Mass of Saint Pius V in Latin,[55] the Tridentine Mass[56] in the vernacular comes in second place, provided that it comprises the totality of the words of the Tridentine Mass as far as this is possible. Only after these, in third place, comes the New Mass. But those people, if they do not know these things and are of good faith, nevertheless fulfill their duty to the Lord, in so far as that is their intention.

On the other hand, if they know very well that a kilometer further away, they would find a Mass of Saint Pius V, and if they say to themselves: “Bah! That, is too far away for me, I am not going to run over there!”; and if they know very well that that would be better, then we have a different situation. Then, they have lost out enormously through negligence. They should have gone that kilometer. Do you know (in a tearful voice) how far we would go, if we were still able to share in such great graces? Ah! We would travel to the ends of the earth, if we still had a chance! We do not wish to imply by this, that the other Masses are as good. We have already said enough about which Mass Those up there prefer (he points upward).

We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects...

And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees.

andysloan · « **Reply #8 on:** October 27, 2014, 05:42:46 PM »

Thomisticphilosopher says:

Notice I did not call Voris a heretic

Not a heretic, but:

Michael Voris has without a doubt, demonstrated with his words in this video to be a liberal and the most pernicious enemy of the faith.

Anyone that thinks an anti-Church, the false bride with her ecuмenism (like a whore) is perfectly synonymous with the true Church of Christ the immaculate spouse of Christ. Is simply a blind and wicked man.

Psalms 108:29

Let them that detract me be clothed with shame: and let them be covered with the their confusion as with a double cloak.

and so it with the generally abusive mouths of sedevacantists/followers of Fr Feeney.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #9 on:** October 27, 2014, 05:53:59 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Thomisticphilosopher

Approved private revelation is a gift of God to assist the faithful:

1 Corinthians 14:6

"But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?"

And St Catherine of Siena is a doctor of the Church

http://www.catholic.org/saints/doctors.php

Here is another private revelation that may prove instructive; the testimony of devils through a possessed woman, who was exorcised by 8 traditional priests in the 1970's

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B56CLP0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00B56CLP0&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

TRADITIONALISTS

Exorcist: In the name...!

Demon Beelzebuub: There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.” That is pretty close to the sects: they say the same thing. Those up there (he points upward) do not like this behavior at all.. They do not love men very much who are righteous in their own eyes.

If, in this book, it has been necessary to speak about the Mass and about the Church, and amongst other things, the Mass of Saint Pius V, that does not mean to say that certain “traditionalists” should exalt themselves above the modernists, as if they were the only ones who know how to make a sound judgment, in a suitable way, and with all the necessary competence. That is not what this book is all about. It is simply intended to expose all the abuses in the Church, such as they exist today.

But, to complete the picture, we must still say this: The priests who say: “It is better for you to stay at home rather than go to such Masses”, are making a mistake. If the Mass is degraded to that point where the priest himself no longer believes in the words of the Consecration, and no longer pronounces the words as they should be pronounced, if he no longer has the intention of consecrating, then the host is not consecrated, it is true... but, for all that, people can still pray in the church.

I have to say this also: they are defrauded of Christ and of the fullness of the graces, it is true, but certain graces are still attached to it. Especially when good Christians, of deep faith, go to Mass and Communion full of devotion, with the intention of receiving Christ, then Heaven is fair enough not to say simply: “Because the priest is not doing things properly, there will be no graces here!” Those people nevertheless do receive certain graces.[54]

B: If the people have the opportunity of going to a Mass of Saint Pius V, then Heaven prefers that, very much so. But if there is no other possibility, they may go to another Mass. After the Mass of Saint Pius V in Latin,[55] the Tridentine Mass[56] in the vernacular comes in second place, provided that it comprises the totality of the words of the Tridentine Mass as far as this is possible. Only after these, in third place, comes the New Mass. But those people, if they do not know these things and are of good faith, nevertheless fulfill their duty to the Lord, in so far as that is their intention.

On the other hand, if they know very well that a kilometer further away, they would find a Mass of Saint Pius V, and if they say to themselves: “Bah! That, is too far away for me, I am not going to run over there!”; and if they know very well that that would be better, then we have a different situation. Then, they have lost out enormously through negligence. They should have gone that kilometer. Do you know (in a tearful voice) how far we would go, if we were still able to share in such great graces? Ah! We would travel to the ends of the earth, if we still had a chance! We do not wish to imply by this, that the other Masses are as good. We have already said enough about which Mass Those up there prefer (he points upward).

We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects...

And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees.

I don't know what to tell you... You are self-deluded. You think yourself some prophet from God, that "knows" the intended meaning of private revelation. When even those who received it most of the time misinterpret it, such as the famous of St. Francis of Assisi which I have already TOLD you countless times.

I have actually read that "private" exorcism you are referring to. I have read it in spanish twice... That exorcism is a big phony, it has false doctrines.

Your logic:
1) Private revelation is a gift of God.
2) I quote to you private revelation.
3) You are wrong.

Real logic:
1) Private revelation of itself without the magisterium is nothing.
2) Your quoting of it is irrelevant, for you "presume" your interpretation of it is wrong, and you don't even bother to back it up with additional Church teaching.
3) Additionally you quote me some phony private revelation that has no real Church approval...

You essentially put the cart before the horse, you quote me stuff that has not been approved, and use it as evidence. Why not try and find pre-Vatican II sources to prove "your religion."

You quote the sodomite approving Bergoglio, as "ammunition" really shows just how devoid of Catholic principles you are.

Just to show people how bad things are, I will show Wojtyla's writings.

Check out ut Unum Sunt http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Notice the footnotes 69 in total, this is the only one that is non-Vatican II source

Quote

In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared "from the time of Abel, the just one".19
9 Cf. SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, Homilies on the Gospel, 19, 1: PL, 1154, quoted in SECOND VATICAN EcuмENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 2.

What is so bad, that even the ONE source they quote, was quoted from Vatican II! So lets look at that source and even then it was not the same quote. You see this sort of stuff happen all the time, they misquote the Father's and endlessly self-reference to their own novelty:

Quote

God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".(2)
(2) Cfr. S. Gregorius M., Hom in Evang. 19, 1: PL 76, 1154 B. S Augustinus, Serm. 341, 9, 11: PL 39, 1499 s. S. Io. Damascenus, Adv. Iconocl. 11: PG 96, 1357.

This is the sort of thing that you see riddled all over Vatican II, the logical fallacy of not being able to prove their novelties with anything then what novel teachings of anti-Popes have said or done. Same tactics used by andysloan, who simply expects of us to receive "teaching" from his schismatic gnostic sect without any proof.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2014, 07:49:57 PM »

TP, I wouldn't waste your time with andysloan.

andysloan · « **Reply #11 on:** October 27, 2014, 08:37:28 PM »

How can they be anti-popes when The Holy Ghost states at Vatican 1 that the succession continues forever?

Vatican 1 - Infallible Council

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time .

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

"Permanent" and "for ever" give lie to a so-called 50 year interregnum

And your private declaration against the Popes is prohibited Our Lord:

Matthew 18:15-17

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

andysloan · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2014, 08:48:30 PM »

2Vermont said:

"TP, I wouldn't waste your time with andysloan."

ie; he must be marginalised - the truth he tells exposes the falsity in our hearts which we are unwilling to admit.

John 3:20

"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved."

We cannot relinquish our heresy, because it gives us crown of superiority to others.

Colossians 2:18-19

"Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. "

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2014, 04:48:00 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

2Vermont said:

"TP, I wouldn't waste your time with andysloan."

ie; he must be marginalised - the truth he tells exposes the falsity in our hearts which we are unwilling to admit.

Blah, blah, blah......

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2014, 08:02:08 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

How can they be anti-popes when The Holy Ghost states at Vatican 1 that the succession continues forever?

Vatican 1 - Infallible Council

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time .

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

"Permanent" and "for ever" give lie to a so-called 50 year interregnum

And your private declaration against the Popes is prohibited Our Lord:

Matthew 18:15-17

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Vatican I

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

And that says it all, infallibly.