Author Topic: Question for Gladius and or Cletus  (Read 2474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sedetrad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1585
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Question for Gladius and or Cletus
« on: September 05, 2008, 09:05:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7083
    • Reputation: +438/-197
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #1 on: September 05, 2008, 12:48:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would like to thank sedetrad for not asking my opinion on this because I have never claimed to be a 'sede vacantist' as this label was put on me by others.

    Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1958 and I do not believe the Papacy has ever actually been vacant. The faction in possession of the buildings of Vatican City and Rome since the john 23 usurpation is simply one of illegitimate, schismatical, apostate. judeo-masonic anti-popes.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7083
    • Reputation: +438/-197
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 12:53:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does sedetrad believe there is such a thing as an anti-pope?
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #3 on: September 05, 2008, 12:53:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This article is total nonsense.

    The author doesn't know what he's talking about on a single point he raises.

    His theological categories are totally self-invented.

    If we are going to make judgments on such things as heresy and automatic loss of office and so forth we have to work with the theological tools we find in Church doctrine and practice and theological tradition.

    The author's use of the complex case of Pope Honorius is bogus. Honorius was never condemned as a heretic and declared to be an "illegitimate but valid" pope by the Church. No Doctor, no approved author, no pontiff ever spoke of such a monstrosity as an "illegitimate but valid" pope.

    What this author is doing is called "making it up out of broadcloth as you go along."

    I believe that such activity is the essence of mainline Traditionalism. Pietistic hysteria is shamelessly indulged at the expense of all truth and reason and reality. And worse, these shamelessly confabulating hysterics dare to put on the airs of wide and cautious scholarship and scold those who, as distinct from them, are merely in some sort of contact with Catholic reality. "You're proud, you fail to make distinctions etc..."

    I can distinguish a Traditionalist apologist with a semblance of a case from one who is just taking advantage of the ignorance of his readers. Guimares is in the latter group.

    I have read many of Guimares's works. I think that there is a certain crookedness of approach to Catholic reality in every other line of his. His besetting devil is undoubtedly the common Traditionalist devil whereby Vatican II is the Pit of Error one minute and ithen (in the light of Tradition, of course) a regrettably defective but not altogether unworthy beacon of at least SOME Catholic truth.

    What Guimares would have done if his theology were really so "elementary" is cite one Doctor or Approved Author who supported it. He didn't do that because he can't. His aberrant fantasies about a valid but illegitimate pope are not even in the mix.

    People moan and groan about the Masons and the Illuminati and the One World Order "Year Zero" philosophy. What we really need to guard against is the absolute decadence of Holy Reason to be found among so-called Traditionalist apologists. The "thinking" of Guimares cuts us off from history, from Tradition, from the Living God, from other men of what the Scholastics called Adequate Mind. It's just a bad dreamy, psychedelic blast from the late 1960s and early 1970s we could all live without. It's like this crazy, kooky hyperdulia aspergillum head trip.

    His treatment of issues is sloppy. All sedevacantists hold that there are NO valid sacraments in the Novus Ordo cult? That's untrue. He probably is referring only to the post-1969 Orders and Eucharist. But, I think, ALL sedevacantists hold that some priestly geezer ordained in the old rite and celebrating the Indult Mass is providing a valid sacrament. (Unless he is a formal Modernist and does not intend to do what the Church does etc...)

    But it's not enough to accuse Guimares of being a slob as a controversialist. Anyone can nod while making a case, and presuppose things which should have been spelled out for the record. I think that with Guimares the misrepresenation of what sedevacantists hold about Novus Ordo sacraments is more than an oversight. He's laboring overtime to make them look as bad as possible, truth be damned.

    Let's take a look at what Guimares has to say about the Church and Protestant orders and sacraments. No. Let's not. It's bad for the soul to have such queasy excretions appear before one's mind. How does one go about achieving such perfect mystical union with the Spirit of Untruth?

    Do I really need to spell out how wrong he is here? Did Queen Victoria invite Leo XIII to tea after all? It would take a Chesterton to do justice to the paradox involved, but I think I can at least state it: The power that some of these Traditionalist apologists enjoy lies in the very fantasticality of their penchant for being totally wrong about everything.

    As for "creating confusion", what about Traditionalists who hold Paul VI to have been a true pope with true concern for the Faith no less, but question the validity of his Mass and his new crop of bishops and priests after 1969? Archbishop Lefebvre certainly raised doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo Orders and Eucharist, and spoke of his obligation to provide the faithful with certainly valid priests and sacraments.

    Why pick on the sedevacantists when it comes to proposing theories that have their troubling obscurities and apparent contradictions? A dear Holy Father who also happens to be the Antichrist on his off days is not already a source of chaos and suffering, with no help from sedevacantists?


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #4 on: September 05, 2008, 04:03:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #5 on: September 05, 2008, 07:23:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Leo XIII declared that the orders imposed by Anglican bishops were invalid.

    How much more would he have said the same about those imposed by the so-called bishops in Appalachian snake handler territory. (Were there any who tried to fake priesthood at all.)

    So who on earth is Guimares talking about when he talks about the Church's recognizing the validity of Protestant orders?

    Maybe Guimares has Orthodoxy in mind. But he wrote about Protestantism. He is throwing idiotic fantasy into the faces of sedevacantists and just hoping that for all that something will stick to make them look bad.

    That's despicable.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #6 on: September 05, 2008, 08:11:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FWIW - This "letter" is in response to an email that I sent in to TIA.  Since it is addressed to E.S., which are my initials, I suspected this was the case.  Going to TIA, I saw that they had posted my email, as well as the response thereto.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #7 on: September 05, 2008, 08:17:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cletus
    I think that with Guimares the misrepresenation of what sedevacantists hold about Novus Ordo sacraments is more than an oversight. He's laboring overtime to make them look as bad as possible, truth be damned.


    When one is trying to put one over on sheople who have neither the time nor desire to look into the matter, anything goes.

    BTW - I never actually received this response myself.  The first time I saw it was when it was posted on this board.  Odd, no?
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline sedetrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1585
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #8 on: September 05, 2008, 09:27:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I found his response to your letter to be asinine. Thank you both for your well thought out responses. I agree with both of you.

    Andy

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +44/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #9 on: September 06, 2008, 07:14:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I read this yesterday and thought to myself, hmm ES. Bet that is my old friend Gladius.

    As far as anti-Pope. If you become a heretic while in the Papacy you are a anti-Pope right? But, if you are a heretic before you are named Pope, like JPII and B16 the whole thing was a sham from the start, you never could have been the Pontiff. So then, is there another term to describe these men?
    Not trying to argue, but it seems there should be another term. anti-christ with a small A perhaps?

    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #10 on: September 06, 2008, 10:09:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We have no one to guide us in this matter.

    No great Doctor or Approved Author ever offered an opinion on it.

    Heretical putative popes have never been a problem before. Though we had a close shave with poor old Honorius.

    We have to work out something ourselves, realizing that we're just winging it.

    I doubt that any of the theologians who treated of defective pontiffs and heretical putative pontiffs would approve of making this dictinction between a pope who became a heretic and lost his office and one who had been a heretic before his apparent election and thus never was pope. There are some who would say that the former scenario is a theological impossibility.

    I think that if there are years to come in this world, in years to come Catholics will start taking a broader view of what now is referred to by some with impudent frivolity as "the pope problem" and reject the Vatican II papal pretenders in broader terms. As false philosophers. false teachers, enemies of the Gospel, destroyers of Reason, proponents of wordly Liberalism, at least semi-Modernists and so forth.

    Right now sedevacantists are stuck with the leaky boat of the whole "he must be a formal heretic" construction.

    Is false philosophy necessarily heretical? That question doesn't even compute theologically. And yet offshoots of human ungodliness do not get more diabolical than Josef Ratzinger's "error as an aspect of truth" philosophy. And the creature proposes his ungodly philosophy to every mind on the face of the earth in the name of Christ, demanding according to traditional religious terms in which he only half-believes that they accept it under penalty of Mortal Sin because he is the Rock. This "false wisdom" that dissolves all Truth is essential to his Pentecost.  

    How about a false Gospel? How about, in particular, the false Gospel of Vatican II and the Vatican II church whereby the Holy Spirit is posited as the Life Force behind the evolution of the wonderful and exciting Modern World? Blasphemous, of course. Bestial, no doubt. But heretical? How so? Are  we all SURE that a proposition contrary to divine AND Catholic faith is being proposed? No cheating, now. It can't violate a proposition of mere divine Faith. I

    t can't merely kick the son of Joseph in the Teeth.

    How about simple lousy attitude? Cardinal Hume clearly stating his belief in the Resurrection of Jesus but going on to insinuate that it's not a very important part of the Christian Faith. Where exactly (and our Scholastic buddies of days gone by demand precision) is the heresy in His Eminence's statement?

    We could call the Vatican II pretenders "non-popes." We could call them Fred. So long as we don't call them Holy Father.


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #11 on: September 06, 2008, 10:18:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I couldn't find "E. S"'s email on the TIA site. I saw a few other anti-sedevacantist offerings but no reply to E.S.

    I also noted that Mr Gimaraes has at times objected to attempts to soften resistance to Vatican II in the way I suggested he might.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #12 on: September 06, 2008, 11:18:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is under the "What people are commenting" of Sept. 4 - 'Bishops in Jail, Belloc, and Prisoners.'  Why, dunno - but it is.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7083
    • Reputation: +438/-197
    • Gender: Male
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #13 on: September 06, 2008, 01:20:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let us consider the case of three'popes' whose actions qualify them as anti-popes( those acts have been set out previously and need not be repeated here)

    Boniface 8
    Benedict 15
    John 23 and his successors.

    Strange as it seems, their 'elections' seem to be fraudulent as well. In the case of Boniface, Dante himself suspected this to be the case. As to Benedict 15, it is plain to me that (like Hildebrand) Cardinal Raphael was practically Pope by Acclimation in 1914. There is no way the LEAST PAPABILE  of all cardinals could have been elected in his place: someone else--possibly but not Della Chiesa.

    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +44/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Question for Gladius and or Cletus
    « Reply #14 on: September 06, 2008, 02:14:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think it was subliminal. Jail, Prisoners....Sede. Anyone else in the world is acceptable but a sede. I see that people will are happy with Palin for V.P. She can be accepted by Trad Catholics because even though she left the Church to become Pentecostal atleast she is not one of them thar Sedes.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16