I'm nearly a complete stranger to the Novus Ordo of the 21st century, but I get the impression that a majority of its "lay ministers" are women.  Some of those women are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as lectors.  Even more countertraditionally, women distributing communion are carrying out the functions traditionally restricted to men who received at least the sacred order of the diaconate (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing about whether handling consecrated species is ever allowed to subdeacons).  The "altar girls" are carrying out the functions of the minor order known as acolytes.

You are pretty much right on target with all your impressions here.

My best guess is that at some time in his tenure as "Bishop of Rome", Francis will issue a decree formally declaring the minor orders open to women.

The minor orders are gone in the Novus Ordo.  They simply don't exist.  He will not formally decree them open to women; they already do all of these functions as "ministers".  In the Novus Ordo, everything people do for the parish is called a "ministry" of some sort or another and all of them are open to women.  

But it is not these functions that are on the minds of the Conciliarists.  And it is not the minor orders, either, because few Conciliarists would really know what the term, minor orders, even means.

The serious discussions in some Novus Ordo circles is about ordaining deaconesses.  This, I think, is what Bergoglio will permit.  And my "prediction" is that within 5 years of authorizing the ordination of deaconesses, they will have worked out the pseudo-theological grounds for ordaining priestesses.  It may take the election of "Francis II" to get to the actual ordination of priestesses, but it will most certainly come.

If the Vatican is sacked by a rebellion (as prophecies tell), and new people are installed who have no apostolic authority whatsoever, and they had a pope who was never ordinated--then I would recognize that man/woman in the Vatican as a false pope.

Um, I don't think that your description would be much of, if at all, a reach to ascribe to Vatican II.  Is'nt it a rebellion, isnt' what you described EXACTLY what happened in the Church?   I'm sure for years in remote parts of England and it's empire there may have existed valid orders and Catholic priests in the C of E, yet we can't call that church THE Church can we?  I can't fully commit to sedevacantism yet either but it seems more and more likely every day doesn't it?  

Confusing as times are today, I wouldn't be shocked if it weren't the end times themselves.  Things are Baaaaadddd!!!!!

My take on this issue is that the Novus Ordo church won't even try to emulate minor Orders and major Orders.  They will obsess upon the antiquarianism of "deconesses" in the primitive Church and then completely make up something totally different.  That's the "modus operandi" with the Novus Ordo.  They dig up something so ancient and so obscure, change it to meet their own modernistic means, then enthrone it upon a pedestal and proclaim it "Catholic".  The whole Novus Ordo is based upon "making things up".  "Deconesses" will be just another "make believe" fairy tale right along with the Novus Ordo "mass" they so adamantly insist that the early Church had for mass.  Only the name will be based on anything legitimate (as obscure as the term "deconesses" is).

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm not patronizing you any further, and no one else should either.  From your ridiculously offensive 'satirical' post encouraging people to leave the Church because it has failed to you maligning traditional Catholics as those who have left Our Lord while He was hanging from the Tree, I'm done.

Satirical.  I was actually sincere.

I have not encouraged anyone to do anything yet.

I have not maligned anyone yet.  Only the schism of sedevacantism, which is an abstract idea, and not a person.

Alright lets go through this slowly but surely, if you claim to be sincere then ask the right questions. In order to ensure that we don't assume anything from you, whenever you can (take your time no one is in a hurry).

Is is possible to say that the Orthodox are schismatic, but not certain individuals if they would still profess Orthodoxy as the one only True Religion of Christ? Do you realize how difficult it is to swallow this for anyone who understands ecclesiology? I am not completely sure if you understand the logic behind your madness... All heresies are ideas, or maybe you can prove to us how there is such a thing as a heresy that is a person. We use a different word for that, its called a heretic someone who believes heresies (false beliefs)... We just simply call Arius the founder of this idea... Which is why we denote those who follow the heresies of him, Arians.

So now lets restart, you say that "SV'ist" are schismatic... Do you believe as a Universal principle to be applied that you cannot pray with someone who professes to be a Sedevacantist. That you should not as St. John says even greet heretics/schismatics. So lets suppose for some reason I live right across you, and for some reason I go to a local abortion clinic to pray the rosary that is close by and you also at the same time went to go pray for the unborn. You are aware that I have a SV'ist understanding of the Crisis of the Church. Would you in principle not pray with me, or anyone who is a SV'ist... This is what it comes down to, if you can't answer that question in an honest and sincere manner then I don't know what to say. You are a Pharisee as I have well proved, and you are so completely full of your own self-righteousness. You make yourself your own Pope! Even your so called "Popes" would agree that SV'ist subsist in the Catholic Church and would constitute a true particular Church, since after all along with the Orthodox we have the "Eucharist", heck we go over above that we actually accept everything the church teaches with no exceptions. If you were truly consistent then you would agree with Vatican II teaching about the pastoral mission of heretics and schismatics (what you accuse us of being). No worries, we too are going to be saved since we have a true "mission" from the Church since technically we are in partial "communion", not full communion with the Conciliar Church.

Its amazing how liberals are the worst of dictators and their real claws come out when you attack their own liberal principles (something that Bishop Williamson has explained very well). You could at the very least point to us the direction of someone that might be able to better express your stance or position. If you feel that you are inadequately able to defend your thesis, nothing wrong with that. No, what you do is totally ignore everything, spit out pure puke continually and continue in this forum + your blog + other forums, about how clueless you are about these issues. Not even once attempting to even understand those you consider your enemies of the faith (it takes no genius to know that those who are schismatic are ipso facto enemies of the faith). If you have any confusion, THEN ASK where is it particularly that you find it hard or where is precisely our "heresy." We have AMPLY demonstrated, wasted 100,000 of thousands of hours collectively and much more proving without a question of a doubt where are the specific heresies in thought, word (audio, visual, written), and deed of the Conciliar apostasy. Yet, you simply dismiss it like nothing! As if to truly have truth we need to consult your opinion so that if it does not convince you, we have to revise everything. Plenty of intelligent, good pious Catholics have seen the same evidence and changed accordingly. After I was taught the Baltimore Catechism (the most basic one for Holy communion), and I knew of what the modern Church was doing through my own eyes. The first reaction I had is that these heretics are not Catholic, and therefore infiltrators... No one had told me ANYTHING, it was after I got "re-educated" by the SSPX that I changed my mind. It's not hard, I know plenty of SV'ist who have never changed their stance on that position since a very early young age, without any of their parents being traditionalists... This proves that even the most simple child can comprehend the SV'ist argument, its so simple, maybe its too simple for our self appointed "theologians."

Now I want you to re-do this exercise again of me going to the abortion clinic, would you say that the SSPX is schismatic and because of that refuse to be in communion with them. Now please enlighten us as to what you think constitutes the sin of schism... Also do you believe that the Orthodox are in "partial" communion with the Conciliar Church? Also protestants and other Christian sect's that have more confessional creed's. All of these questions are of extreme importance because they let us know precisely where it is your totally confused about, it would HELP us greatly to know what is your stance.

What is incredible is you hear FSSP "priest" preach against Richard Mcbrien the heretical Jesuit... What I find incredible is how they call him "Fr." Richard Mcbrien still, yet they still call him heretical and would still pray with him if he was in a gathering with them. If they would refuse to pray with him, that means that they are not in communion with him which would make them schismatic since he is a priest in good standing in his diocese (the same goes with the other overt apostates like Mahony et al...), ohhh the absurdity of their position. The same goes with those who are cautious with Rahner, who has had nothing but "papal" approval since the Council. By what authority does the "FSSP" condemn what their magisterium has taught with AUTHORITY and approval. The reason why we love St. Thomas is not just because he was so genius, but because of PAPAL approbation that alone should trump anything else. In the same manner, if you were consistent you would be reading Rahner et al... You never bother to ask yourself that, within your little corner in the diocese. The candle cannot be put under a bushel and that is precisely the indult does. It puts heretics first, and faithful Catholic's as second class citizens in their little ghettoe's.

Also another question for you if you had a little/older brother/sister/aunt/cousin/uncle/mom/dad/grandpa/grandma come to you and ask for advice with regards to reading the writings of the Post-Conciliar anti-Popes. Would you tell them that is perfectly fine to read them, and the books they have written before they were elected also. They have an imprimatur absolutely full approval and all, without a doubt. They are recommended in EWTN, Catholic author's, bloggers, hierarchy, etc... Never forget that the Indult is a permitted evil for them, best case scenario it is an Anglican understanding of the Church in this case it would be High Church (smells and bells) or unity in diversity.

Or

Would you caution them to be careful? If you would tell them to be cautious what would give you the authority to go against the Vicar of Christ, what would be different between you and a Protestant who "picks" and "chooses" what is good/bad in scripture, except in your case pick and choose on what is legit or illegitimate in Denzinger (official magisterial teaching).

Sentimentalism has no place in the Church if it has no basis in theology or circuмstance, if we weep we do it because the situation calls for it the death of someone dear, our sins etc...

My last question do you believe that attending the New Mass is legitimate and valid, that it is a licit approved Rite of the Church of which is completely and without a question of a doubt Orthodox with respect to all of its liturgical calendar attached to it. This would have to include all the different "canons" used in the New Mass, including all the feast of the Saints, etc...

These questions could be directed towards anyone else that happens to agree with Laramie by the way, please step up to the plate. Don't let your schismatic comrade take all the punches for the cause of Bergoglio. So much for Catholic devotion to the Pope, regardless of the sinfulness of the man.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

God does not allow the bad popes, priests and bishops to promulgate harmful and sinful liturgies, rites, catechisms and laws that lead people to Hell.  You cannot say that the Catholic Church is responsible for these things-- the distinction between the Conciliar Church (which brought us VII, the NO, the new code of canon law, the CCC) and the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary, because our Faith does not allow us to believe that God feeds scorpions when His children ask for bread.

Apparently He does.  And not only that, but God even allows priests to sɛҳuąƖly molest boys.  


Why do you think God would intervene in these matters--that He would never allow this--when even Scriptures tell of a time of this kind of confusion?


The sins of the world have earned this and much more.



Our era is not the first era to have popes in place who were bought and paid for.

I would suggest that you read an excellent book by a Jesuit on the providence of God. The topic of grace is a very difficult one, and I have found this book very helpful among others. It is extremely easy to fall into heresy when it comes to these particular topics of Divine providence/grace/justifications. I hope you find it consoling in these confusing times we face, I know it has been a great help in my moments of temporary doubt. Remain constant and firm, God is Good. This is infallibly true, He is most loving to sinners who desire to return to the Father's house.

Even the official pronouncement of a heretic as an excommunicate in the Church of God, is an act of mercy towards the person. The heretic is the one who chooses which or what doctrine to obey from Holy Mother Church.

I must also note that the author without knowing it also refuted Bergoglio's heresy with respect to the "least of my brethren." As someone who is poor, he spits upon those that really suffer from a lack of basic necessities. I have always had the basic necessities, but even if I would not have had the basic necessities it would not mean that God is injust or some idle spectator. His Divine Providence lovingly sets us assail to our Home in Heaven. Below I will just quote from one chapter particularly, but read the whole thing you will more likely get all your questions answered.

In what Way, and for what Reason, the Will of God permits this or that.

HERE the greater part of men fall into the most miserable error, since with them the Divine Permission scarcely differs from human, inasmuch as it rests in idleness, doing nothing, and does not restrain those who wish to act, even though it can. From this one error countless evils spring. In consequence of this we rush one upon another, and, as though we were the artificers of every misfortune and the authors of every evil, we mutually assail one another with tongue, and hands, and teeth; as if God all the while were an indifferent Spectator of our quarrels, and allowed the most grievous acts of injustice when He could prevent them. This is the very seed-plot of all disorders, and for the purpose of uprooting it I proceed to lay down three points to be considered in every Divine Permission. The first is the Will of permitting. The second, the Cause of permission. The third, the Will which co-operates with that which is permitted. And the better to understand this I must repeat that there are two kinds of evils. The first comprising those things which cause vexation, pain, loss, disgrace, such as poverty, imprisonment, disease, banishment, death, which are not to be called evils so much as bitter medicines, administered by the Divine Hand. The second comprising those things which are properly called evils, as sin. The former kind God truly wills, either for the punishment of the wicked (asS. Augustine says, see above chap. i. 6), or for the correction of His children. The latter God cannot be said to will, but to permit. For since God truly wills all things which truly exist (for by His Will all things are, and without it nothing exists), sin (which is improperly said to exist) He cannot will, but permits. But since God most clearly foresees all things that will be, He could easily prevent whatever He wills to prevent Since, however, He does not prevent numberless things, we must conclude that God by His Own most righteous Will, from Eternity willed, and so decreed, to permit them. God, then, suffers anything to be done, not through being unwilling, but through willing it. Men, indeed, permit many things which they either are unable to prevent, or which they certainly would prefer not to be done. But not so the Supreme Ruler of all things. There is, therefore, in God a Will of permitting, which I have set down as the first point under the head of Permission. And now the question arises, why God should will to permit sin, or what is the cause in God of this Permission.

I. Never certainly would such infinite Goodness permit so great wickedness in the world, unless it could thence produce greater good, and turn to salvation things which were devised for destruction. God permitted the jealousy of his brethren to exercise its malice against innocent Joseph; but with how great good was this Permission, not merely to his parents and brethren, but to the whole land of Egypt! God permitted guiltless David to be harassed with the most cruel injuries by wicked Saul, but it was to the greatest advantage of David himself and the entire kingdom of Israel. God permitted Daniel, most unjustly accused, to be cast into the den of lions, but it was to his own great good and that of many others. But why do I mention such as these? God permitted His Own Son to be crucified by murderers, but His Permission was for the ineffable good of the whole human race. And so from every Divine Permission there flow the greatest increase to the Divine Glory, and the richest blessings to the human race. Hence the Goodness of God and His Mercy, hence His Bounty and Power, hence His Providence, hence His Wisdom and Justice shine forth in a way which is altogether wonderful. Hence it is that the courage of many grows, the contest thickens, rewards are multiplied, and crowns of victory are increased.

... By means of seeming contraries He conducts to a happy end. By means of so many sins of men He advances His Own Glory. In such an accuмulation of wickedness He causes His Own dear ones to shine the more conspicuously. Under God's guidance, acts of fraud turn to the advantage of the person who has been deceived; vexations and injuries add strength to the vexed; the wickedness of so many abandoned men strengthens the piety of others, and preserves them from perishing; and where many are thought to be utterly swallowed up, they emerge again.

One in which they have wicked intentions towards us, and devise no common mischief against us; the other, in which they are able to effect what they have devised, and are the instrument of the Divine Justice which punishes us. If they only acted out the first character, viz. of malicious people, they would not hurt us at all ; but because they support the other also, they do the work of God, Who justly punishes us, even though they act in ignorance of His Designs. In this way Nebuchadnezzar was a servant of God; and so, too, Attila, Totila, and Tamerlane, the scourge of God. Thus also Vespasian and his son, for the love of glory, and to increase their dominion, endeavoured to destroy the Jєωs; but they erred. In reality they were the executioners and ministers of the Divine Vengeance against that impious nation. The Jєωs could not digest their happiness without the help of these Imperial warm baths.* But that we may follow out this line of reasoning more closely, let me ask a few questions.

3. I direct my questions to you, my Christian friend, to you particularly who so frequently disturb heaven and earth with your complaints. Be kind enough to tell me what you find fault with in the man who has injured you? Is it only with his will of injuring you, or only with his power, or both? With both, you will say. But I will instruct you not to find fault with either. Not with the will of injuring, for this without the power is vain, and has never done you any harm at all. Not with the power of injuring, for this is from God, and is just and right. You know that " all power is from God." {Rom. xm. i.) Why do you then complain that one is able to do to you what God permits him to do? A great injury is done to me, you will say. But what sort of injury is it, let me ask? God punishes your sins, exercises your patience, multiplies your reward, and is an injury done to you? Yes, but, you say, I am filled with indignation at this wicked man, and his will which is so thoroughly corrupt. But you persist in looking at man, while I wish you to look at God alone. However corrupt the human will may be, what has it been able to do? What has it done? You do not grieve on this account, because he willed to injure you, but because he actually did injure you, or was able to injure you. But why, I would ask, and how could he do this? Whence did he derive the power? And why had he the power? Was it not from the Divine Power and Permission? And if it is Divine, is it not also just, laudable, and holy? Therefore, either hold your peace, or else direct your complaints against the Divine Permission, and engrave this on your mind, that God never would permit that the wicked will of another should devise any evil against you, if it were not for your good, provided that you yourself do not become a hindrance. "And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?" (1 Pet. M. 13.)

... This then is the shortest way to attain tranquillity,— not to regard the man who inflicts an injury, but God Who permits it. It was the custom of the Saints to think, not of him who for any reason might do them a wrong, but of Him Who did not hinder the wrongdoer. Thus they accounted even injuries to be blessings; "for the doers of injustice," they said, " are those who make us blesied; but those who speak of us as blesied, deceive us." And so, with eyes ever fixed upon God, they rested on the Divine Will in everything, and waited to receive all things from God.

But understand from this that no man's sin merits pardon the more because God brings forth the greater good from it;—for man affords the occasion of good alone, not the cause; and even the occasion he does not afford of himself, but through the abundance of the Divine Goodness. If some wicked person has set fire to the cottage of a poor man, he has not on this account committed the less sin, because the poor man has borne his loss patiently, or some prince has erected in its place a ten times better house. Another person's virtue, and a happy circuмstance do not wipe out the guilt of the incendiary; and so sin does not acquire any excellence because it has afforded opportunity for doing good. But that we may understand this the better, we must now consider how secret are the Judgments of God.