Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Roman Catholic on September 26, 2010, 04:41:47 AM
-
The Pope publicly shook hands with a woman priest for the first time last night as he joined the Archbishop of Canterbury in an ecuмenical service at Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict XVI greeted Rev Dr Jane Hedges, canon steward of the Abbey and a campaigner for women bishops, as he arrived ahead of an hour-long prayer service.
Dr Hedges was also among those leading prayers – which marked the first visit of any Pontiff to Westminster Abbey
But the Pope extended the hand of friendship to the Church of England last night as he paid tribute to “the heart and the spirit of the English people” and declared: “we are forcibly reminded that what we share in Christ is greater than what continues to divide us.”
The choir of Westminster sang as the Pope and Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, entered the Abbey in procession with other Church leaders from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, led by Dr John Hall, the Dean of Westminster.
The Archbishop wore his mitre while the Pope wore a stole as they proceeded side by side through the nave.
When they reached the sanctuary, Dr Williams welcomed the Pope “on behalf of the Christian communities of Great Britain,” adding: “may your visit be a blessing for all who share with you in pilgrimage and discipleship”.
The Pope responded: “I come here today as a Pilgrim from Rome to pray before the tomb of Edward the Confessor. May these moments of prayer and friendship confirm us in our love for Jesus Christ”.
The Pope gave thanks for the "remarkable progress" made towards ecuмenical unity.
Prayers were read before the Pope and the Archbishop performed a joint act of veneration – stooping to kiss the Canterbury Gospels, thought to have been brought to Britain from Rome in 597 AD by St Augustine.
The service concluded as the 2000-strong congregation recited the Lord’s Prayer. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury then knelt and prayed for unity at the shrine of Edward the Confessor – the penultimate Anglo Saxon King of England who was canonised by Pope Alexander III in 1161.
Benedict XVI shook incense towards the tomb of the monarch, who is regarded as a saint by both churches.
A concluding prayer was read simultaneously by the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Full story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8010064/Pope-shakes-hands-with-woman-priest-in-historic-service-at-Abbey.html
-
“we are forcibly reminded that what we share in Christ is greater than what continues to divide us.”
How could one say this without meaning that Anglicans are members of the Church?
-
It's the V2 myth of partial communion.
Heresy and insanity.
-
It's the V2 myth of partial communion.
Heresy and insanity.
You would have to believe they are not culpable for their wicked positions on moral issues, their false theology and sacrilegious rituals.
Since the Anglicans endorse crimes against nature that is certainly impossible.
-
None of that matters to Modernist-Ecuмaniacs like Ratzinger and his cohorts.
They are in love with their errors.
-
Harlot and Antichrist action
-
And you know that the novus ordo conservatives will white
wash this event as no big deal.
Lucky that the shrine to St. Edward the Confessor and the
Gospel Book he brought in the 6th century to England,
survived the protestant reformation, and all the destruction
brought by oliver cromwell in the 16th century.
-
No surprise. Modernist priests and bishops do the same thing. The Pope should stop encouraging such trash.
-
And you know that the novus ordo conservatives will white
wash this event as no big deal.
Lucky that the shrine to St. Edward the Confessor and the
Gospel Book he brought in the 6th century to England,
survived the protestant reformation, and all the destruction
brought by oliver cromwell in the 16th century.
The neo-cons are so used to this nonsense that it doesn't even matter to them anymore.
They will go and do likewise. Except, don't expect them to darken the doorways of an SSPX or sede chapel; they fear they will lose their souls if they do.
-
true, the term "schismatic" gets thrown around a lot, though a good chance to again post the words of Athanasius here (emphesis mine):
“May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the Churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the apostolic faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the faith? The true faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle -- the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the faith?
“True, the premises are good when the apostolic faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...
“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and if an execrable jealously has tried to shake it in a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
“No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day.
“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church but in reality they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
“Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. (Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp 411-412).”
-
It's the V2 myth of partial communion.
Heresy and insanity.
what they say about Orthodox, since sacrements and priesthood are valid-ergo, no need to convert them...silliness, the Priestly Society of St. Josphat denounces....
-
It's the V2 myth of partial communion.
Heresy and insanity.
You would have to believe they are not culpable for their wicked positions on moral issues, their false theology and sacrilegious rituals.
Since the Anglicans endorse crimes against nature that is certainly impossible.
he did not it was heresy, might want to put down the GOP newsletter and re-read post...heresy implies someone did something wrong, no?
-
And you know that the novus ordo conservatives will white
wash this event as no big deal.
Lucky that the shrine to St. Edward the Confessor and the
Gospel Book he brought in the 6th century to England,
survived the protestant reformation, and all the destruction
brought by oliver cromwell in the 16th century.
The neo-cons are so used to this nonsense that it doesn't even matter to them anymore.
They will go and do likewise. Except, don't expect them to darken the doorways of an SSPX or sede chapel; they fear they will lose their souls if they do.
Most of NO is a new religion, they have not had the courage to say and act so and leave...they think they are the true Catholic faith......they stay to corrupt, though if the ages at Trad Masses vs NO are any indication, they are dying out....also, the NO has less children...so in a certain sense, it is a numbers game....
-
Hard to believe that some can still believe a pope can be a pope of two religions.
-
Then whose is he?
hard to belevie in those great Catholic schools of hte 50's AMericanism was never warned about, but as that movement won oout, there is a good reason, aint it!
There is a rupture, but neither group is willing to walk away, since the NO is a counterfeit group, they themselves do not realize they outside the main... B16 is as divided and confused as most others...
hard to belevie too that some can think they have authority to just say "heck, he aint no stinkin pope" on their own lay authority...though the evidence mounts...
See my recent post on Papalotry...
also, hard to believe all these months later, still no Sedes-only forum.....but, we live in strange and confusing times, no?
-
Hard to believe that some can still believe a pope can be a pope of two religions.
I know you're a sedevacanist, but there is no need to knock off SSPX Catholics just because most of them believe Benedict XVI is still Pope. True, he isn't Traditional, but he's still the Pope whether we like it or not. And really, I don't like it because I want a Traditional Pope. Of coruse, we certainly don't have to like it.
-
We must not expect the Rome of today to plough a different furrow than the one consistent with the new order. I am neither shocked nor surprised by the stream of novelty and progressivism regularly emerging from that quarter; I expect it. Her reworking of Catholic history and accommodations with other religions provide the 'correct' background with which to set the wonderful Vatican Council and the new beginning from which all manner of new things will flow. What does surprise me however are those trads who admit "the Church is finished" and yet bow to the leader of the new church because they feel they have nowhere else to go. What was understandable in the early years of the Council when things were in flux is now hard to justify after fifty years and will be unbelievable after another fifty years. Trads must get their act together to ensure the Church still continues.
-
Sorry but as a Catholic I was taught that a pope can NOT be a leader of Truth and error.
Since folks here voice their opinion so freely, I guess I can voice mine. No knocking SSPX per se, just saying I don't understand them in that one point, knowing all along we still have the same faith. Knowing too, that someday God will right this crisis, maybe not in my time, but it would be nice.
-
. . . though if the ages at Trad Masses vs NO are any indication, they are dying out....also, the NO has less children...so in a certain sense, it is a numbers game....
Belloc,
I absolutely agree with you. Shame on me, but I still attend N.O. about half the time. My parish is the most conservative N.O. parish I've ever seen (Communion rail has returned; receiving in hand is STRONGLY discouraged; priests explain why we shouldn't hold hands during "Our Father;" hand-shaking was even stopped for awhile; Motu is gladly offered; etc.).
Who are the ones defying the priests in ALL of the above--the baby boomers. The boomers were the anomaly generation that loved No Rules; No Guidelines; Subjective Right & Wrong; No Hell; etc. It is much more normal, in my opinion, to want clear parameters, especially among those schooled at even a basic level in the Catholic Faith.
Though the younger generation needs to be fed with what is more consistent with the traditional offerings, they don't know where to go. This largely describes myself--I'm 38 years old, and I didn't know about traditional options until the last few years. What about today's teenagers and college kids, who were raised by parents who never knew tradition, kids for whom tradition is "ancient history."
I say the time is right, or very much on the cusp of being so, for traditionalists to go into N.O. parishes and demand and get real change! By remaining in what is perceived as the "outside," traditionalists are marginalizing their potential for changing things back; because they're perceived as being "outside," kids who woud earnestly be interested are scared of going to hell to check out what tradition is all about.
I believe most SSPX would consider those I describe to be "Catholic." If so, isn't something of a moral duty owed to those I describe to do all we can to set things right. I'm not buying the response "They can come to us." First, at least in my part of the world, they don't know you're out there. Second, the young ones would fear for their souls (based on principles you would consider admirable) to check out traditionalists due to the "outside the Church" perception.
I'm using the collective "you," Belloc--not trying to weigh you down, my friend.
-
Who are the ones defying the priests in ALL of the above--the baby boomers. The boomers were the anomaly generation that loved No Rules; No Guidelines; Subjective Right & Wrong; No Hell; etc.
Pardon me, but this Boomer has something to say.
Take a look around at your own peers and younger.
-
I say the time is right, or very much on the cusp of being so, for traditionalists to go into N.O. parishes and demand and get real change!
Even if the Norvus Ordo mass was dropped, and the Latin Mass became the norm using the correct Latin translation for the form of the sacrament, there is still the issue of the validity of the new rite of Holy Orders. The mass is not the crux of the problem, it's DOCTRINE.
Vatican II is inescapable. However, for myself the Sedevacante thesis solves that issue on a practical basis.
-
also, hard to believe all these months later, still no Sedes-only forum.....but, we live in strange and confusing times, no?
There was a forum moderated by, I believe, Gladius, and another fellow by the username of Sebastian, if I remember correctly. For whatever reason it was taken down. There was also Mr. Lane's forum, but time constraints prevented him from continuing to moderate the forum, so he decided to close it, but his "Bellarmine" forum can still be viewed, you're merely unable to post.
None of these forums, I believe, was truly "Sede-only", but they were "Sede oriented".
-
-
Who are the ones defying the priests in ALL of the above--the baby boomers. The boomers were the anomaly generation that loved No Rules; No Guidelines; Subjective Right & Wrong; No Hell; etc.
Pardon me, but this Boomer has something to say.
Take a look around at your own peers and younger.
My apologies to traditional boomers. I usually caveat such statements to make it clear that I understand there are traditional boomers and they are appreciated. I grew up in a hopelessly liberal N.O. parish. My family was one of the most conservative in the parish. My parents are older than boomers. The boomer and older crew were running the show and it was liberal.
Now I'm fortunate to be in a very conservative N.O. that values tradition. But the boomers are clearly the liberals rejecting tradition here (I know this may be anecdotal). And particularly promising here, the liberal boomers' young adult children (25 - 35) seem to be embracing the traditional elements we enjoy in my parish. I think the information as to whether particular age groups cling to the laxities and others are open to tradition could be productive. What's others' experiences?
Certainly not trying to start a generation war. In any event, most anyone on this forum, regardless of generation, has the right perspective that tradition is, at a minimum, preferable.
My hope is that ALL who sincerely believe they are clinging to the Catholic Faith are able to unite. I fully support the notion that the clock must be rolled back in terms of the many lax practices I've elsewhere referenced, and, especially, in terms any doctrinal problems, ambiguities, etc., borne out of V-II. If I had it my way, the clock would be rolled back pre the Papacy of John XXIII. I can't fault the current Pope for not doing so overnight. I know most of you won't agree with me on this. I wish anything in the world had happened to have prevented us from being in this crisis. But I'm not sure a Pope should turn it back 100% overnight. That said, I don't think the libs should get anymore, nor even quite as much, time as they gave us. And for the ones who cannot accept the proper changes after given a little time and much good-willed explanation, they are not Catholic.
Y'all can badmouth Pope Benedict XVI all you want, but his welcome changes are about 25 years ahead of the schedule I expected. I think we went through 2 crippling Papacies (had I been exposed to the Sede position when I was about 19 or 20, I'd probably say non-Papacies and to hell with it), and, in hindsight for me, a mediocre 27 years, and now it feels like we're taking baby-steps in the right direction, for the most part.
And Myrna, I have faith that things will be set straight in my lifetime. It will be a shame if it's not in time for the older traditionalist who obviously love the fullness of the Faith.
-
I will tell you how I see it at my age.
I would hardly call the 26 year reign of JPII mediocre. Truthfully, I consider him to have been a chastisement on the Church. God forgive me (especially if he was truly a pope), but I don't think anyone sighed a heavier sigh of relief as I when he died.
As for Benedict and the present time, these men are not stupid by any means. There has been a great leakage in the church - many stopped going all together and others jumped ship for either some protestant denomination or the SSPX/sedes. They had to do something to stop it. So, after they stole the car out of your garage, they offered you back the muffler. In other words, now that the conciliar faith is deeply rooted and Catholics have been sufficiently desensitized and brainwashed, they bring back some things of the traditional church to stop people from leaving. It is like Bishop Fellay said one in a talk he gave at the local SSPX chapel, the modern day church can be likened to a zoo. They have now given the traditionals their own cage to make them happy and to regain the only souls they consider lost.
-
Who are the ones defying the priests in ALL of the above--the baby boomers. The boomers were the anomaly generation that loved No Rules; No Guidelines; Subjective Right & Wrong; No Hell; etc.
Pardon me, but this Boomer has something to say.
Take a look around at your own peers and younger.
most that resist the TLM and tradition are boomers, you and many excepted from that of course.....
let us hope that the NO eitherdies out or morphs and goes its own way, out......like the Waldesians, who started out fair, then went downhill and are now largely Reformed....
-
I fully support the notion that the clock must be rolled back in terms of the many lax practices I've elsewhere referenced, and, especially, in terms any doctrinal problems, ambiguities, etc., borne out of V-II. If I had it my way, the clock would be rolled back pre the Papacy of John XXIII. I can't fault the current Pope for not doing so overnight. I know most of you won't agree with me on this. I wish anything in the world had happened to have prevented us from being in this crisis. But I'm not sure a Pope should turn it back 100% overnight. That said, I don't think the libs should get anymore, nor even quite as much, time as they gave us. And for the ones who cannot accept the proper changes after given a little time and much good-willed explanation, they are not Catholic.
Meantime many Novus Ordites are living in grave error, heresy and grave sin. People are dying every day and facing judgement.
If a pope thinks that reform and return to sound doctrine is needed, there is no excuse to do it slowly over time while souls are lost along the way. Lost for eternity.
A real genuine traditional pope would shine the light and lead the way. God would give sufficient grace to people of good will.
-
The way I see it is the NO are those who left, and those who remained faithful to the teachings of Christ are the remnant.
True, I followed with the NO for a time, but then I came back home where I belong. When I jumped ship was when I followed along with the NO. It was easy for me to recognize after awhile because while attending a Catholic school, I was told that anyone can fall even a pope, but then he loses his office. Told this many times by the good nuns in the 50's.
-
Would agree w/Myrna on the first part, the NO is a new religion and not the True one...
as to those ever present 50's nuns, too bad they did not warn against Americanism, but then again, Bishop Ireland and his gang won out...part of their teaching was of course, incorporated in Modernism......
but, we are sometimes wounded and decieved in our age, are we not folks! Even Bishop Sheen at times was off kilter as was many others....must not get as (rabid?)rigid as CM, who I just glanced at his site, is now excommunicating Leo XIII....
oh and final thought in this response, it was teh pew sitters in the 40's and 50's that went along with Modernism, those that went along because "Father said so" and offered no resistance, none at all....when we left our NO parish in the early 80's, do to open heretic priest there, my grandparents (born in 1919) thought we were nuts and making stuff up, stated "well, he did not do anything to us".
Wrong, he was a heretic to everyone and destroying everyone's Faith....besides us, that next Sunday, about 1/2 church walked to other ones and never came back....voting with their feet and their money....
Wrong to follow an evil Pope in his error/sin, also, wrong to be Americanist, following even more erroneous teaching....
set-match :dancing-banana:
-
nd final thought in this response, it was teh pew sitters in the 40's and 50's that went along with Modernism, those that went along because "Father said so" and offered no resistance, none at all....
They would never have thought in their wildest dreams that any priest, let alone a pope, would mislead them. They were trusting in their priests and in their Church. That is how they sold the VII "renewal" on the faithful. It worked then, and it works now. If you think that that mentality is gone in the novus church, wander over to CAF and give a read.
-
oh, true, I agree
even now, some trad prietss have the "it is true, because I said so" or "I am the priest and what I say automatically goes"
-
They would never have thought in their wildest dreams that any priest, let alone a pope, would mislead them. They were trusting in their priests and in their Church. That is how they sold the VII "renewal" on the faithful.
It used to be unthinkable to suspect a priest of anything, except maybe being cranky, or a tough confessor.
Obedience to proper authority, starting with priests was simply the way it was. In the proper order of things this is how saints are made. It was literally unthinkable, it would have never crossed most good Catholic's minds to be disobedient to one of God's Holy Priests. At least this was the mentality of the Irish Catholics.
A lot of souls simply left when it began to look as if all they and their grandparents had been taught was no longer Truth. I guess that could be counted as resistance, maybe.
We are SUPPOSED to be trusting of our priests and Church. We want to be, we want to be as little children and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
:incense:
-
But I wasn't talking about traditionals (though what you say is correct), I was talking about the novus crowd.
My motto is the same as Ronnie Reagan's: Trust but verify.
Fool me one, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!
-
Anyway, getting back to this topic, is there anyone here that has any further thoughts on this?
Considering that Benedict knows what the Church used to teach about things like this, wouldn't this be manifest heresy? Not to mention a blatant sin against the First Commandment?
-
Not to mention sin of ommission!
-
Anyway, getting back to this topic, is there anyone here that has any further thoughts on this?
Considering that Benedict knows what the Church used to teach about things like this, wouldn't this be manifest heresy? Not to mention a blatant sin against the First Commandment?
many people think 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, they see no divergance from one view to another....like most people, some are Trads but Neocons in some things...others are Staunch "conservatives" but see no contradiction between that secular view and going loyally to the NO...others are Porlife, but think that by continuing to vote "republican", magically, that will solve all problems...
hence, then to B16-he thinks we can have the TLM, rosaries and quote pre-V2 sources, but also, that V2 fits fine with its predecessors (Trent,etc). He does not see that in fact, 2 religions are there, he triesto lead both, thinking they are the same and united....
no one really questions why the Latin Rite all of a sudden in late 60's felt the need for 2 differing Masses....no one asks "why"...for the Eastern Churches do not have radically different DL's, usually, the DL of John Chrysostom is said, but occ DL of Basil etc is done, none the less, not radically differiing in expression and theology as is the NO vs TLM.....
People, then have conflicting & conflicted views, but somehow, makes sense to them...their minds are, as Bishop Williamson would say, unhinged...
Manifest heretics like Luther, etc were at least staunch and sure, more or less, in their heretical views.....now, no one rally is sure what is what....look how blatent Assisi 1986 was, yet look at the mental girations of NeoCaths defend that, yet mock others for being "cafeteria Catholics" and often, these folks think they are "conservatives", yet the 2 ideas are opposites, for conservatives think they are preserving tradition (though politically, they conserve 18th and 19th century liberalism)
Trust, but verify is true....
almost wonder if these people are fully sane....another example, some are 100% anti-abortion, but tell me gleefully we should invade, bomb and destroy nations....others are against that idea, but have no qualms in their opposition to killing to abort....
NO, fine with many, TLM fine with many, they see no contradiciton at all...have a former friend, who recently has refused to answer emails, that thinks the NO is great, loves the TLM and DL's V2? fully"orthodox", Trent, same thing to him...divided mind!!!
-
Everything is as confusing and people are as confused as you say.
It is difficult to walk in different directions at the same time. In fact, it is impossible.
No wonder, then, that minds are unhinged.
However, it all makes sense if one can accept the fact that the VII popes have known exactly what it is they want to do and where it all is leading. There is a method to their madness. It only becomes confusing when you expect them to act and think like a Catholic, and they don't.
-
I am not convinced that the post-V2 know where they go, what they think,etc..Somehow, they try to reconcile everything together....someone should have said "hey, Paul 6th, why do we need another Mass (NO)??"
-
someone should have said "hey, Paul 6th, why do we need another Mass (NO)??"
I don't know who, if anyone, in the Vatican said that to him, but many in the pews would have if they could have spoken to him, and I am sure that many letters were received by him asking him that very question. I don't think he cared.
My husband and I often talk about the audacity and arrogance of these men (Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI) to think that they could improve Holy Mother Church with their pet theologies inspired by their favorite modernist theologians. In Paul's case, it was Jacques Maritain. JPII was a de Lubac and VonBalthasar devotee. And we all know that Benedict was a protege of Karl Rahner.
-
....must not get as (rabid?)rigid as CM, who I just glanced at his site, is now excommunicating Leo XIII....
Does anyone know how many popes so far have been knocked off the seat of Peter by CM? I'm starting to lose track. :laugh1:
-
No Pope now since Gregory 16th, just as I accused him more than a yr ago of planning to do....
-
I will tell you how I see it at my age.
I would hardly call the 26 year reign of JPII mediocre. Truthfully, I consider him to have been a chastisement on the Church. God forgive me (especially if he was truly a pope), but I don't think anyone sighed a heavier sigh of relief as I when he died.
As for Benedict and the present time, these men are not stupid by any means. There has been a great leakage in the church - many stopped going all together and others jumped ship for either some protestant denomination or the SSPX/sedes. They had to do something to stop it. So, after they stole the car out of your garage, they offered you back the muffler. In other words, now that the conciliar faith is deeply rooted and Catholics have been sufficiently desensitized and brainwashed, they bring back some things of the traditional church to stop people from leaving. It is like Bishop Fellay said one in a talk he gave at the local SSPX chapel, the modern day church can be likened to a zoo. They have now given the traditionals their own cage to make them happy and to regain the only souls they consider lost.
At the time of JPII's death I had not yet discovered Traditional Catholicism, of course I now am kicking myself for not discovering it sooner. The reign of JPII was one of the worst we've ever had I think, although even his long reign can't compare to the horrible reign of Paul VI. While Benedict XVI is at least a bit better than JPII, he's still a modernist. Bishop Williamson of the SSPX said that the mind of a modernist is a sick one, and while he has respect for Benedict XVI he says that he is sick in the mind as well. Benedict will do something Traditional one minute, then the next minute will do something very similar to John Paul II, like praying with Jєωs or whatever. That's a sign of a modernist right there.
-
No Pope now since Gregory 16th, just as I accused him more than a yr ago of planning to do....
Good grief, the poor Holy Fathers, dropping like flies. I guess that all we can do for CM is pray. :pray:
-
I know there are sincere folks on here, clinging to true Catholicism, who believe we haven't had a "Pope" for the last 47 - 52 years. Had I learned about you about 18 - 20 years ago, I very well may be right there with you. But I cannot see where it ends if lay people can denounce a papacy or multiple papacies.
I pose this in good-will--I am not looking for a fight. I'm busy enough fighting from time to time with someone espousing completely non-Catholic positions across the board. I pose this merely to learn and see how you deal with this.
Were the Conclaves composed as they should have been in 1958 and 1963? Were the subsequent Conclaves composed as they should have been? If they have not been composed as they should have been, would the rightful electors have had the guts and the guidance of the Holy Ghost to raise more hell than a little bit about it? If the Conclaves have been properly composed, even if we had a couple of non-Papacies, wouldn't it be possible for a subsequent Conclave to elect a true Pope?
Myrna mentioned being taught that a heretical Pope would lose the office, or something like that. Do you know what the nuns based that on? Whose call is that to make? What's the procedure for making the call? For the replacement, does a Conclave simply meet and vote? If the heresy wasn't caught, wouldn't a subsequent Conclave be able to pick a valid Pope? Wouldn't 4 or 5 successive invalid picks over 50 years be getting dreadfully close to the "gates of hell [having prevailed]?"
If the N.O. is hopelessly lost, including its Cardinals, Convlaves, and Popes, from whence shall a valid body be assembled for a valid Conclave to elect a valid Pope? If we are in the current state this is all assuming, doesn't that make a lie and mockery of "I shall be with you until the consummation of the world?"
Even if the sede position is right, I can't see a valid Pope coming from anywhere but a Conclave composed of Cardinals who are, at least currently, in the N.O. Otherwise, how is the Apostolic chain sustained? And if my premise is correct, wouldn't the most effective thing lay people could do toward resolving this crisis be to come into the N.O. as malcontents demanding what is right, to become VISIBLE and perhaps be they whom the Holy Ghost would work through to get to the sensibilities and compassion of those who would elect a rightful Pope to see Catholics, their sheep, so ardently demanding and craving to be nourished with that which is proper?
-
OHCA I realize you are sincere and in good will, we all appreciate that, I feel I speak for all. However, I can not speak for all when I say that for myself, I find it harder to believe that a true pope can be pope of truth and error, than to have no pope at all during this crisis.
Maybe someone here has a better answer, but for me it is just trust that God will work out the next true pope for us. He chose Peter the first pope and maybe He will choose Peter the last pope through a miraculous manner. I can't worry about how it will happen but hope it will happen in God's perfect time.
I belong to C.M.R.I. and there we have the papal flag in our sanctuary, because we do believe in the papacy in spite of what some might want you to believe. Our Bishop, priests and nuns quote the popes time and time again, because we do believe in the papacy. Even the Saints said, if you can believe what they said, that near the end of time, the Church will be without a pope.
If the N.O. is hopelessly lost, including its Cardinals, Convlaves, and Popes, from whence shall a valid body be assembled for a valid Conclave to elect a valid Pope? If we are in the current state this is all assuming, doesn't that make a lie and mockery of "I shall be with you until the consummation of the world?"
He is with us, He is with us at each True Mass, each Holy Communion, on the altar where the Blessed Sacrament IS. He has not abandoned us, not for one second.
-
I'm going to stick my oar in here because I smell a shortage of faith. Talking to Lybus about the qualities of God has made me more sensitive to this. People should visit that thread and really think about these things, and then they would realize that they are in very competent Hands and can quit worrying about these things. As Jesus said, "Believe in Me, also." It is faith that brings about miracles.
-
No Pope now since Gregory 16th, just as I accused him more than a yr ago of planning to do....
Good grief, the poor Holy Fathers, dropping like flies. I guess that all we can do for CM is pray. :pray:
true, in another yr or less, he will join Classifallible, in throwing Pius IX under the wheels....
-
Good post OHCA! As for my thoughts on this issue, it is clear that there have been some anti-popes over the years. The Vatican II Popes are difficult to label as either true Pope or anti-pope considering 90% of Catholics today will think you are not even a Christian if you dare to call the Pope un-Traditional. Now, there is a very strong possibility that Paul VI (or the second Paul VI if there was one, which there probably was just by looking at pictures) was an anti-pope, but I feel it isn't my place to label him as one until I know for sure he was.
John Paul II was certainly a modernist, no question. However, it is debatable whether or not he would have met anti-pope qualifications. I certainly don't think he's worthy of sainthood. Then we have Benedict XVI. He's closer to being Traditional than any other VII Pope we've had so far, but he still has a long way to go. I don't really think he meets anti-pope standards. In my opinion, the VII Popes aren't anti-popes (except for MAYBE Paul VI), they're just modernist Popes. After the three days of darkness, we will have Traditional Popes again. Let's hope Benedict consecrates Russia. Though the SSPX has warned we musn't get out hopes up. We're dealing with a Pope who acts as if he idolizes JPII, so he probably thinks JPII's "consecration" was valid and there's no need to do it again.
-
Yes, but Modernism is the mother of all heresy.
-
truth!!
-
OHCA, you have to decide.
Your choices are:
1) Stay in the novus ordo, stick your head in the sand, and hope for the best;
2) Go to an SSPX chapel and hope for the best;
3) Find yourself an independent priest or a sede chapel and wait the storm out.
I see you have made the same mistake that everyone in the novus ordo makes when they speak about sedevacantists. I always thought that it was a good idea that, before commenting about them, one should study up on what they say. The sedes have not deposed any post-VII pope.
Benedict is no traditional. He's attempting an impossibility - walking in two different directions at the same time. He's the same suit and tie devotee of Karl Rahner today that he was during the infamous Council. He, himself, has stated that he has not changed since then.
The less said of JPII the better. The greatest role he ever played was at being pope.
Paul VI, depending on what group of sedes you encounter, either was never eligible of being elected due to the heretical ideas he held, or he lost the papacy when he either signed off on the VII docuмents, or when he shoved the novus ordo mass down the throats of Catholics.
John XXIII, again depending on the sedevacantist group, either is recognized as a true pontiff or was never a pope having been a Mason for many decades prior to his "election" therefore being excommunicated and not eligible - also, he had a file on him in the Vatican that held him suspect of the heresy of "modernism".
-
A postscript to clarify my #2 option:
The way things are going in the SSPX is what I mean by hoping for the best.
-
The less said of JPII the better. The greatest role he ever played was at being pope.
Gee Alexandria, did anyone ever tell you that you're just lovely when you're riled? :laugh2:
-
The less said of JPII the better. The greatest role he ever played was at being pope.
Gee Alexandria, did anyone ever tell you that you're just lovely when you're riled? :laugh2:
I wasn't riled. A fact is a fact.
-
The less said of JPII the better. The greatest role he ever played was at being pope.
Gee Alexandria, did anyone ever tell you that you're just lovely when you're riled? :laugh2:
I wasn't riled. A fact is a fact.
Hmmmm, I thought the post was of course factual, but also glowing; I just naturally thought the author was glowing as well.
-
Maybe you're spending too much time with Michael Jackson.
-
Yes, but Modernism is the mother of all heresy.
I'm aware of that, and it does not change the fact that someone can be the true Pope for punishment.
-
Yes, but Modernism is the mother of all heresy.
I'm aware of that, and it does not change the fact that someone can be the true Pope for punishment.
I have never heard that teaching, is it de fide or just a theory?
Just curious!
Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me, because it contradicts the pray Act of Faith:
ACT OF FAITH
O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
-
Yes, but Modernism is the mother of all heresy.
I'm aware of that, and it does not change the fact that someone can be the true Pope for punishment.
I have never heard that teaching, is it de fide or just a theory?
Just curious!
Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me, because it contradicts the pray Act of Faith:
ACT OF FAITH
O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
If God took the TLM away as punishment because people no longer appreciated it, then he can allow a modernist Pope to get ellected as punishment.
-
Sorry to disagree with you but my teachings through Catholic school have instructed me differently.
God would not take away the Mass, but He has allowed it to be taken away by His enemies for a time. A pope who is a Modernist can not be a pope because God does not deceive.
The NO is not the Church, which is why you do not attend there, nor send your children to NO Catholic school, a true pope can not be pope of Truth and error. This is exatly what is happening within the NO, some Truth, but much error.
-
Mostly error with a facade of truth (to keep the neo-cons happy).