Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CM on July 01, 2009, 03:38:51 PM
-
Do you understand the reason a person must reject an antipope? A person must do this in order to remain in Catholic unity, since being subject to an antipope and recognizing their teachings as being Catholic and authoritative, while merely ignorant, and not invincibly ignorant (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7766) that the man is an antipope (as in the case of St. Vincent Ferrer, who is exonerated by common sense and the teachings of Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem, or Quadam as it's also been spelled) is a schismatic action.
Therefore if Pope Pius IX, for example, had been subject to an antipope, barring invincible ignorance, then he would have been a schismatic and an antipope himself. Trace that ripple effect all the way back to Boniface VIII and you would have nearly seven hundred and fifteen years of antipapacy, and you would have to reject the following six accepted Ecuмenical Councils as non-Catholic robber Councils.
The Council of Vienne (1311-1312 A.D.)
The Council of Constance (1414-1418 A.D.)
The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-1445 A.D.)
The Lateran Council V (1512-1517 A.D.)
The Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.)
The Vatican Council (1869 A.D.)
Please answer this question:
If sixty four popes, from Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304) to Pius X (1903-1914), accepted Boniface VIII as a valid Pontiff, how are you not schismatic for rejecting him, or how could you logically still accept these men as popes?
Hint: the only answer that is not schismatic is:
I was wrong
-
My reasons for declaring Boniface as an anti-pope have been given over the last 2 yrs. Anything further would just be repetitive. If you don't buy it then that is the way it is.
I would suggest however that your declaring him a true Pope might get some others thinking that I am correct.
-
Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.
-
Imo Pius XI and XII are true Popes.
-
Imo Pius XI and XII are true Popes.
If Benedict XV was an anti-pope, and Pius XI & XII never abjured, then how are they true popes? Its not like bishops turn apostate overnight. I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world. By the anti-papacy of John XXIII, the poisonous fruit of Vatican II was more than ready to bloom. Again, just speculation, just thinking out loud here.
-
In other words, Pius XI and Pius XII made the Church appear to be a healthy body, all the while the modernists/satanists/Jєωs/freemasons, etc ate it alive from the inside. Now, there's no such subtlety.
-
Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.
-
And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.
Indeed.
-
Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.
To what exactly are you referring, Spouse?
-
Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.
To what exactly are you referring, Spouse?
Yes, I am curious as well.
-
First reject v2 popes, then some pre-v2 pope, then some medieval ones. What will it lead to?
If you keep on, you will end in rejecting nearly all of them.
-
~sigh~
You cannot reject a pope. You must reject a heretic.
-
In fact, little by little, the acceptance of these men is what has led to most people in the world losing the true Faith.
-
Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.
This line of confusion has been present here b4. The only 'popes deposed throughout history' are Boniface, Urban VI( I believe he was validly elected but lost his office by his actions. Even if one does not preach heresy, actual actions that show one to be a heretic despite words to the contrary is the same thing) and Ben 15.
I am hardly the first person to speculate on whether these clowns are anti-popes-- especially Boniface. How did you vote in the Templar s poll?
-
Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.
This line of confusion has been present here b4. The only 'popes deposed throughout history' are Boniface, Urban VI( I believe he was validly elected but lost his office by his actions. Even if one does not preach heresy, actual actions that show one to be a heretic despite words to the contrary is the same thing) and Ben 15.
I am hardly the first person to speculate on whether these clowns are anti-popes-- especially Boniface. How did you vote in the Templar s poll?
Sorry, I meant "declare to be an anti-pope".
I didn't vote. Quite frankly, I'm undeducated in that matter, so I wasn't comfortable voting for something that I did not know much about.
-
Imo Pius XI and XII are true Popes.
If Benedict XV was an anti-pope, and Pius XI & XII never abjured, then how are they true popes? Its not like bishops turn apostate overnight. I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world. By the anti-papacy of John XXIII, the poisonous fruit of Vatican II was more than ready to bloom. Again, just speculation, just thinking out loud here.
If you believe Ben 15 is an anti-pope how comes it that you are referring to him in roman numbers?
What do Pius XI and XII have to abjure from?
I cannot comprehend a statement that 'Satan allowed Pius XI an XII to reign.'
As far as why Pius XI and XII did not recognise Ben 15 as an anti-pope, I do not know. I do know however that it is near if not impossible for even a true Pope to direct the Barque of St Peter while caught in a Typhoon.
-
Just because Benedict XV through Benedict XVI are all anti-popes doesn't give you the right to depose popes throughout history based on your own crackpot concoctions and homebrew "heresies". And you say I'm the troll. Or shill or whatever.
This line of confusion has been present here b4. The only 'popes deposed throughout history' are Boniface, Urban VI( I believe he was validly elected but lost his office by his actions. Even if one does not preach heresy, actual actions that show one to be a heretic despite words to the contrary is the same thing) and Ben 15.
I am hardly the first person to speculate on whether these clowns are anti-popes-- especially Boniface. How did you vote in the Templar s poll?
Sorry, I meant "declare to be an anti-pope".
I didn't vote. Quite frankly, I'm undeducated in that matter, so I wasn't comfortable voting for something that I did not know much about.
Even though there was no printing press during the times of the Templars and Boniface, many historians and monks chronicled the late mid ages. Extensive records exist of the Templars/ Philip/ Boniface saga-- even in the English which I am restricted to.
-
Little by little, it leads to the total rejection of the Catholic Church.
To what exactly are you referring, Spouse?
She is referring to 'sede vacantism' -- what ever that is.
-
"I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world."
You don't become an anti-Pope by paving the way for a takeover of the Church. You don't even become an anti-Pope by having an invalid election, because if the world approves of someone as Pope, they're Pope until proven otherwise, such as through being a pertinacious and manifest heretic.
If Catholics were getting sound Catholic doctrine from Benedict XV-Pius XII, no matter if they were appointing modernist cardinals or whatever, they were Popes. In the public forum they said nothing that should make us think otherwise -- except that of course Benedict XV issued the book of Canon Law that is pro-BoD, making him an anti-Christ to certain segments of the population.
-
I wasn't saying that he was anti-pope because of that. I think he was a manifest heretic.
-
"I'm going out on a limb and speculating that Satan implemented Benedict XV as anti-pope to sow the seeds of Vatican II in the Church, and then allowed Pius XI and Pius XII to reign in order for a modernist under-current to grow strong, all the while the Church looked perfectly healthy because Pius XI and XII were seemingly orthodox popes in order to deceive the world."
You don't become an anti-Pope by paving the way for a takeover of the Church. You don't even become an anti-Pope by having an invalid election, because if the world approves of someone as Pope, they're Pope until proven otherwise, such as through being a pertinacious and manifest heretic.
If Catholics were getting sound Catholic doctrine from Benedict XV-Pius XII, no matter if they were appointing modernist cardinals or whatever, they were Popes. In the public forum they said nothing that should make us think otherwise -- except that of course Benedict XV issued the book of Canon Law that is pro-BoD, making him an anti-Christ to certain segments of the population.
Not really. He was also a "co-redemtrix" heretic and said other heretical things in his encyclicals. You can really see the similarities between his writings and those of the Conciliar anti-popes.