Author Topic: Shocking: Pope Francis rents Sistine Chapel for parties and concerts (Read 6819 times)

Mr Smith · « **on:** October 17, 2014, 12:16:04 PM »

Shocking: Pope Francis rents Sistine Chapel for parties and concerts

Pope Francis rents out Sistine Chapel for exclusive, $7,200-per-head Porsche party

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/17/pope-rents-out-sistine-chapel-for-exclusive-porsche-party/

Rocky Horror Show!!!

BTNYC · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2014, 12:33:46 PM »

Disgusting? Yes. Scandalous? Absolutely. Outrageous? No question about it.

But "shocking?" No, not at all.

"Shocking" would be "Pope Francis Restores Papal Tiara" or "Pope Francis Orders Worldwide Return to Traditional Latin Mass" or heck, even "Pope Francis Expounds on a Matter of Catholic Doctrine Clearly and Unambiguously."

But this? Business as usual.

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2014, 12:59:42 PM »

Not shocking at all, in their quest for destruction.

After the diabolical synod, Pope Francis has delivered a blow to his papacy from which he will never recover. There is nothing he can say or do now that is shocking.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2014, 01:14:01 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Not shocking at all, in their quest for destruction.

After the diabolical synod, Pope Francis has delivered a blow to his papacy from which he will never recover. There is nothing he can say or do now that is shocking.

Funny you can say all that, and still call him a pope, that is what is shocking.

Ursus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:16:34 PM »

The cover for this is "helping the poor" correct? Let wealthy people come in and have a party, mock our faith, but it's OK if the money goes to the poor.

Sad times indeed.

BTNYC · « **Reply #5 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:18:44 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella
Not shocking at all, in their quest for destruction.

After the diabolical synod, Pope Francis has delivered a blow to his papacy from which he will never recover. There is nothing he can say or do now that is shocking.

Funny you can say all that, and still call him a pope, that is what is shocking.

I understand that R&R is particularly vexing to those who have given assent of their intellects and wills to the theory of Sedevacantism, but the fact remains that this:

Quote

Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.

First Vatican Council, Session 4, ii:v; 18 July 1870

...is not lightly cast aside.

Yes, the term "perpetual" does allow for interregnums, even ones that last several years. But when a period of Sede Vacante persists for more than half a century, with no end in sight, we find ourselves having to admit to an interregnum so long that an entire generation of Catholics is born and lives and dies without ever knowing a true pope.

Such a protracted vacancy of the Throne of St. Peter simply cannot be reconciled with the promise of "perpetual" successors of St. Peter and makes a liar of that dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council. This is a crucial hole in the Sedevacantist argument - and to my mind (and the minds of all others of the R&R persuasion) - a fatal one.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:21:16 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Not shocking at all, in their quest for destruction.

After the diabolical synod, Pope Francis has delivered a blow to his papacy from which he will never recover. There is nothing he can say or do now that is shocking.

Funny you can say all that, and still call him a pope, that is what is shocking.

I understand that R&R is particularly vexing to those who have given assent of their intellects and wills to the theory of Sedevacantism, but the fact remains that this:

Quote

Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.

First Vatican Council, Session 4, ii:v; 18 July 1870

...is not lightly cast aside.

Yes, the term "perpetual" does allow for interregnums, even ones that last several years. But when a period of Sede Vacante persists for more than half a century, with no end in sight, we find ourselves having to admit to an interregnum so long that an entire generation of Catholics is born and lives and dies without ever knowing a true pope.

Such a protracted vacancy of the Throne of St. Peter simply cannot be reconciled with the promise of "perpetual" successors of St. Peter and makes a liar of that dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council. This is a crucial hole in the Sedevacantist argument - and to my mind (and the minds of all others of the R&R persuasion) - a fatal one.

In your opinion, of course.

BTNYC · « **Reply #7 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:29:50 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Cantarella
Not shocking at all, in their quest for destruction.

After the diabolical synod, Pope Francis has delivered a blow to his papacy from which he will never recover. There is nothing he can say or do now that is shocking.

Funny you can say all that, and still call him a pope, that is what is shocking.

I understand that R&R is particularly vexing to those who have given assent of their intellects and wills to the theory of Sedevacantism, but the fact remains that this:

Quote

Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.

First Vatican Council, Session 4, ii:v; 18 July 1870

...is not lightly cast aside.

Yes, the term "perpetual" does allow for interregnums, even ones that last several years. But when a period of Sede Vacante persists for more than half a century, with no end in sight, we find ourselves having to admit to an interregnum so long that an entire generation of Catholics is born and lives and dies without ever knowing a true pope.

Such a protracted vacancy of the Throne of St. Peter simply cannot be reconciled with the promise of "perpetual" successors of St. Peter and makes a liar of that dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council. This is a crucial hole in the Sedevacantist argument - and to my mind (and the minds of all others of the R&R persuasion) - a fatal one.

In your opinion, of course.

Simple common sense, really.

If an entire generation passes having never known a pope, in what sense can the papacy be said to be "perpetual?"

What duration of time would qualify as fatal to the promise of "perpetual" successors? 500 years? 1000? What is your threshold?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:50:32 PM »

Children being born still have the truth in the world, we have all the encyclicals and other writings, books of which to learn the truth. We still have A PAPACY!

It is so amazing for me, last week to see so many young people who NEVER had parents to teach them anything about traditional teachings. I met a young girl, who told me she knew something was wrong in her novus ordo, but no one was there to instruct her, she said she just knew. One day, she searched on the Internet about what was happening to the Church and found CMRI. Not only did she come home, but brought half of her Vatican II prayer group that she founded while in Vatican II. SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND, a perfect example.

Consider these actions of Vatican II:
“They went out from us, because they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that it may be manifest that they were not of us”
(1 John 2:19).

Also this: “no Pope” did not mean “no Papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a Pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the Primacy over the universal Church.”

Learn more here: http://www.cmri.org/02-perpetual-successors-in-the-primacy.shtml

"If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope, God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope."

Consider is it possible that even some of the rites of the Church now separated, might convert and we can elect a true pope? Just wondering here!

Miseremini · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2014, 03:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Ursus

The cover for this is "helping the poor" correct? Let wealthy people come in and have a party, mock our faith, but it's OK if the money goes to the poor.

Sad times indeed.

I guess the end justifies the means. No wait, it's the other way 'round, the end NEVER justifies the means.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2014, 03:11:11 PM »

Is this a parody news website? They're going to limit visits to the Sistine Chapel to 6,000,000 (interesting number) visitors a year because too many people's breath is damaging the frescoes?

Surely this is not a real news story... Is it? Frankly, the website looks legitimate.

BTNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2014, 03:21:11 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Also this: “no Pope” did not mean “no Papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a Pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the Primacy over the universal Church.”

Learn more here: http://www.cmri.org/02-perpetual-successors-in-the-primacy.shtml

Yes, as alluded to in my earlier post, I am familiar with this argument. I agree that a temporary vacancy does not in and of itself constitute a termination of the perpetual successors of St. Peter.

My point is that this argument rests upon ground which becomes shakier with each passing year. At some point, the Vacancy will reach a stage where it cannot be explained without doing serious violence to the Vatican I decree cited above. To my mind, 80-120 years - the length of time it takes for a generation to be born, live, and die - is the absolute limit that one can place on this Vacancy. Yes, this is my "opinion" as 2Vermont so tersely points out (though no less than sedevacantism is hers or anyone else's). But surely there must be some duration of time that everyone would agree would consititute the undoing of the promise of "perpetual successors."

Perhaps for you and 2Vermont and the CMRI it is 1000 years. But to my mind, common sense dictates that if whole generations come and go without a living breathing Servus Servorum Dei to serve as pontiff, then there is no possible way we can speak of St. Peter having "perpetual successors."

MyrnaM · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2014, 04:20:58 PM »

BTNYC

No one knows for sure when this crisis will end and we will have order again.

I for one can not understand how good people like yourself, can possible believe that the pope, the Vicar of Christ can and does lead the laity TODAY into the pit of Hell, rather than to just admit that he is not the pope.

That is what is impossible.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** October 17, 2014, 04:38:16 PM »

Myrna:

Quote

Funny you can say all that, and still call him a pope, that is what is shocking.

We've got a dear friend who, along with his wife, still attends sspx Masses, even though he knows and realizes that the Society is a mess. He does not believe that Francis is a true pope. No, he believes in the Cardinal Siri theory, i.e. that Siri was a true pope, and that he and the bishops and cardinals surrounding him, appointed a successor when the former died. This is where we are now. Don't for a moment think that everyone, even, perhaps, most people, who attend sspx Masses believe that the Chair of Peter is one unbroken succession of legitimate occupants, and will be so to the end. There are many closet sedes in sspx, I am thoroughly convinved. What is more, I am convinced that a number of the priests in the Society are, in their hearts, secret sedes.

BTNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** October 17, 2014, 07:04:51 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

BTNYC

No one knows for sure when this crisis will end and we will have order again.

I for one can not understand how good people like yourself, can possible believe that the pope, the Vicar of Christ can and does lead the laity TODAY into the pit of Hell, rather than to just admit that he is not the pope.

That is what is impossible.

I don't "admit" this because I have no authority to depose him.

I do admit that the scandals are so numerous and so egregious and so grave that Sedevacantism is indeed a tempting option. But because I cannot judge subjective matters, and because St. Thomas warns against usurpation of judgment, it is a matter which I have to confess that I have no authority to pass judgment on. And, as I've made clear on this thread, Sedevacantism has no endgame for a Vacancy that is now rapidly closing in on six decades. I fear incurring the anathema of Vatican I referred to above, and the Sedevacantist arguments have not succeeded in assuaging that very grave fear.

As Fr Gregory Hesse once said - "The question of whether or not he is pope is academic, for if any authority - even a legitimate one - commands you to sin, you cannot obey." So I recognize the occupant of the Office, but I resist his novelties and errors. And I pray for the same thing you do - a future pope of unimpeachable orthodoxy who will crush modernism, cast the empurpled Judas devils out of the episcopate and the curia, restore the Mass of Ages, and solemnly declare the status of Vatican II and occupants of the Throne of St. Peter from 1958 onward.