Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant on December 03, 2014, 08:45:40 AM
-
In a well known prophecy, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The full text of the same can be read here (http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/st%20don%20bosco.htm). The relevant portion is "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady." St. John Bosco also predicts there will be a Pope in the year 1999 ("one year before the end of the century") and also speaks in detail of the election of two Popes during this time.
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions, but according to the Saint, (who by the way made this prophesy in 1862, precisely 100 years before the disastrous Council was convoked,) consists rather in the promotion of devotion to Our Lady, and to the Holy Eucharist throughout the Church especially by the Pope, and by the faithful subject to and remaining in communion with him.
-
Prophecies, prophecies, all are prophecies.
-
Nishant,
I clicked the link and according to St John Bosco's vision,
“There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century…”
Has this happened? Has tranquility returned? Has the Pope succeeded in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion of Our Lady?
Obviously not. So why are you using this vision to attack Sedevacantists?
But you missed out this last sentence in your post, claiming that -
The relevant portion is "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady." St. John Bosco also predicts there will be a Pope in the year 1999 ("one year before the end of the century") and also speaks in detail of the election of two Popes during this time.
According to the vision, the Pope will succeed in anchoring the boat of Peter.... etc and this will happen about one year before the end of the century. Yet this is clearly not how you report it. You then use your version of the vision to prove there will be a Pope in 1999. Why?
-
I did not "attack" sedevacantists, Awkward Customer, although I did critique sedevacantism. St. John Bosco foresaw Vatican II precisely, and therefore this prophesy has merit. Even if you disagree, it at least proves from the words of a Saint that there is no contradiction in an Ecuмenical Council causing chaos within the Church. As for your critique of my post above, you say that because a restoration hasn't happened yet, this prophesy is inaccurate. But is that really what the words of the prophesy says? I agree it is not clear whether the "this" is referring to some action of the Pope to promote devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, or to the return of tranquility itself, but I would argue it is the former, and I agree that circuмstances prove that tranquility hasn't returned yet. Finally, the other parts of the vision describe a destruction of Rome in future (in agreement with other prophecies) and the existence of Popes at the time.
-
Quick simple reply, if your position needs a deep exegesis of private revelation it tells you that your position is wrong.
Private revelation entails that your interpretation of it is infallible, in order for us to be able to diagnose and accept your position. Just because something is approved private revelation does not mean it can't be wrong, stick to the public deposit of faith. If private revelation is used as a means to solve all the "mysteries" of our faith, then you can be sure that it is being harmful to your faith. If it leads into believing that the end of the world is imminent at the moment, then it is leading you astray etc... Generally the Church recommends more of the pious works, such as the readings of the Passion of Catherine Emmerich and so forth. Its more of an aid to devotion, and a strengthening for those who are already firmly rooted in the Mind of the Church. I can give you just as much private revelation in favor of the Sedevacantist position, but I never do that because at the end of the day it ends up being a your opinion vs mine opinion.
I have never ever ever seen one case of someone where they get any private revelation right, it always goes on into some crazy theories. These folks are obsessed with it, and it is usually spiritually detrimental by that point. The casuist has an excellent article on it.
Hence for the resistance camp, the world is not working like how its suppose to, because we did not follow heaven's peace plan, this is usually the Fatima Gruner message. So they will wait until the Parousia and bombard the Vatican with letters/videos petitions to make Bergoglio consecrate Russia... Never mind the fact that Pius XII did it, its not his fault that the Bishop's all over the world did not follow accordingly.
Briefly to answer your question, there is several other private revelations that have mentioned the name Pope which referred to anti-Popes. Secondly, remember that he is experiencing a vision not heavenly commentary on everything he sees. Thus, if you were to see a man dressed in white, you would conclude that he is a Pope. Similar to Catherine Emmerichs vision of the Pope and another "Bishop dressed in white." Which is how they put it, but they were both dressed the same. Now even remember those who receive this revelation can misinterpret it, we know this has indeed happen MANY times.
Proper attitude to take, is to simply use private revelation as it was originally intended merely as a general guide. Its not so much the details and particulars but the message in general that we are to use for profit. Therefore Fatima must be understood as Heaven's call for penance and reparation for your personal sins and those of others. It gives us ways in which we can personally do something, such as the First Friday and First Saturday devotions. No, you can't personally go consecrate Russia yourself or expect these anti-Popes to do it either. Its absurd... A little common sense can go a long way my friend, how can you expect a marxist/arian/sodomite approver to somehow do such a task? Its like asking Obama, to consecrate the United States to the Kingship of Christ the King and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Now suppose that even for a second such an event is possible and does happen. How long do you think that Obama will last? Excepting Divine supernatural intervention, these sorts of scenarios we cannot expect. The Great Western Schism was not solved through supernatural means, quite the contrary. St. Vincent Ferrer came to the conclusion that Pedro de Luna was a schismatic not through Divine revelation, but through theology. Therefore, we see the practice of the Saints when it comes to resolving issues dealing with a Crisis. They go back to the theology, and what does the theology tell you?
Heretics are ipso facto, not members of the Church.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
"Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
Now we know that in order to be in communion with Peter you must have the faith of Peter. It is totally alien to the mind of the Church, that those outside can command inside. In addition to that, you must concede that Bergoglio is not only a schismatic, but totally refuses to be the supreme judge. In every single possible instance, in both private and public. He has done everything possible to say that he is just an advisor, kind of like your guru. Just general tips on how to live your life.
Their is total unanimous agreement that a schismatic Pope, even if he not be a heretic loses his office. No one disputes this, not even those who think that somehow a heretic retains his office. Now please note, what small examples they give of what schism is. Ohh boy the sort of stuff we have on these other anti-Popes is nothing compared to the trifling examples they give of what schism looks like.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290&p=13021&hilit=da+silveira&sid=7e74466c34724d6153d3c28a4a7112ba#p13021
Cardinal Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, pars I, lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 369 v, quoted by da Silveira:
1 - (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way, he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able, without doubt, to fall into schism.
2 - The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the Universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt Quidam and Contra Statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established for the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. “De Consue.”) that one ought to obey thePope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed unless there is reasonable cause for this.
3 - Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them be the true Pope, but considered by some to be probably dubious. And let ussuppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII.
Suarez, De Caritate, disp. XII, sect. I, no. 2, pp. 733-734, quoted by da Silveira:
Schism may come about not only by reason of heresy, but also without it, as takes place when someone, conserving the faith, does not wish to maintain the unity of the Church in his actions and his manner of practicing our religion. And this may come about in two ways. In the first way, separating oneself from the head of the Church, as one reads in the chapter “Non vos”, 23, question 5, where the Gloss says that schism consists in not having the Roman Pontiff as one’s head - not denying that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the church, for this would be schism united to heresy, but either rashly denying some Pontiff in particular, or behaving oneself in relation to him as if he were not the head: for example, if someone tried to convoke a General Council without his authorization, or elect an anti-pope. This is the most common mode of schism.
There could be schism of a second mode if someone separated himself from the body of the Church not wishing to communicate with it in the participation of the Sacraments. Saint Epiphanius narrates an example of this (“Haeres.”, 68), in respect to the sect of Melecius, who dissenting with his Patriarch, Peter the Alexandrine, separated himself from him in all the sacrifices, and was accused of schism, there not existing between the two any divergence in matters of faith, as Epiphanius attests. And in this second mode the Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4, c. 11).”11
This is why +Lefebvre called the new mass schismatic, and he admits that it is schism. Well just think of what a normal catechism, any theology manual says what the effects of schism are... Yes, expulsion from the Church and that includes even Popes. We have historical precedent, and on top of that no one even disputes this point.
The Conciliar Anti-Popes:
1) Excommunicated tradition through +Lefebvre who wanted to do this solely for the good of the Church. That is working against the unity of the Church.
Note* That the chief job of the Pope is to be the principal chief of unity in the Church. That is his whole raison d'etre, this is why all of them unanimously agree that a schismatic Pope has 0 jurisdiction.
2) They invented their own canon law, liturgy, de-canonized saints, accepted schismatics without converting/repenting, borrowed from condemned anathematized sects such as the Orthodox (hence Collegiality).
Now they are making you think that there can be such a think as a Pope and a Pope emeritus... Before, even during the reign of several anti-Popes, they all understood that they had only one head, not multiple heads. So now when Bergoglio decides to take a vacation from his duties, we will have two Pope emeritus and another impostor.
The list is truly endless...
-
Thomisticphilosopher said:
"I can give you just as much private revelation in favor of the Sedevacantist position"
Could you post this please. I have never seen one apparition, prophecy or revelation that endorses sedevacantism. Rather, the contrary.
-
In a well known prophecy, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The full text of the same can be read here (http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/st%20don%20bosco.htm). The relevant portion is "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady." St. John Bosco also predicts there will be a Pope in the year 1999 ("one year before the end of the century") and also speaks in detail of the election of two Popes during this time.
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions, but according to the Saint, (who by the way made this prophesy in 1862, precisely 100 years before the disastrous Council was convoked,) consists rather in the promotion of devotion to Our Lady, and to the Holy Eucharist throughout the Church especially by the Pope, and by the faithful subject to and remaining in communion with him.
The full quote is:
“There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century…” 1
References
1. St Don Bosco Prediction of 1862
As others have already pointed out, "this" can refer to tranquillity or to the twin devotions or to the start of the Ecuмenical Council. Also, before the end of the century could mean the 20th century or some other century or to the 100 years between 1862 and 1962.
Regardless of the meaning, the sedevacante theory doesn't rule out the election of a Pope and the restoration of the Church. Furthermore, the Church law which prevents a manifest heretic from holding an ecclesiastical office is not a private opinion. Why don't you ask Cardinal Pell about that among others? Also, the fact that Francis is a heretic is not a private opinion either. His heresy is public. Hard to believe you are still trying to beat this dead horse when so many conservative novus ordites are now starting to have doubts about Francis.
If a private revelation (such as St. John Bosco's) is in conflict with Church teaching we must always follow Church doctrine and either re-interpret the revelation or disregard it altogether.
In any case, thanks for posting this. It is interesting.
-
Clemens Maria said:
"so many conservative novus ordites"
The fact that you can label your brothers and sisters in the Church with such disdain is measure of why God has blinded you. Private judgement of heresy and deposition of a Pope is forbidden by Our Lord (Matt 18:15-17)
It doesn't therefore matter what any other human being says, whatever his rank maybe.
The pharisees and scribes are those who sought to kill Christ and yet Our Lord taught to recognise their authority and obey them. We are obliged to do the same:
Matthew 23:1-3
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."
For those of us who accept these simple and clear teachings, we might reprise to you in regard to your disobedience that it is "Hard to believe you are still trying to beat this dead horse". In fact it is totally amazing!
You yourself say: "we must always follow Church doctrine".
Then why don't you?
-
I did not "attack" sedevacantists, Awkward Customer, although I did critique sedevacantism. St. John Bosco foresaw Vatican II precisely, and therefore this prophesy has merit. Even if you disagree, it at least proves from the words of a Saint that there is no contradiction in an Ecuмenical Council causing chaos within the Church. As for your critique of my post above, you say that because a restoration hasn't happened yet, this prophesy is inaccurate. But is that really what the words of the prophesy says? I agree it is not clear whether the "this" is referring to some action of the Pope to promote devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, or to the return of tranquility itself, but I would argue it is the former, and I agree that circuмstances prove that tranquility hasn't returned yet. Finally, the other parts of the vision describe a destruction of Rome in future (in agreement with other prophecies) and the existence of Popes at the time.
You used the prophecy to claim that there would be a Pope in 1999, in order to prove Sedevacantism wrong. Then you asked the following -
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions......
This would have been a reasonable question if you had not left out the critical sentence.
This will come about one year before the end of the century.....
By skewing the prophecy in this way you turned a reasonable question into an attack, IMO.
-
To awkward customer
Rather than waste time in feigned objectivity; for your efforts are all about combating anyone who will challenge your heresy, which is so vainly precious to you:
"a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." - St Augustine
you would be better off repenting and concentrating on keeping God's commandments and then He will bring you back into the Church:
Romans 13:1-2
"Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. "
"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father to St Catherine - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)
-
To awkward customer
Rather than waste time in feigned objectivity; for your efforts are all about combating anyone who will challenge your heresy, which is so vainly precious to you.......
you would be better off repenting and concentrating on keeping God's commandments and then He will bring you back into the Church....
You are unbelievably rude, Andysloan.
-
awkwardcustomer said:
"You are unbelievably rude, Andysloan."
Luke 16:15
"And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts;"
-
awkwardcustomer said:
"You are unbelievably rude, Andysloan."
Luke 16:15
"And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts;"
And God knoweth your heart, andysloan.
Meanwhile, I only have your posts to go by. And they consist of endless quotes interspersed with vicious insults. Are you fit to be the judge of anyone you disagree with? You must think so, or you wouldn't do it. Do you have the right to viciously insult anyone you don't agree with? You must think so, or you wouldn't do it.
By the way, I seem to remember that you posted somewhere about your special devotion to John Paul II. Is this true? Would you care to elaborate?
Do you have a special devotion for John Paul II, andysloan?
Do tell.
-
awkwardcustomer said
"By the way, I seem to remember that you posted somewhere about your special devotion to John Paul II. Is this true? Would you care to elaborate?
Do you have a special devotion for John Paul II, andysloan?
Do tell."
Your pharasaical status is well-captured in this effort:
Mark 12:13
"And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians; that they should catch him in his words."
As it happens, St John Paul 2 is a great saint - as declared by the church.
"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men" - St Thomas
He was a victim soul, but this is another darkness of your mind that you are punished with.
Ecclesiasticus 11:16
"Error and darkness are created with sinners:"
-
awkwardcustomer said
"By the way, I seem to remember that you posted somewhere about your special devotion to John Paul II. Is this true? Would you care to elaborate?
Do you have a special devotion for John Paul II, andysloan?
Do tell."
Your pharasaical status is well-captured in this effort:
Mark 12:13
"And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians; that they should catch him in his words."
As it happens, St John Paul 2 is a great saint - as declared by the church.
"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men" - St Thomas
He was a victim soul, but this is another darkness of your mind that you are punished with.
Ecclesiasticus 11:16
"Error and darkness are created with sinners:"
See what I mean - quotes interspersed with vicious insults.
And no attempt to answer question.
-
In a well known prophecy, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The full text of the same can be read here (http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/st%20don%20bosco.htm). The relevant portion is "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady." St. John Bosco also predicts there will be a Pope in the year 1999 ("one year before the end of the century") and also speaks in detail of the election of two Popes during this time.
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions, but according to the Saint, (who by the way made this prophesy in 1862, precisely 100 years before the disastrous Council was convoked,) consists rather in the promotion of devotion to Our Lady, and to the Holy Eucharist throughout the Church especially by the Pope, and by the faithful subject to and remaining in communion with him.
Because private revelation does not have to believed. But speaking of St Don Bosco, of whom I have a devotion to he had another profacy I have only heard from a Salesian priest. It was when the Salesian have their headquarter moved to Rome it will be the end of the Salesians.
-
Regardless of the meaning, the sedevacante theory doesn't rule out the election of a Pope and the restoration of the Church. Furthermore, the Church law which prevents a manifest heretic from holding an ecclesiastical office is not a private opinion. Why don't you ask Cardinal Pell about that among others? Also, the fact that Francis is a heretic is not a private opinion either. His heresy is public. Hard to believe you are still trying to beat this dead horse when so many conservative novus ordites are now starting to have doubts about Francis.
Yes, but this hypothetical election of the Pope - via imperfect Council - would be null and invalid if done by unlawful and illicit pastors such as the sede self - appointed Bishops who hold no Jurisdiction, and therefore no Apostolicity, one of the marks of the True Church (thus, they cannot be the Catholic Church).
The Church Law that prevents manifest heretics from holding ecclesiastical office just does not apply to the Roman Pontiff who is the visible reigning head of the Church. There is simply nothing in Ecclesiastical Law that supports a half a century interregnum; but actually only canons and dogmatic statements that condemn it.
-
Yes, but this hypothetical election of the Pope - via imperfect Council - would be null and invalid if done by unlawful and illicit pastors such as the sede self - appointed Bishops who hold no Jurisdiction, and therefore no Apostolicity, one of the marks of the True Church (thus, they cannot be the Catholic Church).
What you write is partly true. Bishops who don't have any jurisdiction cannot participate in a true council. However, theologians give another possibility for the election of a legitimate Pope and that is an election by the clergy of Rome. So any cleric who is tonsured in the Diocese of Rome would be eligible to vote so long as he continues to profess the Catholic Faith.
The Church Law that prevents manifest heretics from holding ecclesiastical office just does not apply to the Roman Pontiff who is the visible reigning head of the Church. There is simply nothing in Ecclesiastical Law that supports a half a century interregnum; but actually only canons and dogmatic statements that condemn it.
I defer to St. Robert Bellarmine as well as cuм Ex Apostolatus as well as pre-Vatican II theologians and canon law commentators. They all agree that a Pope who falls into manifest heresy tacitly resigns his office. They also agree that a man who is a manifest heretic is not eligible to be elected to the papacy. That's true even if the Cardinals choose to ignore the law. In my opinion, it is evidence that the Cardinals themselves do not profess the Catholic Faith if they choose to elect a manifest heretic to the papacy. Obviously, I don't know who voted for Francis but any Cardinals who did vote for him certainly do not profess the Catholic Faith.
-
Clemens Maria said:
"I defer to St. Robert Bellarmine as well as cuм Ex Apostolatus"
Therefore… the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.”
St Robert - De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
ie, in accordance with Our Lord's instruction Matt 18:15-17
"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."
Thus you do not defer to St Robert nor Our Lord in your forbidden private judgement of heresy.
cuм Ex Apostolatus does not employ infallibility, because it is about discipline not dogma:
Dogma 6:14
"The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals."
Thus sedevacantism is herein IMMEDIATELY voided.
In your failure to recognise and submit to validly elected Popes, YOU do not hold the Catholic Faith!
-
“DEPOSITION. i. …A pope cannot be deposed from his office. An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope. In other forms of wrong-doing he remains a member of the visible Church and does not differ from any other sinful ruler whose lawful commands must be obeyed.”
—The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1931).
-
“DEPOSITION. i. …A pope cannot be deposed from his office. An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof; in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope. In other forms of wrong-doing he remains a member of the visible Church and does not differ from any other sinful ruler whose lawful commands must be obeyed.”
—The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1931).
Still, if this is the case, the Church (Bishops & Cardinals) would elect a new Pope, but this has not happened in over half a century. It is dogma that the Catholic Church needs to have a visible reigning Pope and Peter is to have perpetual successors (who provides Jurisdiction, necessary for Apostolic Sucession) and the Church Magisterium must be visible. During legitimate interregnums (the longest in history lasting 2 1/2 years), the Bishops hold the keys and they must be visible (to say that they can be invisible is heresy) but sedes do not know who these Bishops are nor who could potentially elect a new Pope via Imperfect Council. Some say the "Roman Clergy or citizens of the Diocese of Rome" as it happened in Apostolic age but they do not know who these are, either.
Furthermore, we no longer live in the Apostolic Age and the body of electors was precisely defined in 1059, when the College of Cardinals was designated the sole body of electors. Since then, other details of the ecclesiastical process have been developed and accepted by the Church but licit cardinals are needed.
-
Thomisticphilosopher said:
"I can give you just as much private revelation in favor of the Sedevacantist position"
Could you post this please. I have never seen one apparition, prophecy or revelation that endorses sedevacantism. Rather, the contrary.
Andysloan, here is your answer:
http://www.christorchaos.com/BookendedFromBirthtoBirth.htm
-
Cantarella, The reason your logic makes no sense is because you do not believe we are living in the Great Apostasy, as you indicated on either this thread previously or another. Sorry I lost track of where you posted. My point, however, is when you think we are just living in ordinary times just a bit bumpy, for lack of a better word, you can't put your mind around the fact that an interregnum could last much longer than the past ones.
So debating with you is like talking to a teen ager who believes they know everything but
they still have a lot to learn about the world.
Face the facts, the times we are living in are not ordinary, therefore ordinary laws do not apply at times.
God expects us to keep the faith, not try to be theologians with laws that were written for ordinary times. The important factor is to Keep the Faith and be charitable.
-
MyrnaM said:
"Face the facts, the times we are living in are not ordinary, therefore ordinary laws do not apply at times."
Mark 13:31
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away."
Dogma 6:6
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
LIKE THE PROTESTANTS, YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN RELIGION.
2 Peter 3:16
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
MyrnaM also said:
"The important factor is to Keep the Faith and be charitable."
after saying to Canterella:
"So debating with you is like talking to a teenager who believes they know everything but they still have a lot to learn about the world."
YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DAMNATION
"So that you may understand that the Church has received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, hear what the Lord says ... to all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," and then immediately following: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John 20:22-23). These words relate to the keys, of which it had been said: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 16: 19) ...And outside the Church, nothing is loosed ... The charity of the Church which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost forgives the sins of those who are partakers of it. Of those who are not partakers, it retains. The grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to those to whom the faith belongs. He who does not believe remains unhealed." St. Augustine
"The sacrilege of schism surpasses all wickedness ... It is not easy for there to be anything more grievous than the sacrilege of schism, because there is no just necessity for severing unity ... We say that you heretics are all guilty and wicked by the crime of schism. From this most heinous sacrilege not one of you can say he is innocent." St. Augustine
You should not be spending time trying to be a clever mouth; rather you should ask Our Lady for the light and repentance for your rebellion in failure of submission to canonically elected Pontifffs.
-
To RC1953:
According to Fr Bowes;
"Our Lord termed each of “popes” from the time of Angelo Roncalli in 1958 to Karol Wojtyla to be not only anti-popes but Antichrists."
Now, an anti-christ cannot have faith:
Luke 22:31-32
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:"
Dogma 6:6
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
Vatican 1:session 4
"For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood."
A strange affirmation for the Holy Ghost to make in 1870, when 90 years later there would be a 50+ year interregnum!
And Fr Bowes' assertion stands in contrast with the prophecy of St Francis of Assisi:
"The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER."
And the fact that in no private revelation or prophecy is a 50 year+ interregnum mentioned.
Thus, whatever provenance, whether from the imagination or the devil, the "locutions" are false, being contrary to the Words of Our Lord and the dogma and doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church.
St Teresa de Avila on true and false locutions:
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/stteresa/life/teresaofavila07.html
-
Cantarella, The reason your logic makes no sense is because you do not believe we are living in the Great Apostasy, as you indicated on either this thread previously or another. Sorry I lost track of where you posted. My point, however, is when you think we are just living in ordinary times just a bit bumpy, for lack of a better word, you can't put your mind around the fact that an interregnum could last much longer than the past ones.
So debating with you is like talking to a teen ager who believes they know everything but
they still have a lot to learn about the world.
Face the facts, the times we are living in are not ordinary, therefore ordinary laws do not apply at times.
God expects us to keep the faith, not try to be theologians with laws that were written for ordinary times. The important factor is to Keep the Faith and be charitable.
Even if Vatican II was the Great Apostasy, the Church and the Apostolic See are promised to last for ever. Blessed Peter is promised to have perpetual successions until the end of times.
No, personally I don't think we are living in the Great Apostasy because of the Catholic prophecies about the coming of the Great Catholic Monarch as well as the conversion of the Jєωs, but furthermore because even in Sacred Scripture we are told not to worry about when the end will come. Our Lord said not even the angels in Heaven know the time.
Why a fallible human would want to obsession with apocalyptical rhetoric to justify a schism? throughout history, heretics and schismatics have always tried to predict we are living in times of anti-Christ times as a way to separate themselves from the Apostolic See. It was the same in times of Calvin. Usually the anti-Christ is the Pope of Rome or is sitting at the Vatican. Do a historical research or talk to a Protestant friend. In times of the Reformation they must have said something along these lines: "the times we are living in are not ordinary, therefore ordinary laws do not apply at times".
Apparently, you missed this post:
Here I will attach the annotations for St. Paul's Thessalonians 2 from the Original Douay - Rheims of 1582 for any soul out there who is genuinely interested in the subject of revolt / anti-Christ instead of pursuing it of stubbornness. They can draw their own conclusions after reading.
This will probably be my last post on this subject, unless it is evident that the next person who ask has already read these annotations and can ask an intelligent question for fruitful conversation.
Not even a single person had the time or inclination to download these annotations and actually read why we may not be in the end of times. It is because they are not really interested in knowing. They just keep parroting we are living in the end of times without really researching into it in Catholic resources. It a classical case of the blind leading the blind, so predominant in sede circles. It does little good to us, who are actually, fighting towards the restoration of Christendom.
-
Cantarella, you have shown over a period of time to really have no understanding. You are a protestant in your method of study, that much is clear. The only difference between you and Schism House (MHFM), is just a difference in interpretation. However, you both arrive to your conclusions in exactly the same manner. Your whole way of thinking is Donatist/novatianist and totally schismatic in every single sense of the word.
This is why, nothing and no one will ever phase you. To talk to you its the equivalent of talking to a wall, you are simply a waste of time to deal with (you don't even try to have a discussion with others, you are ipso facto the final authority no one can dare see things differently). I have answered honestly your questions (others in the fora have also attempted to do likewise for a while), you have not even attempted to answer them. You think you answer a question, but you don't, all you do is copy/paste the same stuff over and over and over and over and over total red herrings, straw man fallacies, etc... Go back and read some logic, it will really help you. No one can talk to someone who doesn't even attempt to keep with basic logical principles, such as the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be A and not A at the same time). All you do along with andysloan and similar minded individuals, is keep copy pasting your erroneous teachings. I have often said it before, there is nothing wrong with not understanding some of these complex issues (ask questions, talk to a priest etc...). It is perfectly fine not to understand everything (no one can), it is not a crime to be stupid/illogical (it just makes you really hard to deal with, and generally it will really isolate you). You do not need to be intelligent to go to heaven, how often God has worked such great miracles through the most simple souls. These simple souls who totally defy the wisdom of the world, and confound everyone. God chooses these men so that no one might be able to boast that it was done through their own strength, their own understanding, but so that men might be able to see that it is truly from Him alone. So take St. Bernadette who Our Lady revealed herself as the Immaculate Conception, what a great blessing! My point is that true theology, NEVER contradicts those who have a true and simple faith. Your principles lead to so many absurdities, contradictions and is totally alien to any simple soul or magisterial Catholic way of thinking (sentire cuм ecclesia). This is why you are totally wrong, in your understanding. Now why do you think that they call St. Thomas the common Doctor (not just because he is commonly referred to by everyone else)? Also sometimes known as the Doctor of the masses, that is because he generally like anyone who follows the realist school of philosophy agrees with the masses on pretty much everything dealing with sensory experience, imagination and our general understanding of the world. Common sense is a word that is often used, that even someone without great learning can be able to deduce truth through simple experience. Someone who has common sense can be able to detect the principle of non-contradiction at face value. I.e. that what we see, taste, touch and hear can generally be trusted as true, excepting the cases of those who suffer from serious bodily defects of the mind, malnutrition, lack of any sleep. I.e. most of the time there can be a natural explanation for the supernatural phenomena some people might claim to see (such as I saw Jesus in my pancake), true miracles are extraordinary and don't happen often, God can work through secondary causes.
Your a fideist, plain and simple. Protestants, Orthodox, muslims, hinduhs, buddhist all of them are strictly fideist. That is they do not believe that it is possible to have a rational basis for faith. Yes our faith has some mysteries attached to it, there is a leap of faith (initially) that needs to be done. However, it is not a total blind faith that has no extrinsinc/intrinsic evidence as to why we should believe in the claims of the Catholic Church. Vatican I defined solemnly, God can be certainly known through natural reason ALONE. Now the Trinity, could not have been known through natural reason alone, we take this on the authority of God himself, such as revelation. This is what we mean by a mystery of faith, we can be sure that this is the truth based on the great miracles and the Holiness of the doctrine of Christ. It leads men to be that much greater than themselves, to be above the natural, that is supernatural. No one even comes close to comparing to that great charity of the Saints, how God has adorned them with so many great Diadems of virtue. They are nothing but pure gems, that shine forth the life of God in their interior lives. They proof that Our Lord Jesus Christ is still among us, by their heroic virtues, their great testimony is a living proof for the world to believe that Jesus Christ is truly the Savior of the human race. That only His doctrine, leads to the path of the One True God which can be certainly ascertained through natural reason.
You keep making crazy claims, without backing any of them up. You keep dishonestly calling Sedevacantists schismatics, while its pretty clear you are the schismatic. You hold stubbornly, even quite in opposition to EVERYONE else in the world to your idea of BOB/BOD being invalid etc... It doesn't surprise me, because you are driven by your own spirit (something that St. Thomas says is proof that you are a false teacher). You keep dishonestly saying that Vatican I teaches that perpetual means something else, than what the Fathers of Vatican I have explicitly taught it teaches.
You read everything out of context, with no discernment and understanding. Does the magisterium even matter to you? Seriously... This is a wake up call to all those who nod in agreement to those traditional minded schismatics, who simply copy/paste with no understanding.
To you the papacy and Bishops mean nothing, because you do not hold to Vatican I teachings that the Universal and ordinary magisterium are infallible. You see the papacy as every 300 years it says something infallible and that is it. You fail to really understand the full extent of the consequences of the teaching of the proper understanding of the infallibility of the Church, the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary magisterium, the infallibility of the Pope, and in what manner does the Holy Ghost guide the true Church of Christ. None of these things you seem to understand at all, and nothing will ever make you change your mind, short of a near death experience with supernatural revelation. Nay, even such an experience won't change your mind.
Most Feeneyites are not ipso facto schismatics, but they are driven by that same spirit of exegesis which destroys the authority of the magisterium. It took 400 years after Trent for these individuals to enlighten the whole world about what the Church teaches with regards to the most basic teaching on what is necessary for salvation. This is why dishonestly MHFM and their ilk (recently had a 4 hour debate with a Dimondite in person), will claim that after they wrote their book on salvation (which is definitive), everyone is anathema sit who believes otherwise. These individuals truly have not only replaced the papacy, but the magisterium. That book has the equivalent worth of the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council, its that simple. Quite incredible claims if you ask me, this is why no amount of reasoning will ever get through them. They don't care about what the Church teaches so long as it doesn't contradict their interpretation as to what they think the Church teaches. This is why even after being charitably pointed out, that they are taking out of context x or y author, they will continue to copy/paste their interpretation. Disdain for truth, is generally what drives these folks. Totally self-driven spirit, you trust to much in your own self. Quit taking yourself so seriously, and start to take a healthy approach to doctrine. Start to defer your opinions to the authentic teaching of the Church.
Let me give an example that is concrete:
You are about to search and study, what the nature of heresy is, how to detect it, what its effects are, how one becomes guilty of it, etc... You want to know everything about that topic.
You see a general pattern that since the very start of the first Pentecost many heretics have assaulted the truth of the Catholic Church and its authority since the beginning. So you start to wonder, well gee how can I be able to know that I am the right "side of the question" on any given topic? So when it comes to heresy it is not a matter of how intelligent you are etc... For many people whose natural talents far exceed those of others have been total heretics, so take Sir Isaac Newton (a true genius in every sense of the word) was a Unitarian after his reading of scripture. Sir Isaac Newton understood Latin, Greek and Hebrew!? How come the simple Catholic is right and he is wrong? When most people are not even aware of the original languages, what if indeed he was right and we all have been deceived by the institution of the Catholic Church, what if all the previous heretics were right and some sort of anti-Christ conspiracy since the inception of the Church did happen. Mormons, Jehova's witnesses and all other non-traditional Christian sects follow this school of thought.
How come we are right and the Orthodox are wrong? Or the Oriental schismatics are wrong and we are right? Why Luther is wrong and we are right etc... You start to see a pattern with heretics, they tend to be self-driven people who think very highly of their own interpretations. Under the pretext of conscience, they will stubbornly despite being shown that they are indeed wrong, nevertheless the heretic will stick to their own guns (so to speak).
So now you are all confused, and you are not even sure what to believe. You will tell yourself, man there are so many opinions out there on every single topic. How am I supposed to know what to believe! Everyone makes a truth claim, by what means can I be able to discern what is true and what is not true? Well when it comes to spiritual matters, it is quite simple the authority of the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. If we are indeed deceived about this and some sort of conspiracy did happen, then you can take for granted that Jesus was not truly God and man at the same time, after this anything is fair game. He is the biggest deceiver that the human race has ever seen. However, any objective observation will make you see that throughout every single generation since the death of Christ the Church has had extraordinary men who have proven over and over, the truth of the Christian religion (the Catholic religion of course). His doctrine has passed the litmus and test of time, up to even our modern era.
So when a Catholic has an opinion on something, what he first does is he goes and checks if it squares with the teachings of the Councils, the Popes and the ordinary & universal magisterium. He will then check after that what the approved teachers have said on x or y topic, then what he will do is to try and understand it so that he can defend it to others. For it is not the same thing to understand and to teach something to someone else, for to teach means that you have a good grasp of the principles you are talking about. I might know differential equations/linear algebra/calculus in general, but I certainly can't teach it to other folks. Instead of helping them out, I might even confuse them more if I tried to teach them on those topics, with probably few exceptions. So when it comes to that particular topic I just remain quiet on those areas I am not too familiar, until I understand it enough where I feel that I won't be teaching them any funny math.
So then one might ask? Well how am I ever supposed to learn, if I don't have an opportunity to speak? Well its simple, be more of a student rather than a teacher. How do you think St. Thomas got to the great degree of learning that he reached? He was a student most of his life, and then at the end became a great teacher. He knew the right balance to strike, and he knew how to differentiate when he knew something well and when he did not. This attitude is the right one to make, especially on a forum. It gives you the opportunity to learn and ask questions, also to participate in discussions. It also gives you an opportunity to even have strong convictions on topics, and you can even then defend your thesis if you believe that it is true. True discussion can then take place, and a dialogue/search for truth can then take place when both individuals have this sort of attitude in their epistemological methods (how you arrive to truth).
Someone might then object and say, well that looks like a lot work! I have children, work, how could I ever be able to follow such a rigorous method! Well, you have nothing to worry about, because I already told you previously this is why we seek for the approved teachers of the Church. They have already done much of the grunt work for you, and this is why the Catholic in a way has it much easier than other false religions. Yes if you are really intelligent, you might arrive with enough time/study/effort to true conclusions on many topics it is certainly possible. Such as an atheist changing his stance on abortion due the heavy scientific evidence proving that it is indeed murder of an innocent baby (that is fully human). Many protestants actually do believe in many Catholic doctrines, because they know the original languages of scripture and they have a great familiarity with the Scriptures. So that they don't make some of the worst mistakes many Protestants made in the past. However, no matter what they will always have it ultimately wrong, because their basis of faith is their own authority. They have derogated to themselves the very authority of God, and have robbed the Church of her mandate. So this is not a question of intelligence, it is one of submission to that which God has ordained for us to follow. Our only duty is to then follow the teaching of the magisterium...
Well what is the magisterium? It solely consist of the ordinary Bishops and the Pope, they derogate this to the whole flock of Christ. So the priest has his mandate from his Bishop, and he gets this from the Pope. The Pope gets this mandate from Christ, there is a proper succession of derogation. Well that is all fine and dandy, why then do you not simply submit to the Vatican II sect? Well like I said, Catholic teaching has been clear for well over 1900 years that heretics, will never be a part of the Church. In fact this teaching is so solemn, that there has not been ever a century where the Church has taught otherwise. This has been defined in both the scriptures, every single Father of the Church, ecuмenical Council and taught explicitly in papal encyclicals/bulls/etc... Now how do I know that this has been the true teaching of the Church since day 1? Because since day 1 heretics have been assaulting the Church. The Holy Ghost was not defined until 381, the Christological truths were not defined until much later. The teaching that heretics are not a part of the faithful, has been taught in every single century throughout the entire history of the Church. There is nothing that has been taught more solemnly by the Church than this particular teaching. You can take that to the bank, this is infallible teaching. If it is not infallible teaching, then we are free to doubt everything. Only those who belong to the faithful can command inside the Church, its not that difficult. So only those clergy that are a part of the faithful of Christ, can be able to ever have a valid licit mission from God. Yes, heretics can sometimes be supplied jurisdiction on a grave case by case basis, but this is only done for the sake of the faithful. I.e. an Orthodox man who gets his last Rites from an Eastern heretic/schismatic, will never get supplied jurisdiction, EVER. Supplied jurisdiction is only given for the benefit of the true flock of Christ, not any heretic or schismatic.
They are outside of the Church (the Vatican II schismatic sect) and as such can be rejected by the faithful. So then once I am aware that indeed these men, are devoid of that God given authority, then at that point I will not be held guilty of disobeying the authority of the Church, because they simply don't have it. So my job as a part of the sheep is to just discern who is the true and false shepherd. That is it... Nothing more, and nothing less. If there are no shepherds God will provide, as He did in the case of our poor brothers in Japan.
So no matter how hard or difficult the situation is, the Church is a perfect society that can solve every single possible situation it is confronted with. Now as to the details of how that happens exactly, well that is our duty to investigate and learn. However, we know by Divine and Catholic faith that this will happen. So no matter how bleak or serious the situation is, we will always have what is necessary to our salvation. Whether we have a Pope or not, whether we have few Bishops or many Bishops, whether you have a few priest in your continent or many priests. Whether or not you have the true mass in your area. Any single Catholic of good will, can know with absolute certainty of faith that God is not trying to Damn him/her. Any person who is sincerely sorry for their sins (true contrition) and desires to be a part of the Church, can be certain that he will have a shot in the day of Judgment. God of course, will be the one to determine whether or not, you truly had contrition etc... There is nothing that the omniscience of God cannot see, and you are truly naked before Him.
The reason why I made such a long response is simple, I wanted to demonstrate to others what a schismatic is, and what a schismatic is not. The modus operandi of heretics/schismatics and what the modus operandi of the sheep of Christ. Do not be like those 10 foolish virgins, be like the 10 wise virgins. Learn true doctrine, abandon those foolish methods of study. I was going to quote some more stuff but due to a lack of time, I will simply have to wait. Some good Thomist quotes, from his treatise on the Errors of the Greeks, that back up some of what I am saying. I.e. this very same principles of how we are to study and read the Fathers, St. Thomas when refuting the Greek schismatics gives us a great guide as to how we are to interpret the Fathers. This is why when you go through St. Thomas, you get the very best of the Fathers. I never cease to amaze at the teaching of so great a man, as Leo XIII reminds us in Aeterni Patris.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html
19. For these reasons most learned men, in former ages especially, of the highest repute in theology and philosophy, after mastering with infinite pains the immortal works of Thomas, gave themselves up not so much to be instructed in his angelic wisdom as to be nourished upon it. It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others all testify that they are bound by this law.
This is pure manna from heaven. Amen!
For, the noble endowments which make the Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth-to wit, as the same Pontiff adds, "that ready and close coherence of cause and effect, that order and array as of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions, by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and strip naked, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies"(33)
17. Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because "he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all."(34) The doctrines of those illustrious men, like the scattered members of a body, Thomas collected together and cemented, distributed in wonderful order, and so increased with important additions that he is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith. With his spirit at once humble and swift, his memory ready and tenacious, his life spotless throughout, a lover of truth for its own sake, richly endowed with human and divine science, like the sun he heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his teaching.
Now we must ask ourselves, can we honestly say that indeed we are being nourished by his teachings? Or own self-driven spirit, riddled with contradictions, stupidities and madness.
Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."(36)
John XXII who canonized St. Thomas said, that one year of study of St. Thomas is more profitable than a whole lifetime of studies of the Fathers of the Church. I can honestly say, that more recently once I started taking Thomism more seriously (I always loved him, but there is a categorical difference now). I used to spend most of my time in Patristics, apologetics (contra atheism in particular), and spiritual reading. Now 90% of it is reading St. Thomas, 10% everything else. I can tell you that you will quickly resolve any doubts you have, when you decide to be a student of his rather than his teacher. Unless you are deeply inebriated in his teaching and philosophy, you will have a hard time grasping true metaphysics, epistemology, ecclesiology, apologetics, scriptural exegesis, and so forth. He simply gives you the tools by which your mind can be able to think of hard problems. He truly simply gives the shortcut tools to answer difficult questions. We live in a very complicated modern world, and this is why everyone is so riddled in the mud of confusion/fear/despair/apocalyptic_private_interpretations.
Hope this serves as a tool, and once again I ask for your prayers. I have an upcoming interview, I will also be updating real soon on some of the other projects I had posted previously. I will be posting in like 2 weeks some topics, I wanted to ask the opinion of many of you on something I have had some doubts about.
-
I did not "attack" sedevacantists, Awkward Customer, although I did critique sedevacantism. St. John Bosco foresaw Vatican II precisely, and therefore this prophesy has merit. Even if you disagree, it at least proves from the words of a Saint that there is no contradiction in an Ecuмenical Council causing chaos within the Church. As for your critique of my post above, you say that because a restoration hasn't happened yet, this prophesy is inaccurate. But is that really what the words of the prophesy says? I agree it is not clear whether the "this" is referring to some action of the Pope to promote devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, or to the return of tranquility itself, but I would argue it is the former, and I agree that circuмstances prove that tranquility hasn't returned yet. Finally, the other parts of the vision describe a destruction of Rome in future (in agreement with other prophecies) and the existence of Popes at the time.
What if St John Bosco misinterpreted his visions, etc? Perhaps what appeared to be a pope to him was really someone who wasn't but appeared to be so?
I'm thinking most Catholics who saw a bishop in a white cassock would immediately think pope rather than an anti-pope.
-
Briefly to answer your question, there is several other private revelations that have mentioned the name Pope which referred to anti-Popes. Secondly, remember that he is experiencing a vision not heavenly commentary on everything he sees. Thus, if you were to see a man dressed in white, you would conclude that he is a Pope. Similar to Catherine Emmerichs vision of the Pope and another "Bishop dressed in white." Which is how they put it, but they were both dressed the same. Now even remember those who receive this revelation can misinterpret it, we know this has indeed happen MANY times.
Oh, wow. I swear I did not read your post before I wrote mine.
And kudos to the rest of your post as well!
-
I did not "attack" sedevacantists, Awkward Customer, although I did critique sedevacantism. St. John Bosco foresaw Vatican II precisely, and therefore this prophesy has merit. Even if you disagree, it at least proves from the words of a Saint that there is no contradiction in an Ecuмenical Council causing chaos within the Church. As for your critique of my post above, you say that because a restoration hasn't happened yet, this prophesy is inaccurate. But is that really what the words of the prophesy says? I agree it is not clear whether the "this" is referring to some action of the Pope to promote devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, or to the return of tranquility itself, but I would argue it is the former, and I agree that circuмstances prove that tranquility hasn't returned yet. Finally, the other parts of the vision describe a destruction of Rome in future (in agreement with other prophecies) and the existence of Popes at the time.
You used the prophecy to claim that there would be a Pope in 1999, in order to prove Sedevacantism wrong. Then you asked the following -
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions......
This would have been a reasonable question if you had not left out the critical sentence.
This will come about one year before the end of the century.....
By skewing the prophecy in this way you turned a reasonable question into an attack, IMO.
I took it the same way, but I believe Nishant to be a good soul. I rarely see him "attack" sedes unlike other notorious anti-sede posters.
-
To awkward customer
Rather than waste time in feigned objectivity; for your efforts are all about combating anyone who will challenge your heresy, which is so vainly precious to you.......
you would be better off repenting and concentrating on keeping God's commandments and then He will bring you back into the Church....
You are unbelievably rude, Andysloan.
The red hide button is your friend. Trust me.
-
Blah Blah Blah
Dear ThomisticPhilosopher,
You can have the certainty that I no longer read your litanies. Once you learn to summarize your point, in one or two sentences, perhaps one well-written paragraph using correct punctuation, then I may give you another opportunity.
In the meantime, your chance to be taken seriously is over.
God bless
-
To awkward customer
Rather than waste time in feigned objectivity; for your efforts are all about combating anyone who will challenge your heresy, which is so vainly precious to you.......
you would be better off repenting and concentrating on keeping God's commandments and then He will bring you back into the Church....
You are unbelievably rude, Andysloan.
The red hide button is your friend. Trust me.
Yes, I've already put andysloan on 'hide'.
-
I did not "attack" sedevacantists, Awkward Customer, although I did critique sedevacantism. St. John Bosco foresaw Vatican II precisely, and therefore this prophesy has merit. Even if you disagree, it at least proves from the words of a Saint that there is no contradiction in an Ecuмenical Council causing chaos within the Church. As for your critique of my post above, you say that because a restoration hasn't happened yet, this prophesy is inaccurate. But is that really what the words of the prophesy says? I agree it is not clear whether the "this" is referring to some action of the Pope to promote devotion to Our Lady and the Eucharist, or to the return of tranquility itself, but I would argue it is the former, and I agree that circuмstances prove that tranquility hasn't returned yet. Finally, the other parts of the vision describe a destruction of Rome in future (in agreement with other prophecies) and the existence of Popes at the time.
You used the prophecy to claim that there would be a Pope in 1999, in order to prove Sedevacantism wrong. Then you asked the following -
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions......
This would have been a reasonable question if you had not left out the critical sentence.
This will come about one year before the end of the century.....
By skewing the prophecy in this way you turned a reasonable question into an attack, IMO.
I took it the same way, but I believe Nishant to be a good soul. I rarely see him "attack" sedes unlike other notorious anti-sede posters.
You're right.
-
In a well known prophecy, St. John Bosco predicted the Second Vatican Council and its disastrous impact on the Church. The full text of the same can be read here (http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/st%20don%20bosco.htm). The relevant portion is "There will be an Ecuмenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquillity will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady." St. John Bosco also predicts there will be a Pope in the year 1999 ("one year before the end of the century") and also speaks in detail of the election of two Popes during this time.
How do sedevacantists square this prophecy with their evident misdiagnosis of the situation during and after Vatican II? The truth is that sedevacantism completely prevents real Church restoration. The real solution is not in clinging to sedevacantist private opinions, but according to the Saint, (who by the way made this prophesy in 1862, precisely 100 years before the disastrous Council was convoked,) consists rather in the promotion of devotion to Our Lady, and to the Holy Eucharist throughout the Church especially by the Pope, and by the faithful subject to and remaining in communion with him.
In the mid nineteen nineties I was introduced ( as a "Lefebvrist" ) by an acquaintance to a leading theologian of the archdiocese I live in. A kindly man, and a personal friend of JPII, he said to me: I'm usually free in the afternoon. If you have a few hours to spare, I will show you from Church docuмents and teaching, that the SSPX is not a part of the Catholic Church.
But I never went to see him, being a rabid SSPXer at that time.. Around that same period of time, a couple of SSPX priests were coming to our town to conduct a "mission". I used to go to a local priest for confession and this is what he told, to my utter surprise, a relative of a neighbour of mine who asked whether she could attend this mission: Those are not Catholic priests and that is no mission.
I wonder if these past several years of Bp Fellay talking to Rome seem to have given some people the idea that the SSPX has some sort of "approaching full communion" with Rome?. To rank and file Novus Ordoites, there is nothing of the sort. The present Bishop of Albano will confirm this.( He is a true bishop, yes?)
Why this post? Because these direct or oblique attacks against sedes (by SSPXers) are a real turn off for me. And I have been with the SSPX for about 25 years.