Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Disputaciones on June 23, 2015, 08:54:07 PM
-
Did you do the novena?
-
Not yet. I'm in the middle of another 54-Day novena right now. Will let you know when I do it.
-
Did you do the novena?
I did.
No rose.
Not even a picture of one.
:scratchchin:
-
Did you do the novena?
I did.
No rose.
Not even a picture of one.
:scratchchin:
And how did you frame your petition? What would a rose have signified?
-
Did you do the novena?
I did.
No rose.
Not even a picture of one.
:scratchchin:
And how did you frame your petition? What would a rose have signified?
I asked St. Therese to have someone hand me a rose if Francis is truly the Vicar of Christ.
-
Did you do the novena?
I did.
No rose.
Not even a picture of one.
:scratchchin:
And how did you frame your petition? What would a rose have signified?
I asked St. Therese to have someone hand me a rose if Francis is truly the Vicar of Christ.
So that can mean either:
1) St. Therese didn't answer the question in response to your prayer.
2) Francis isn't.
Inconclusive. Perhaps you could try flipping it around. Ask for a rose if he ISN'T the Pope.
Of course, with sedeprivationism, he is but he isn't at the same time.
-
Why wouldn't she answer a question the answer to which has a bearing on the salvation of my soul? Or did she perhaps think the question too stupid and the answer self-evident? I'm not trying to be flip, but just throwing out some thoughts that went through my head.
-
Why wouldn't she answer a question the answer to which has a bearing on the salvation of my soul? Or did she perhaps think the question too stupid and the answer self-evident? I'm not trying to be flip, but just throwing out some thoughts that went through my head.
Because for whatever reason it's not the will of God to answer the question in this way. It's that simple. We do not always get the answer we want to our prayer. We can pray every day that God will restore the Church but He's not ready to do so ... despite the fact that it has a bearing on the salvation of souls.
-
Maybe.
I am losing, and may have already lost, my faith anyway. Can't reconcile Catholicism with the present day sham, and certainly see no evidence that the "true" Church exists in any independent chapel or group.
Oh well.
-
Maybe.
I am losing, and may have already lost, my faith anyway. Can't reconcile Catholicism with the present day sham, and certainly see no evidence that the "true" Church exists in any independent chapel or group.
Oh well.
Except that we've received prophecies to that effect to help console us. That's why God left us these.
The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.
-
Maybe.
I am losing, and may have already lost, my faith anyway. Can't reconcile Catholicism with the present day sham, and certainly see no evidence that the "true" Church exists in any independent chapel or group.
Oh well.
This is why I believe it is imperative to realize that we are dealing with usurpers and false claimants who have infiltrated the Church, because to believe that these men truly represent the Church, is a complete mockery, makes it all meaningless and yeah, you may as well end up saying "Bah, this is all a sham after all".
None of these modernists represent the Church nor have any authority.
Either way, we have to focus on sanctifying ourselves and avoiding sin.
Things will eventually clear up.
-
Why wouldn't she answer a question the answer to which has a bearing on the salvation of my soul? Or did she perhaps think the question too stupid and the answer self-evident? I'm not trying to be flip, but just throwing out some thoughts that went through my head.
First, whether Francis is pope or not has no bearing on the salvation of your soul. Your salvation depends upon you persevering in the faith till your last breath so you can die in the state of sanctifying grace.
Second, suppose you received a rose from someone - does that mean you now know Francis is pope? Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem? IOW, do you suppose if you received a rose you could now sin without fear of punishment because Francis is pope? St. Therese is not going to be responsible for that.
Don't be solicitous for something harmful to you and expect heaven to answer.
"Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
-
Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem?
Does the SBC, which is in full union with Rome, do all these things? It's very important to distinguish the common Novus Ordo praxis from actual Magisterium. At no point has the NO officially taught contraception, divorce/remarriage, CITH ... although they've been permissive of all these things. There are alternatives to the NO Mass also.
-
Why wouldn't she answer a question the answer to which has a bearing on the salvation of my soul? Or did she perhaps think the question too stupid and the answer self-evident? I'm not trying to be flip, but just throwing out some thoughts that went through my head.
First, whether Francis is pope or not has no bearing on the salvation of your soul. Your salvation depends upon you persevering in the faith till your last breath so you can die in the state of sanctifying grace.
Second, suppose you received a rose from someone - does that mean you now know Francis is pope? Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem? IOW, do you suppose if you received a rose you could now sin without fear of punishment because Francis is pope? St. Therese is not going to be responsible for that.
Don't be solicitous for something harmful to you and expect heaven to answer.
"Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
I beg your pardon, but in order to save our souls we must be subject to the roman pontiff. Is that or is it not an infallible statement by a pope?
-
And before you give me the rote sede answers, I know them all by heart. "We would be if we had a true pope." Well, yes, but then this opens up another can of worms.
-
Anyway, no one here or elsewhere will be standing with me at my Particular Judgment. Whatever decision I make is my own and only I will have to answer to God for it. I can't very well say as an excuse: "But, Lord, the people on CathInfo said......"
-
I beg your pardon, but in order to save our souls we must be subject to the roman pontiff. Is that or is it not an infallible statement by a pope?
Yes, but it's very important to understand the distinctions. One must be FORMALLY subject to the pope. In the case of material error regarding his identity, one can still be saved. Had St. Vincent Ferrer died while adhering to the wrong pope, would he have been lost? No, of course not. That's because he would simply have been in material error. It's the same with heresy. If someone has a heretical notion about something, if it's just a case of not understanding or knowing, and one would immediately reject it upon being enlightened, that's referred to as material heresy, and it does not exclude someone from the Church or from salvation.
-
Why wouldn't she answer a question the answer to which has a bearing on the salvation of my soul? Or did she perhaps think the question too stupid and the answer self-evident? I'm not trying to be flip, but just throwing out some thoughts that went through my head.
First, whether Francis is pope or not has no bearing on the salvation of your soul. Your salvation depends upon you persevering in the faith till your last breath so you can die in the state of sanctifying grace.
Second, suppose you received a rose from someone - does that mean you now know Francis is pope? Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem? IOW, do you suppose if you received a rose you could now sin without fear of punishment because Francis is pope? St. Therese is not going to be responsible for that.
Don't be solicitous for something harmful to you and expect heaven to answer.
"Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof."
I beg your pardon, but in order to save our souls we must be subject to the roman pontiff. Is that or is it not an infallible statement by a pope?
Yes, our personal submission to the pope is a necessity for salvation. But we are in a crisis. In this crisis, the Holy See has proven to be habitually scandalous - or at best, unreliable. Whether the Seat is Vacant or not, this much is fact. Perhaps it won't be that way in the next crisis, but that's the way it is in this one.
Should the Pope (or non-pope for that matter) ever decree something necessary that does not offend God, we are bound to submit. As it is, the Conciliar popes preach a different Gospel. This is a fact whether they are popes or not.
St. Paul said: "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel."
I too often wonder the same thing. He continues: "Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."
Read the commentary from the Haydock Bible (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id193.html) here. ".....because changed by such teachers with a mixture of errors,....and in this sense, they are said to subvert, or destroy the gospel of Christ: so that the apostle hesitates not to pronounce and repeat an anathema, a curse upon all that preach any thing besides, that is, in point of religion, not agreeing with what he had taught."
The final point here, St. Paul sums up: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
Because there can be zero doubt that this pope preaches a different gospel, St. Paul tells us we are to "let him be anathema" - so, let him be anathema, but you should not be so troubled over whether the pope is the pope or not, your concern is supposed to lie in persevering in "that which you have received" no matter what the other gospel teaches or who teaches it.
So you see, St. Paul warned us first, and many other saints warned us as well - the last being Pope St. Pius X - what we are to do when (not if) we ever encountered such a thing - none of them ever told us we were to concern ourselves with deciding if the pope was the pope or not - or deciding whether the "angel from heaven" was and angel from heaven or not.
-
I beg your pardon, but in order to save our souls we must be subject to the roman pontiff. Is that or is it not an infallible statement by a pope?
Yes, but it's very important to understand the distinctions. One must be FORMALLY subject to the pope. In the case of material error regarding his identity, one can still be saved. Had St. Vincent Ferrer died while adhering to the wrong pope, would he have been lost? No, of course not. That's because he would simply have been in material error. It's the same with heresy. If someone has a heretical notion about something, if it's just a case of not understanding or knowing, and one would immediately reject it upon being enlightened, that's referred to as material heresy, and it does not exclude someone from the Church or from salvation.
I do not completely understand being subject to the man in the Chair formally, informally, objectively or etc. In it's simplest form, I understand that wrong is wrong no matter who preaches it. In this crisis and for this discussion, it's the pope, or occupant of the Chair if you will, who is wrong - and I think that much is so totally obvious that it is indisputable.
We know "the gospel" St. Paul preached. He expects us to know "the gospel" he preached lest he would not have said as much. He did not say "if someone preaches the heresy of Calvinism or the heresy of indifferentism or the heresy of whatever - - -nor did he say if the angel from heaven publicly spoke of his private opinions that were heretical, to let him be anathema - he said whoever preached the wrong gospel is anathema. Period. The conciliar popes all preach the wrong gospel. If they are popes or not, they preach the wrong gospel.
I think the below quote accurately reflects Catholic teaching, but if not, I would like to know what the error is in Fr.'s quote below, particularly the bolded part.
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.
-
I'm being chided for making a novena that wasn't even my idea to begin with.
:thinking: :rolleyes: :fryingpan:
-
Stupid woman, why are you making such a stupid novena?? :fryingpan: :fryingpan: :fryingpan:
:laugh1:
-
Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem?
Does the SBC, which is in full union with Rome, do all these things? It's very important to distinguish the common Novus Ordo praxis from actual Magisterium. At no point has the NO officially taught contraception, divorce/remarriage, CITH ... although they've been permissive of all these things. There are alternatives to the NO Mass also.
I don't really know for sure what the SBC does these days, but far as I know, they have never said the new "mass" nor have they adhered too or ever promoted anything NO - far as I know.
The point I was trying to get across is that Alexandria's concern is entirely misplaced.
-
I beg your pardon, but in order to save our souls we must be subject to the roman pontiff. Is that or is it not an infallible statement by a pope?
And before you give me the rote sede answers, I know them all by heart. "We would be if we had a true pope." Well, yes, but then this opens up another can of worms.
I take back the previous post i directed at you, because i didn't know you were fully aware of what's going on.
You're fully aware of what's going on, you're not some lost or confused Novus Ordo person who doesn't know what's hit him yet, and yet you say you've lost your faith.
How can that be if you know what's going on?
-
Will you become Novus Ordo and do what NOers do and attend the new "mass", CITH, contracept, divorce/remarry, etc. ad nausem?
Does the SBC, which is in full union with Rome, do all these things? It's very important to distinguish the common Novus Ordo praxis from actual Magisterium. At no point has the NO officially taught contraception, divorce/remarriage, CITH ... although they've been permissive of all these things. There are alternatives to the NO Mass also.
No, while SBC is in juridical union with Rome and recognizes (and therefore submit to) Pope Francis as the legitimate occupant of the Seat of Peter, there is a VERY strong counter-revolutionary opposition against Modernism in all its forms. This means, no Novus Ordo Mass, (it has always been strictly Tridentine Latin Mass only), and of course, no Feminism, anticonceptive mentality, divorce, communion in the hand, sentimental or liberation theology, judaizer mentality, among then rest of evils. Every single aspect of modernist influence brought by the Sin of Liberalism is utterly abhorrent to us.
-
No, while SBC is in juridical union with Rome and recognizes (and therefore submit to) Pope Francis as the legitimate occupant of the Seat of Peter, there is a VERY strong counter-revolutionary opposition against Modernism in all its forms. This means, no Novus Ordo Mass, (it has always been strictly Tridentine Latin Mass only), and of course, no Feminism, anticonceptive mentality, divorce, communion in the hand, sentimental or liberation theology, judaizer mentality, among then rest of evils. Every single aspect of modernist influence brought by the Sin of Liberalism is utterly abhorrent to us.
What is SBC?
-
SBC = St. Benedict Center (http://catholicism.org/a-brief-history-of-saint-benedict-center.html)