Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on August 29, 2019, 08:12:03 AM
-
The Pope question is neither here nor there unless you're a Bishop, cleric or have a special calling. For all of us laymen (which is the majority of CathInfo) we just have to keep the Faith and be Traditional Catholics, completely rejecting Vatican II and its de-facto new religion. Do this, and we have a chance of saving our souls. Do it not, and our souls have a 100X greater chance of losing the Faith and being lost.
The Pope question is a complete red herring for Traditional Catholics. We have much bigger fish to fry, as demonstrated and discussed in the "Catholics Living in the Modern World" thread about daughters being worldly and boy-crazy. SSPX and other Trad Catholics are losing their sons and daughters to the World and to satan -- but they don't care, as long as they think they have the Pope question figured out! Madness!
I've pointed out many times that Sedevacantism offers zero practical benefit over and above the immense benefits of the Traditional Movement itself. Now whether it causes any harm seems to be open for debate.
I personally go so far as to say that the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church is a bona fide supernatural mystery, one that literally can't be known, achieved or grasped by human reason alone, without the aid of Divine Revelation -- and God hasn't revealed it yet! That is to say, if all the best minds and theologians in Tradition got together for a 1-month conference, they wouldn't be able to figure out the Crisis in the Church, unless God joined their little conference.
This is my perspective, as one who has been in the actual Traditional movement for over 4 decades.
Unless men can figure out the mind and plans of God "by human reason alone", the Crisis in the Church is a nut that will never be cracked by human power.
-
It is a FACT that we Traditional Catholics only have so many hours in the day, and much of that is spent by the time we wake up in the morning: duties of state, work, personal care, maintenance, you name it.
How many hours a week does the average Trad have, to study, pray, and think about things? Do we really have the leisure to muse about academic questions like the status of the Pope, when there are SO MANY more pressing, practical matters that need our immediate attention!
Do you think God wants you, the head of a family, to worry more about raising your children Catholic, or does He expect you to figure out the Crisis in the Church and the Pope question with 100% certainty and clarity?
I think it's obvious that God only expects MORAL certainty, enough to act on (enough to become a Traditional Catholic) and to spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later.
If I were the devil, you know what I'd do? I'd trick Trads into wasting time spinning their wheels on the Pope question, so I can get their ill-prepared and relatively neglected children. Diabolically clever!
Ooops... you know what? I bet that's exactly what the devil thought! He's been doing that for years.
Trads aren't going to be tempted by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, becoming a transsɛҳuąƖ, etc. The ways the devil gets a Leftist, the ways he gets a Novus Ordo Catholic, and the ways he gets a Trad are CERTAINLY going to be completely different. It's common sense! The devil isn't some 80 IQ moron who uses the same tactics on everybody. Unlike Leftists, the devil knows and accepts the truth that there are vast differences in men -- different temperaments, different cultures/races, differences in male/female brains and psychology, differences in upbringing, individual strengths/weaknesses, etc. AND THE DEVIL USES EVERY LAST BIT OF THIS KNOWLEDGE when trying to tempt or misdirect a soul.
-
Is it really that much of a mystery? I think every traditional Catholic understands the problem is with the pope. So what’s wrong with the pope? Easy, we don’t have one. It’s not rocket science.
-
Is it really that much of a mystery? I think every traditional Catholic understands the problem is with the pope. So what’s wrong with the pope? Easy, we don’t have one. It’s not rocket science.
The issue is 60 year sedevacantism means that we now have no hierarchy, which cannot be.
Yet an occupied See means that we have a pope teaching heresy and celebrating a false mass, and that 99% of valid Catholics masses celebrated around the world are invalid and blasphemous. On top of that, many sedeplenist Trads also believe the new rite of ordination is doubtful - so they don't even know if the pope is a real priest! None of those things can possibly be either - Catholic masses cannot be blasphemous, the Church certainly cannot promulgate a false rite, a false rite of ordination would mean Francis isn't even pope, and a false rite of ordination would mean that in 50 or so years we'd have no hierarchy - so the exact same problem as sedevacantism, only delayed, along with all the other issues of the mass.
So there really isn't any position that fully explains everything or doesn't have huge problems of its own.
-
Matthew is spot on. The main (not the only) thing sedeism has actually accomplished and only can accomplish as it's end goal, is cause division among many of the very few faithful that are left. "Divide and conquer" is a most effective tool of the devil and in this matter, we see how this tool has been utilized, in real time and with our own eyes. If it has some other goal, do tell.
Personally, I hold that in part, that at the root of this mess, the sede issue falls on: 1) certain (not all) well respected 19th/20th theologians who are responsible for their ambiguous or wrong ideas or opinions as regards the Church's infallibility, which ideas were published and 2) taught in all Catholic places of learning and 3) accepted as if de fide teachings of the Church by nearly everyone.
In the words of the good Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.....After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests..."
-
The Pope question is neither here nor there unless you're a Bishop, cleric or have a special calling. For all of us laymen (which is the majority of CathInfo) we just have to keep the Faith and be Traditional Catholics, completely rejecting Vatican II and its de-facto new religion. Do this, and we have a chance of saving our souls. Do it not, and our souls have a 100X greater chance of losing the Faith and being lost.
The Pope question is a complete red herring for Traditional Catholics. We have much bigger fish to fry, as demonstrated and discussed in the "Catholics Living in the Modern World" thread about daughters being worldly and boy-crazy. SSPX and other Trad Catholics are losing their sons and daughters to the World and to satan -- but they don't care, as long as they think they have the Pope question figured out! Madness!
I've pointed out many times that Sedevacantism offers zero practical benefit over and above the immense benefits of the Traditional Movement itself. Now whether it causes any harm seems to be open for debate.
I personally go so far as to say that the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church is a bona fide supernatural mystery, one that literally can't be known, achieved or grasped by human reason alone, without the aid of Divine Revelation -- and God hasn't revealed it yet! That is to say, if all the best minds and theologians in Tradition got together for a 1-month conference, they wouldn't be able to figure out the Crisis in the Church, unless God joined their little conference.
This is my perspective, as one who has been in the actual Traditional movement for over 4 decades.
Unless men can figure out the mind and plans of God "by human reason alone", the Crisis in the Church is a nut that will never be cracked by human power.
Why is it a mystery??
To me, it's not a mystery because it has been discussed and analyzed by several book authors. The latest book was out within 2 months ago.
-
Matthew is spot on. The main (not the only) thing sedeism has actually accomplished and only can accomplish as it's end goal, is cause division among many of the very few faithful that are left. "Divide and conquer" is a most effective tool of the devil and in this matter, we see how this tool has been utilized, in real time and with our own eyes. If it has some other goal, do tell.
Personally, I hold that in part, that at the root of this mess, the sede issue falls on: 1) certain (not all) well respected 19th/20th theologians who are responsible for their ambiguous or wrong ideas or opinions as regards the Church's infallibility, which ideas were published and 2) taught in all Catholic places of learning and 3) accepted as if de fide teachings of the Church by nearly everyone.
In the words of the good Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.....After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests..."
And you don't see the hypocrisy in not trusting that NO priests are real priests, yet trusting that the pope(who was ordained in the new rite) is a real pope?
-
Why is it a mystery??
To me, it's not a mystery because it has been discussed and analyzed by several book authors. The latest book was out within 2 months ago.
"Books" is very vague. Which books, what position do they espouse, and how do they prove it?
-
Whether we have a Pope and we ignore him, follow him, resist him or claim he is not the Pope, or pick our own Pope; the problem still remains: the guy in the white cassock sitting in the Vatican spewing out heresies and promoting all the Communist's agendas is claimed to be the Pope by the vast majority of all baptized Catholics and by the vast majority of all those claiming to be the Catholic Chur's Hierarchy.
So if Trads are going to debate each other, they should be productive and debate what is the best way to make the guy in the white cassock to stop destroying the church and make VII and the Novus Ordo go away. Then once a plan is agreed, carry it out. If that can be done among the Trads, then I would support that effort, but if not then you are better off taking Matthew's advice "spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later." At least that we can have an impact.
-
#1) I wouldn't use the term "supernatural". I think it's knowable from reason. Supernatural, in the strict sense, refers to the inner life of the Holy Trinity which cannot be known with reason. It is certainly, however, a mystery in the sense that we have not been able to fully grasp what has been doing on. God has not revealed the precise (albeit very natural) details of what's happened to the Church. Yeah, I know, I'm being a bit too pedantic here.
#2) I understand what you're saying, but the Pope and the papacy is important. It IS important ... and it isn't. And you're referring to this second aspect of it's not being important.
So how is it important and how is it not?
It is absolutely essential for understanding whether we should be Traditional Catholics in the first place. Depending on how we view the authority of the papacy, we may or may not be justified in rejecting Vatican II, the New Mass ... and effectively refusing communion with the hierarchy. So it's all in reference to the papacy that people determine their response to the crisis: conservative Novus Ordo, flee to the Eastern Rite, be a Motarian or FSSP type, become standard R&R, sede-doubtist, sedeprivationist, or dogmatic sedevacantist.
NOW ... once you have determined in conscience to become a Traditional Catholic, you're absolutely right that it has no bearing whatsoever on our sanctification, on how we live our day to day lives.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
So if Trads are going to debate each other, they should be productive and debate what is the best way to make the guy in the white cassock to stop destroying the church and make VII and the Novus Ordo go away. Then once a plan is agreed, carry it out.
Trads will never agree. God will have to solve it His own way. While one group of Trads is preparing the conclave to elect Pope Michael II, another group is actively working with Rome to get regularized.
-
And you don't see the hypocrisy in not trusting that NO priests are real priests, yet trusting that the pope(who was ordained in the new rite) is a real pope?
To me, it does not matter one way or the other unless he ever commands us to do something, but the pope was elected using the only method there is to elect a pope, this makes his election legitimate, hence the true pope. It cannot be proven otherwise and one way or the other there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, so we need not be much concerned about it.
NO clergy, whether legitimate or illegitimate does not matter to me either, but because of the ad libbing that happens since V2, to me they are doubtful, but to the Church, the owner of the sacraments, they are presumed valid unless proven invalid. Either way, faithful trads who will only ever use trad priests need not be much concerned about it.
-
Whether we have a Pope and we ignore him, follow him, resist him or claim he is not the Pope, or pick our own Pope; the problem still remains: the guy in the white cassock sitting in the Vatican spewing out heresies and promoting all the Communist's agendas is claimed to be the Pope by the vast majority of all baptized Catholics and by the vast majority of all those claiming to be the Catholic Chur's Hierarchy.
So if Trads are going to debate each other, they should be productive and debate what is the best way to make the guy in the white cassock to stop destroying the church and make VII and the Novus Ordo go away. Then once a plan is agreed, carry it out. If that can be done among the Trads, then I would support that effort, but if not then you are better off taking Matthew's advice "spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later." At least that we can have an impact.
I just listened to another very good sermon from Fr. Wathen where he likened the Church of today to the little boat in the storm at sea.
The Apostles, who were veteran fishermen, were so terrified at the ferociousness of the storm and the waves that they thought they were going to drown. The whole time (while He was sound asleep, on a pillow) God was in complete control of that little boat as it rocked and sailed down into the trough of one wave and up to the peak of the next again and again, they thought that little boat was ready to break apart at any moment. The reason God did this was to test their faith.
That boat represents the Church today, and same as during that storm, God is in complete and total control over the Church. To do our part, we are expected to keep the faith through this storm, trusting that nothing will over come God. No matter how bad the pope is or how many bad popes there are, nothing will overcome God, nothing will ever destroy the Church. We must past this test of faith, we must have great faith, regardless of the status of the pope.
-
I think it's a natural mystery. I think it will be something we will eventually all perfectly understand, unlike (say) the Trinity or the hypostatic union. Even if it is not revealed to us until after death. Divine revelation is closed, has been since St. John died. There's nothing new under the sun.
-
To me, it does not matter one way or the other unless he ever commands us to do something, but the pope was elected using the only method there is to elect a pope, this makes his election legitimate, hence the true pope. It cannot be proven otherwise and one way or the other there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, so we need not be much concerned about it.
NO clergy, whether legitimate or illegitimate does not matter to me either, but because of the ad libbing that happens since V2, to me they are doubtful, but to the Church, the owner of the sacraments, they are presumed valid unless proven invalid. Either way, faithful trads who will only ever use trad priests need not be much concerned about it.
See, I understand the logic of "I'll give the pope the benefit of the doubt, but I want to be careful about my Sacraments so I'll go to traditional priests", but then why is the SSPX coming into a closer relationship with Rome such a bad thing? As long as the SSPX continues with the traditional rites of ordination and mass, and doesn't embrace the modernist heresies abundant in Rome, then I fail to see how coming into a more regular status in the Church is a bad thing. It would just protect the SSPX from accusations of schism and make it easier for the traditional mass to grow within the Church.
-
Thank you, Mathew (and Mater).
I understand what you are saying. The politics and crisis within the Church is a distraction. ( Even extra curricular activities within a parish are a distraction from the faith. )
I want to apologize to everyone here on Cathinfo for being negative at times when I should turn more to God.
-
See, I understand the logic of "I'll give the pope the benefit of the doubt, but I want to be careful about my Sacraments so I'll go to traditional priests", but then why is the SSPX coming into a closer relationship with Rome such a bad thing? As long as the SSPX continues with the traditional rites of ordination and mass, and doesn't embrace the modernist heresies abundant in Rome, then I fail to see how coming into a more regular status in the Church is a bad thing. It would just protect the SSPX from accusations of schism and make it easier for the traditional mass to grow within the Church.
Far as I'm concerned, the SSPX should have nothing to do with newchurch until newchurch condemns itself and everything it stands for and returns to the faith. But newchurch is not going to do that and no one expects them to do that, at least I don't thinks so, not in my lifetime anyway.
But the newchurch needs to, it must, it is absolutely necessary that newchurch divides the SSPX and keep on dividing, that is what they do, that is their job - to divide. So they dangle the carrot of a false reward of sorts, that they'll welcome SSPX back, as if it is the SSPX who lost the faith - and the idiots at the top are chasing that carrot.
If it were up to me, I would say that maybe once or twice a year, or maybe once a month - or something, SSPX should send a one-way communication to the pope reminding him of the predicament they (Rome) are in and warn them to return to the faith. Other than that, they should have nothing to do with them.
-
The Pope question is neither here nor there unless you're a Bishop, cleric or have a special calling.
Well, I don't know what you mean by "a special calling," unless you mean consecrated religious and thus might have a cause to worry about a pope abolishing your Rule. But with regard to the bulk of your statement, yes, I have been saying this for 6 years now, since the man from Argentina assumed the throne.
And the reason is neither here nor there because "figuring it all out" has nothing to do with a lay person's state in life. (Just affirming what you also essentially said.)
Some people on Catholic discussion forums need to get this implanted into their brains, lest they lose their own souls, because if you are spending time obsessing over Rome, you are putting your soul in peril.
What is the context for the 10 Commandments? State in life. Thus, for Matthew, since he's a father, and for me, since I'm a mother, we have extra requirements within the Fourth Commandment (relating to scandal, oversight, justice, prudence, etc.) than do Catholics who are not parents. At our Particular Judgments, that will come into play. For those of us who work, we will also be answerable to whatever obedience was being commanded of us, as long as that compliance didn't coerce us to sin.
State-in-life sins are bigger than people realize. Too often, people ignore those primary responsibilities -- the gravity of them -- and worry instead about whether the Pope, President Trump, or someone else is fulfilling his or her state in life. This is the overriding realm in which we will be judged.
For those of you who strangely believe that "deciding" on the Seat is crucial to your Catholicity, explain why. It would only make sense if you do not actually know your faith. And even if you do not know your faith, I promise you that it is not within Catholic tradition that any pope will personally teach you your faith. You learn your faith from a priest authentically trained in tradition. You learn your faith on the local level. And by faith, I do not mean ecclesiology -- which is out of your jurisdiction. I mean the Creed, the Precepts of the Church, moral theology as it relates to our personal behavior (not the behavior of a pope), the theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, the theology of the sacraments as that relates to the reception of them, traditional Catholic spirituality, and de fide dogma, pre-V2.
I don't care if whoever is in the Seat is a Satanist. If you wring your hands about that and seriously worry whether you are "therefore" commanded also to become a Satanist, then you truly do not understand basic Catholicism, and your catechesis is lacking. And why, by the way, if the faith (since the faith) is so poorly taught from Rome right now, would you look to Rome for a correction or completion of your faulty catechesis?
At your Particular Judgment, it is de fide dogma that Our Lord will not ask you about Pope whoever -- not the Conciliar Popes and not the pre-Conciliar Popes. You are not responsible for the souls of Francis, BXVI, JP2, or Paul VI. Nor are they directly responsible for your soul. They may very well be held to account for whatever bad formal or informal teaching they have contributed to, if that teaching has led Catholics to sin, but if you do know what sin is and is not, He will not excuse those sins based on such an excuse. Same as Confession. If you knew it was a sin, telling your confessor that Francis I might excuse it or does excuse it, will not wash, and the priest should not give you absolution if you do not actually own your sin, repent of it, and have purpose of amendment.
Matthew is exactly right. Those spending hours and millions of keystrokes "deciding" on the Seat are wasting precious time that should be directed toward reducing the chastisement, which i.m.o. is rather imminent -- that is, within the lifetimes, probably of most of us, but that is just my opinion. In the collective opinion of all the trad priests I know and have read, we are right now in End Times. So let's get busy fulfilling our states in life.
-
Whether we have a Pope and we ignore him, follow him, resist him or claim he is not the Pope, or pick our own Pope; the problem still remains: the guy in the white cassock sitting in the Vatican spewing out heresies and promoting all the Communist's agendas is claimed to be the Pope by the vast majority of all baptized Catholics and by the vast majority of all those claiming to be the Catholic Chur's Hierarchy.
So if Trads are going to debate each other, they should be productive and debate what is the best way to make the guy in the white cassock to stop destroying the church and make VII and the Novus Ordo go away. Then once a plan is agreed, carry it out. If that can be done among the Trads, then I would support that effort, but if not then you are better off taking Matthew's advice "spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later." At least that we can have an impact.
Do you not understand the first thing about Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy and the role of the laity? Reputed trads suggesting some kind of lay-initiated activism is beyond ironic. It is not within the jurisdiction of a single lay person, or priest, or religious, to "do" anything about "the guy in the white cassock." The titular pope, whoever he is, whether true or untrue, good or bad, holy or disgraceful, is not like the chairman of some board, president of a company, or governmental official, who can be booted from his position by "a plan."
The best way to "make the guy...stop..." is to pray and do penance. It's what Our Lady has instructed us to do.
And if he doesn't stop destroying the Church despite prayer and penance, he, not you, will be judged for that by Our Lord.
-
The issue is 60 year sedevacantism means that we now have no hierarchy, which cannot be.
So there really isn't any position that fully explains everything or doesn't have huge problems of its own.
You won't find in any theology manuals anywhere that there is a time limit on the sede vacante period that occurs after the death or resignation of every pope. So a 60-year sede vacante does not mean that we have no hierarchy. The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Parente under the definition of "hierarchy" says the following, "Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics". So every Catholic cleric is a member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Not to be confused with the Teaching Body which only includes those bishops who possess an office with ordinary jurisdiction. But no theology manual says anything about the institution of the Church defecting in the case where all the sees become vacant. In fact, both Van Noort and Msgr Fenton speculated about the possibility of all the sees except Rome being wiped out. But there can only be one ordinary of Rome. And if he dies, the Church doesn't thereby defect. In that case, the Roman clergy would simply elect another pope. So there really isn't any problem with a long sede vacante period except for the fact that it would be very disadvantageous to the souls who live during that period. But we are all responsible for our own sins so we can blame no one but ourselves for the loss of one's soul. The sede vacante theory of the crisis really does explain it best. The R&R theory is contrary to traditional Catholic theology concerning the pope (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/08/recognize-and-obey-steven-speray/).
-
For those of you who strangely believe that "deciding" on the Seat is crucial to your Catholicity, explain why. It would only make sense if you do not actually know your faith. ...
I don't care if whoever is in the Seat is a Satanist. If you wring your hands about that and seriously worry whether you are "therefore" commanded also to become a Satanist, then you truly do not understand basic Catholicism, and your catechesis is lacking. And why, by the way, if the faith (since the faith) is so poorly taught from Rome right now, would you look to Rome for a correction or completion of your faulty catechesis?
You may have missed this quote that Ladislaus kindly provided earlier in this thread:
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986) -- Archbishop Lefebvre
As for why the identity of the true pope is crucial to your Catholicity, imagine what would become of your Catholic faith if you believed that the King of England was the true head of the Church. That really happened. And it didn't go too well for the folks who "recognized" the King of England. Do the High Church Anglicans have valid sacraments. Read Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae to find out. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm)
-
Divine revelation is closed, has been since St. John died. There's nothing new under the sun.
But, but, but .... MUH FATIMA !!
-
Far as I'm concerned, the SSPX should have nothing to do with newchurch until newchurch condemns itself and everything it stands for and returns to the faith. But newchurch is not going to do that and no one expects them to do that, at least I don't thinks so, not in my lifetime anyway.
But the newchurch needs to, it must, it is absolutely necessary that newchurch divides the SSPX and keep on dividing, that is what they do, that is their job - to divide. So they dangle the carrot of a false reward of sorts, that they'll welcome SSPX back, as if it is the SSPX who lost the faith - and the idiots at the top are chasing that carrot.
If it were up to me, I would say that maybe once or twice a year, or maybe once a month - or something, SSPX should send a one-way communication to the pope reminding him of the predicament they (Rome) are in and warn them to return to the faith. Other than that, they should have nothing to do with them.
Looks like some real trad are going to have to infiltrate NeoSPX seminaries in order to take bring back the SSPX. And Bishop Fellay won't live forever.
-
But, but, but .... MUH FATIMA !!
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/juridical-validity-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-partial-resignation/msg635911/#msg635911
This.
Also, the "Muh Fatima" cultists ignore the fact that Ratzo was involved in the "3rd Secret" lie "released" by Wojtyla in year 2000 and its cover-up thereafter...
What do they do with all of that cognitive dissonance?
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-catholic-bunker/livechat-w-hirsch-also-the-aurini-thread/msg640409/#msg640409
Croix/Quid Retribuam has been banned (again) from CI.
I warned him once about his behavior and language, but he didn't take correction.
I'm sure the forum will be the better without him.
-
Looks like another fine chap understands the "Muh Fatima" cult.
-
Looks like another fine chap understands the "Muh Fatima" cult.
Quid Retribuam Domino
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/one-of-the-biggest-problems-in-the-church/msg636206/#msg636206
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment. ~ John 7:24 (Douay-Rheims)
Maillot Jaune
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/the-eyes-are-the-window-to-the-soul/msg653616/#msg653616
"Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment." - Matthew 7:24
Maillot Jaune
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/how-much-longer-must-we-endure-the-crisis/msg654831/#msg654831
So what? 2017 was 100 year anniversary of Fatima and nothing happened.
Muh Fatima !!
-
Wise fellas you just quoted there.
-
You won't find in any theology manuals anywhere that there is a time limit on the sede vacante period that occurs after the death or resignation of every pope. So a 60-year sede vacante does not mean that we have no hierarchy. The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Parente under the definition of "hierarchy" says the following, "Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics". So every Catholic cleric is a member of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Not to be confused with the Teaching Body which only includes those bishops who possess an office with ordinary jurisdiction. But no theology manual says anything about the institution of the Church defecting in the case where all the sees become vacant. In fact, both Van Noort and Msgr Fenton speculated about the possibility of all the sees except Rome being wiped out. But there can only be one ordinary of Rome. And if he dies, the Church doesn't thereby defect. In that case, the Roman clergy would simply elect another pope. So there really isn't any problem with a long sede vacante period except for the fact that it would be very disadvantageous to the souls who live during that period. But we are all responsible for our own sins so we can blame no one but ourselves for the loss of one's soul. The sede vacante theory of the crisis really does explain it best. The R&R theory is contrary to traditional Catholic theology concerning the pope (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/08/recognize-and-obey-steven-speray/).
Actually, the "sede vacante" theory of today as a whole does not make sense, this is considering the fact that the word itself took on an entirely new meaning for sedes sometime in the late 60s - early 70s while the pope, Paul VI who reigned from 1963-1978, was still alive.
Since then till today among sedes, it does not mean "the period between the death and election of the pope", it does not mean that anymore. Today it's definition is best described as simply: "the pope is not the pope therefore we have no pope until we say we have a pope", and this while popes have died and been elected and are still living.
The "R&R" position is not a theory, it is describing Catholics practicing what the faith has taught always and everywhere since the creation of man, as Fr. Hesse puts it; "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man". I like to say; "We remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first." This is traditional Catholic theology.
As such, what is true, is that "R&R" can be said to be a position contrary to today's common definition among sedes of "sede vacante", but the position itself is in total harmony with, therefore no way contrary to, traditional Catholic theology.
-
Actually, the "sede vacante" theory of today as a whole does not make sense, this is considering the fact that the word itself took on an entirely new meaning for sedes sometime in the late 60s - early 70s while the pope, Paul VI who reigned from 1963-1978, was still alive.
Since then till today among sedes, it does not mean "the period between the death and election of the pope", it does not mean that anymore. Today it's definition is best described as simply: "the pope is not the pope therefore we have no pope until we say we have a pope", and this while popes have died and been elected and are still living.
The "R&R" position is not a theory, it is describing Catholics practicing what the faith has taught always and everywhere since the creation of man, as Fr. Hesse puts it; "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man". I like to say; "We remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first." This is traditional Catholic theology.
As such, what is true, is that "R&R" can be said to be a position contrary to today's common definition among sedes of "sede vacante", but the position itself is in total harmony with, therefore no way contrary to, traditional Catholic theology.
It's traditional for Catholics to call the pope's mass blasphemous and his canonisations false? It's traditional for Catholics to call 90%+ of the clergy doubtful(including the pope himself)?
-
It's traditional for Catholics to call the pope's mass blasphemous and his canonisations false? It's traditional for Catholics to call 90%+ of the clergy doubtful(including the pope himself)?
Calling it like it is, is because "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."
-
I just can't believe that people don't see that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope. The guy does not even believe in the Catholic faith. In fact, he despises the Catholic faith. He says God is not a Catholic God. Now what a ridiculous thing to say and what anti-Catholic bigotry he spouts. He preaches as if he's God. He says the total opposite of what Jesus says. Jesus says go and teach All Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Bergoglio in his arrogance says proselytizing is solemn nonsense.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/amor320/Docuмents/antipope_francis%203.docx#_ftn1)
Now I just can't believe the people cannot see that this guy is a Franken fraud. He has no idea what the Catholic faith is and he thinks all roads lead to Heaven. Almost everything Francis teaches is false and I suspect that he's guilty of hundreds of heresies. I think all the Bishops and Cardinals are totally blind. They cannot see this guy is not a Catholic, and probably never has been for a very long time. He's a total Antichrist! It's sad to say, the blindness of the clergy and Catholics, in general, is just mind-boggling. It should be obvious to all that he's not a Catholic. We will all be held accountable for not removing this Francis fraud from the Throne of Peter.
Benedict is still the Pope. He never fully resigned. One has only to read his resignation letter to know this. He has repeated several times that he has not resigned the Petrine office, only the ministry.
All of these so-called YouTube cyber stars, like Fr. Mark Goring, like Dr. Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon, like Michael Voris of Church Militant—they're just trying to protect their own reputation (God help them if they are viewed as conspiracy theorists!) They're afraid to say the truth, afraid to investigate the truth. They have to be held accountable for their cowardice in not telling the truth. There is such a thing as a sin of omission and not speaking out against this obviously fraudulent Pope is a sin of omission. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that he is a false Pope.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/amor320/Docuмents/antipope_francis%203.docx#_ftnref1)Trying to Convert Others Is ‘Nonsense’
December 27, 2018, | José Antonio Ureta https://www.tfp.org/commenting-on-the-assertion-that-trying-to-convert-others-is-nonsense
-
The popes during and since Vatican ll are and have all been Modernists. Francis is just way more upfront about his Modernist views than his predecessors.
Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, which I agree with. We still have to try to save our souls, despite the terrible situation. You can focus on Francis if you want (or rather his status - if he's Pope or not), but that in itself isn't going to save your soul.
-
The popes during and since Vatican ll are and have all been Modernists. Francis is just way more upfront about his Modernist views than his predecessors.
Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the Church is occupied by a Modernist sect, which I agree with. We still have to try to save our souls, despite the terrible situation. You can focus on Francis if you want (or rather his status - if he's Pope or not), but that in itself isn't going to save your soul.
Do you think it would be the cause of a person possibly losing their soul if they happened to be wrong in thinking Francis wasn't the pope?
-
I just can't believe that people don't see that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope....We will all be held accountable for not removing this Francis fraud from the Throne of Peter.
Benedict is still the Pope. He never fully resigned. One has only to read his resignation letter to know this. He has repeated several times that he has not resigned the Petrine office, only the ministry.
Pope Benedict XVI resigned, get over it. He was as much a modernist enemy as Pope Francis.
Also, there is no removing the pope, he only vacates the Chair by his death or, as is the case with Benedict, he resigns.
Just think, most of the cardinals think he is too conservative and want a Liberal for the next pope.
Don't forget that we are only beginning to see the new religion of V2 being truly understood and implemented, it still has a ways to go - it'll probably take at least a few more popes before it's real understanding is wholly embraced and fully implemented. Count on it getting a lot worse before it gets any better.
-
Do you think it would be the cause of a person possibly losing their soul if they happened to be wrong in thinking Francis wasn't the pope?
I wouldn't think so. Adopting the sede view isn't going to cause anyone to lose their soul, as far as I know. But if that's what they are going to focus on, to the exclusion of more important things, like saving one's soul, then maybe that's a problem. But I'm no expert. It's just my opinion.
-
Pope Benedict XVI resigned, get over it. He was as much a modernist enemy as Pope Francis.
Also, there is no removing the pope, he only vacates the Chair by his death or, as is the case with Benedict, he resigns.
Just think, most of the cardinals think he is too conservative and want a Liberal for the next pope.
Don't forget that we are only beginning to see the new religion of V2 being truly understood and implemented, it still has a ways to go - it'll probably take at least a few more popes before it's real understanding is wholly embraced and fully implemented. Count on it getting a lot worse before it gets any better.
Isn't that what Benedict said? The problems in the church were on account of the fact that we never had a chance to implement VII because it was hijacked by the "spirit" of VII?
Either way, it's nonsense. The best way for VII to work is to burn the docuмents and dump the ashes over the Pacific Ocean.
-
Do you think it would be the cause of a person possibly losing their soul if they happened to be wrong in thinking Francis wasn't the pope?
Only God knows for each person, but if the sedes guess wrong, then what they are risking, is being:
Schismatic(Siz-mat-ik), n. & adj.; Gr., L. One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and refuses to acknowledge a valid Roman Pontiff as the supreme head or to accept his Jurisdiction. Adj. Of or pertaining to a schism.
- Catholic Dictionary
This is one of the main reasons that I personally have always been against sedeism. Aside from the whole matter being altogether nugatory, it is simply not anywhere even close to being worth the risk, not to me.
-
Isn't that what Benedict said? The problems in the church were on account of the fact that we never had a chance to implement VII because it was hijacked by the "spirit" of VII?
Either way, it's nonsense. The best way for VII to work is to burn the docuмents and dump the ashes over the Pacific Ocean.
I'm not sure if he said it, it's just the logical conclusion based on observing the way it's progressed since V2. It just keeps getting more and more rotten. I just wonder if they'll elect another imagined conservative aka PBXVI first.
-
Only God knows for each person, but if the sedes guess wrong, then what they are risking, is being:
Schismatic(Siz-mat-ik), n. & adj.; Gr., L. One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and refuses to acknowledge a valid Roman Pontiff as the supreme head or to accept his Jurisdiction. Adj. Of or pertaining to a schism.
- Catholic Dictionary
This is one of the main reasons that I personally have always been against sedeism. Aside from the whole matter being altogether nugatory, it is simply not anywhere even close to being worth the risk, not to me.
But isn't that what we all do? Do you want to be in union with Francis and the VII church?
-
Do you not understand the first thing about Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy and the role of the laity? Reputed trads suggesting some kind of lay-initiated activism is beyond ironic. It is not within the jurisdiction of a single lay person, or priest, or religious, to "do" anything about "the guy in the white cassock." The titular pope, whoever he is, whether true or untrue, good or bad, holy or disgraceful, is not like the chairman of some board, president of a company, or governmental official, who can be booted from his position by "a plan."
The best way to "make the guy...stop..." is to pray and do penance. It's what Our Lady has instructed us to do.
And if he doesn't stop destroying the Church despite prayer and penance, he, not you, will be judged for that by Our Lord.
That is why I added " but if not then you are better off taking Matthew's advice "spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later." At least that we can have an impact."
-
Schismatic(Siz-mat-ik), n. & adj.; Gr., L. One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and refuses to acknowledge a valid Roman Pontiff as the supreme head or to accept his Jurisdiction. Adj. Of or pertaining to a schism.
- Catholic Dictionary
Far as I'm concerned, the SSPX should have nothing to do with newchurch until newchurch condemns itself and everything it stands for and returns to the faith. But newchurch is not going to do that and no one expects them to do that, at least I don't thinks so, not in my lifetime anyway.
If it were up to me, I would say that maybe once or twice a year, or maybe once a month - or something, SSPX should send a one-way communication to the pope reminding him of the predicament they (Rome) are in and warn them to return to the faith. Other than that, they should have nothing to do with them.
-
Only God knows for each person, but if the sedes guess wrong, then what they are risking, is being:
Schismatic(Siz-mat-ik), n. & adj.; Gr., L. One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and refuses to acknowledge a valid Roman Pontiff as the supreme head or to accept his Jurisdiction. Adj. Of or pertaining to a schism.
- Catholic Dictionary
This is one of the main reasons that I personally have always been against sedeism. Aside from the whole matter being altogether nugatory, it is simply not anywhere even close to being worth the risk, not to me.
But isn't that what we all do? Do you want to be in union with Francis and the VII church?
Alexandria no, that is not what we all do.
We are the faithful Catholics, we are not the ones who've departed from the unity of the Church, they, the NOers did - of their own free will. Nor do we refuse to acknowledge the conciliar popes as valid popes, supreme head with universal jurisdiction. As such, we are not being schismatic.
Those who believe that the pope is not the pope, are those who refuse to acknowledge the popes as valid popes. Per the definition of Schismatic, there are only two possible results - they are the ones who either are certainly schismatic, or they risk being schismatic if their guess is wrong.
-
No, that is not what we all do.
We are the faithful Catholics, we are not the ones who've departed from the unity of the Church, they did - of their own free will. Nor do we refuse to acknowledge the conciliar popes as valid popes, supreme head with universal jurisdiction. As such, we are not being schismatic.
Those who believe that the pope is not the pope, are those who refuse to acknowledge the popes as valid popes. Per the definition of Schismatic, there are only two possible results - they are the ones who either are certainly schismatic, or they risk being schismatic if their guess is wrong.
Attending the Masses of priests with no ministry in the Church against the order of the pope doesn't sound like respecting his jurisdiction. When's the last time you listened or paid heed to, much less obeyed, any order of the pope? You said yourself that the SSPX should ignore him entirely.
You say you recognise his "universal jurisdiction" - but to you that phrase is entirely meaningless.
-
Attending the Masses of priests with no ministry in the Church against the order of the pope doesn't sound like respecting his jurisdiction. When's the last time you listened or paid heed to, much less obeyed, any order of the pope? You said yourself that the SSPX should ignore him entirely.
You say you recognise his "universal jurisdiction" - but to you that phrase is entirely meaningless.
You neglect to incorporate the supreme rule into your accusations: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."
For me, this rule is supreme and it applies always and everywhere to everyone, including laymen, priests, bishops and popes - but for me, it especially applies to me.
It sounds like you not live by this rule, and/or you believe that some people are immune from living by it. But I do not believe that.
It sounds as if you think we are some how forced to obey the popes heretical ideas, opinions, wishes and examples, even though doing so violates the supreme rule. I mean, it sounds like you think all those people who violate the supreme rule did not do so of their own free will, that some how they do so at the point of a gun or something.
It seems as if you do not understand the concept of true obedience, or perhaps you go by the new concept of what obedience is, which is blind obedience, of which no Catholic above the age of reason is permitted.
-
You neglect to incorporate the supreme rule into your accusations: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."
For me, this rule is supreme and it applies always and everywhere to everyone, including laymen, priests, bishops and popes - but for me, it especially applies to me.
It sounds like you not live by this rule, and/or you believe that some people are immune from living by it. But I do not believe that.
It sounds as if you think we are some how forced to obey the popes heretical ideas, opinions, wishes and examples, even though doing so violates the supreme rule. I mean, it sounds like you think all those people who violate the supreme rule did not do so of their own free will, that some how they do so at the point of a gun or something.
It seems as if you do not understand the concept of true obedience, or perhaps you go by the new concept of what obedience is, which is blind obedience, of which no Catholic above the age of reason is permitted.
Except you ignore ALL the pope's ideas, opinions, wishes, laws, orders, etc. no matter what they are - and you said you wished the SSPX did the same. So you don't just ignore just the ones that you, in your private judgement(quite Protestant), judge to be heretical - but the whole lot. Ignoring the pope's jurisdiction and authority entirely.
Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines schism as "the rupture of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) union and unity". Seeing as the SSPX has irregular status and its priests do not have ministry within the Church, they are not in ecclesiastical union and unity. Their efforts to work with the diocesan authorities, attempts at rectifying that, were in fact condemned by yourself. You literally condemned them for attempting to mend their schism with the Church - all while you condemn others for being "schismatic".
-
Except you ignore ALL the pope's ideas, opinions, wishes, laws, orders, etc. no matter what they are - and you said you wished the SSPX did the same. So you don't just ignore just the ones that you, in your private judgement(quite Protestant), judge to be heretical - but the whole lot. Ignoring the pope's jurisdiction and authority entirely.
Well, if you will let me know which of the pope's ideas, opinions, wishes, laws, orders, etc. that I should heed, please let me know now. Because for me, I avoid listening to what he has to say because he speaks heresy, so let me know what I should heed from him that does not violate the supreme rule.
I have quoted Fr. Wathen as saying the way it is with me: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines schism as "the rupture of ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) union and unity". Seeing as the SSPX has irregular status and its priests do not have ministry within the Church, they are not in ecclesiastical union and unity. Their efforts to work with the diocesan authorities, attempts at rectifying that, were in fact condemned by yourself. You literally condemned them for attempting to mend their schism with the Church - all while you condemn others for being "schismatic".
If you don't already know, although it is the pope and newchurch that are the ones who ruptured ecclesiastical union and unity, Catholics who have remained faithful are not guilty of these crimes - and this truth remains the truth no matter how often the same tired old false accusations you leveled have been repeated over the last +55 years, and will always remain the truth no matter how many more times they'll be repeated in the future.
I condemn no one, I have stated only facts and quoted a definition of schismatic - none of which you have addressed, or are likely to ever address - presumably because you do not know what you're talking about, and/or you will keep refusing to acknowledge the supreme rule into your thinking in this matter.
All you do is attempt to attack my person, as if I am in some way responsible for those who believe they have figured out how to refuse to acknowledge a valid Roman Pontiff as the supreme head without being schismatic, or, as if I am the one making them schismatic.
-
#1) I wouldn't use the term "supernatural". I think it's knowable from reason. Supernatural, in the strict sense, refers to the inner life of the Holy Trinity which cannot be known with reason. It is certainly, however, a mystery in the sense that we have not been able to fully grasp what has been doing on. God has not revealed the precise (albeit very natural) details of what's happened to the Church. Yeah, I know, I'm being a bit too pedantic here.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
1. Note that he says PREISTS at the beginning of the quote.
2. Note the date of the quote: 1986, so it pre-dates the so-called "Excommunications", the Episcopal consecrations, and all the Conciliar nonsense that took place around June 30, 1988.
3. +ABL was much less hopeful for a "fix" for the Conciliar Church post-1988. After 1988, his strategy basically became "keep the Faith, help inform/convert as many others as possible, then wait/sacrifice/pray for God to sort it out."
4. I doubt +ABL wanted the whole body of Catholic laymen in 2019 to spend their days primarily arguing with each other until they are blue in the face about the exact status of the Pope and how God is going to fix the Crisis in the Church. There just isn't an argument or authority that can be wielded to conquer the others, resulting in a state where the "losing" side is reduced to 100% men of bad will.
5. The conclusion in #4 is reached by common sense and the past 50 years of history after Vatican II. If there were a One Ring to rule them all, a Master Ring before which all arguments would crumble, the Sedes, the SSPX, the FSSP or someone would have found it by now (it's been 50 years!) and become the Lord of the Rings. That is to say, they would have taken over 99% of Tradition, leaving only a stubborn, bad-willed remnant hanging on in other groups. But here we are, sheep without a shepherd, 50 years later, still scattered, confused and divided.
-
The Pope question is neither here nor there unless you're a Bishop, cleric or have a special calling. For all of us laymen (which is the majority of CathInfo) we just have to keep the Faith and be Traditional Catholics, completely rejecting Vatican II and its de-facto new religion. Do this, and we have a chance of saving our souls. Do it not, and our souls have a 100X greater chance of losing the Faith and being lost.
The Pope question is a complete red herring for Traditional Catholics. We have much bigger fish to fry, as demonstrated and discussed in the "Catholics Living in the Modern World" thread about daughters being worldly and boy-crazy. SSPX and other Trad Catholics are losing their sons and daughters to the World and to satan -- but they don't care, as long as they think they have the Pope question figured out! Madness!
I've pointed out many times that Sedevacantism offers zero practical benefit over and above the immense benefits of the Traditional Movement itself. Now whether it causes any harm seems to be open for debate.
I personally go so far as to say that the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church is a bona fide supernatural mystery, one that literally can't be known, achieved or grasped by human reason alone, without the aid of Divine Revelation -- and God hasn't revealed it yet! That is to say, if all the best minds and theologians in Tradition got together for a 1-month conference, they wouldn't be able to figure out the Crisis in the Church, unless God joined their little conference.
This is my perspective, as one who has been in the actual Traditional movement for over 4 decades.
Unless men can figure out the mind and plans of God "by human reason alone", the Crisis in the Church is a nut that will never be cracked by human power.
Yes, from Paul's 2nd letter to the Thesselonions 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=60&ch=2&l=7-7&q=1#x)
-
I think it's a natural mystery. I think it will be something we will eventually all perfectly understand, unlike (say) the Trinity or the hypostatic union. Even if it is not revealed to us until after death. Divine revelation is closed, has been since St. John died. There's nothing new under the sun.
Yes, but what do you call a mystery than man can't solve on his own, no matter how many men (or how smart of men) apply themselves to it?
Understanding the Crisis *today* before it's over, saying how it's going to be solved, and answering *all* the objections with authority -- that is not something any group can do at the present.
It would take God stepping in and explaining how this and that were done. How papal infallibility, the visibility of the Church, indefectibility of the Church, the Promise to Peter, etc. were all preserved.
Knowing how and why God allowed the Crisis, and for what purpose, and how it all will end -- would require a one-on-one session with God.
That's why I add the adjective "supernatural" to the mystery.
Please show how I'm wrong.
Maybe there's a better term - "mystery requiring further supernatural revelation from God for a solution"?
I understand that our human mind COULD grasp it if God explained it to us, so in that respect it's different than the mystery of the Trinity. But there's still a missing piece that all the human beings in the world can't fill.
All the wise men on the earth couldn't have "figured out" the Trinity by human reason alone.
All the wise men on the earth today, even with 50 years time, can't "figure out" the Crisis in the Church.
See my point?
And I'm talking about a FULL SOLUTION here, with all objections covered and answered, not "figuring it out enough to make a moral judgment". That's easy. We can figure out "enough" to live our daily lives and stay Catholic -- but even that is a bit shaky for a % of the population. Look how many people are throwing their lot in with fake priests, scam artists (Moran), ridiculous cults (Fr. Pfeiffer) in their quest to keep the Faith?
-
I doubt +ABL wanted the whole body of Catholic laymen in 2019 to spend their days primarily arguing with each other until they are blue in the face about the exact status of the Pope and how God is going to fix the Crisis in the Church. There just isn't an argument or authority that can be wielded to conquer the others, resulting in a state where the "losing" side is reduced to 100% men of bad will.
I couldn't agree more!
-
The solution to the crisis is in plain sight. If everyone stepped back for a moment and did a thought experiment, it might make more sense. What if Our Lord performed another great miracle like the miracle of the sun at Fatima and everyone in the world saw Our Lady say that this Francis fellow is an imposter and not a true pope and that the only true Catholic clergy are those who were ordained in the traditional rite by bishops consecrated in the traditional rite. Then it should be abundantly clear to every Catholic that the solution is for the existing Catholic clergy to elect a pope. But instead as it is now everyone is wringing their hands and worrying about who wields legitimate authority in the Church. The only mystery is why men continue to be so focused on a church (Conciliar) that is obviously not the Catholic Church.
-
The solution to the crisis is in plain sight. If everyone stepped back for a moment and did a thought experiment, it might make more sense. What if Our Lord performed another great miracle like the miracle of the sun at Fatima and everyone in the world saw Our Lady say that this Francis fellow is an imposter and not a true pope and that the only true Catholic clergy are those who were ordained in the traditional rite by bishops consecrated in the traditional rite. Then it should be abundantly clear to every Catholic that the solution is for the existing Catholic clergy to elect a pope. But instead as it is now everyone is wringing their hands and worrying about who wields legitimate authority in the Church. The only mystery is why men continue to be so focused on a church (Conciliar) that is obviously not the Catholic Church.
You say above that everyone now is wringing their hands and worrying about who wields legitimate authority in the Church. Who is it exactly that's worrying? I don't. Do sedevacantists worry about that?
-
You say above that everyone now is wringing their hands and worrying about who wields legitimate authority in the Church. Who is it exactly that's worrying? I don't. Do sedevacantists worry about that?
I don’t expect most laymen to be worrying about it. But the clergy certainly should be. If there is no salvation outside the Church then recognizing and actually obeying the legitimate pastors (above all the pope) of the Catholic Church is absolutely essential to your spiritual well-being. Unless you are a great saint, our supposed sincerity isn’t anything we should be banking on for our salvation. I’m sure there are quite a few fssp folks who are sincere but I’m fairly certain they are not all receiving valid sacraments. So it is important to correctly identify the true Catholic clergy.
-
What if Our Lord performed another great miracle like the miracle of the sun at Fatima and everyone in the world saw Our Lady say that this Francis fellow is an imposter and not a true pope and that the only true Catholic clergy are those who were ordained in the traditional rite by bishops consecrated in the traditional rite. Then it should be abundantly clear to every Catholic that the solution is for the existing Catholic clergy to elect a pope.
If the hypothetical "fixing of the Crisis" ends up vindicating the Sedevacantists, then it proves my point in spades: after all, Sedes are what, less than 1% of conservative or even Traditional Catholics? There is NO WAY that a 99% majority of Traditional Catholics don't care, don't put God first, are of bad will, are stupid, etc.
It would be easier to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually a saint. We're talking, I'd to question every experience (interaction with reality) that I've had in my 4 decades of life. Do you know how many thousands of Catholics I've spoken to or read their words, both IRL and online during that time?
The fact that (in your hypothetical) God had to come down and reveal what the truth was -- a truth that 99% of Trads were overlooking, mind you -- would prove my point in spades.
-
I just can't believe that people don't see that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope.
Why don't you think that other Catholics don't see it? Maybe we're material/practical SV's, if not formally so or professedly so.
But it has no bearing on my responsibility and your responsibility to live the true faith, not a false faith. In fact, if anything, if he were or is an anti-pope, all the more faithful should we be; all the more should we become sanctified as acts of reparation.
Traditional Catholic spirituality teaches us that when we see evil being done, we make acts of reparation due to the offense caused to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart.
If he's the Antichrist, if he's an antipope, if he has dementia -- any of that is a call to prayer for the protection of the Church and a call to greater sanctity on our parts, not to paralysis "until" we "figure it all out."
If a new Pope, or any Pope in the future, turns out to be a Saint, that fact by itself won't make us more holy; it will simply make us more blessed, more joyful about our faith.
No solving of the puzzle affects our primary calling. We'll still be held to account for our own actions, not his, whether it is resolved soon or never resolved until the Final Judgment. All of the time and work on our own spirituality in the meantime is our responsibility.
-
If the hypothetical "fixing of the Crisis" ends up vindicating the Sedevacantists, then it proves my point in spades: after all, Sedes are what, less than 1% of conservative or even Traditional Catholics? There is NO WAY that a 99% majority of Traditional Catholics don't care, don't put God first, are of bad will, are stupid, etc.
It would be easier to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually a saint. We're talking, I'd to question every experience (interaction with reality) that I've had in my 4 decades of life. Do you know how many thousands of Catholics I've spoken to or read their words, both IRL and online during that time?
The fact that (in your hypothetical) God had to come down and reveal what the truth was -- a truth that 99% of Trads were overlooking, mind you -- would prove my point in spades.
1% seems extremely low. Who are you including in your group of Traditional Catholics?
-
1% seems extremely low. Who are you including in your group of Traditional Catholics?
All the groups which CLAIM to be Traditional. Including but not limited to:
Local Indult communities, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, SSPX, Resistance, all Trad independent chapels, Pfeifferites, and Sedevacantists.
I should probably include all the would-be Trads who fled to various Eastern Rite groups to be their chosen lifeboat. They are more Trads than true Eastern Rite Catholics. Since they are only Eastern Rite because of the Crisis in the Church. They are basically using this or that Eastern Rite chapel as their Trad chapel of choice.
Just the SSPX alone in that list is probably upwards of 80% of the Trad movement. They are massive, the 800lb gorilla of Tradition. I don't like that fact, it doesn't make me happy, but that's the truth so I have to accept it.
-
If the hypothetical "fixing of the Crisis" ends up vindicating the Sedevacantists, then it proves my point in spades: after all, Sedes are what, less than 1% of conservative or even Traditional Catholics? There is NO WAY that a 99% majority of Traditional Catholics don't care, don't put God first, are of bad will, are stupid, etc.
It would be easier to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually a saint. We're talking, I'd to question every experience (interaction with reality) that I've had in my 4 decades of life. Do you know how many thousands of Catholics I've spoken to or read their words, both IRL and online during that time?
The fact that (in your hypothetical) God had to come down and reveal what the truth was -- a truth that 99% of Trads were overlooking, mind you -- would prove my point in spades.
Are you serious? There are 1.1 billion people in the world who call themselves Catholic. How many of them do you think are traditional? Let’s forget about the laity because it’s easier to track the clergy. How many priests are traditional? How many are SSPX? How many are sedes? And how many are Resistance? Does anyone know? I’m certain that there are more sede priests than Resistance priests in North America. So how can you be throwing out statistics? You more than anyone should be loathe to start looking at statistics. And I’m pretty sure I have seen you downplay statistics in the past but now all of a sudden you think statistics prove your position is correct?
If you think that we should include laity in this, just remember that a significant number of sedes go to SSPX and resistance chapels so I don’t think it helps your cause.
-
All the groups which CLAIM to be Traditional. Including but not limited to:
Local Indult communities, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, SSPX, Resistance, all Trad independent chapels, Pfeifferites, and Sedevacantists.
I should probably include all the would-be Trads who fled to various Eastern Rite groups to be their chosen lifeboat. They are more Trads than true Eastern Rite Catholics. Since they are only Eastern Rite because of the Crisis in the Church. They are basically using this or that Eastern Rite chapel as their Trad chapel of choice.
Just the SSPX alone in that list is probably upwards of 80% of the Trad movement. They are massive, the 800lb gorilla of Tradition. I don't like that fact, it doesn't make me happy, but that's the truth so I have to accept it.
I think there are a lot more than 1% that hold the sedevacantist position, if you believe that the SSPX is 80%. I see the figure more like 5%. Remember that there are quite a few people who hold the sede position and assist at SSPX masses.
-
The only mystery is why men continue to be so focused on a church (Conciliar) that is obviously not the Catholic Church.
Jesus said to Peter "Thou are the rock and upon this rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
-
Are you serious? There are 1.1 billion people in the world who call themselves Catholic. How many of them do you think are traditional? Let’s forget about the laity because it’s easier to track the clergy. How many priests are traditional? How many are SSPX? How many are sedes? And how many are Resistance? Does anyone know? I’m certain that there are more sede priests than Resistance priests in North America. So how can you be throwing out statistics? You more than anyone should be loathe to start looking at statistics. And I’m pretty sure I have seen you downplay statistics in the past but now all of a sudden you think statistics prove your position is correct?
If you think that we should include laity in this, just remember that a significant number of sedes go to SSPX and resistance chapels so I don’t think it helps your cause.
I think you misunderstood Matthew's point. Matthew was saying in that portion that, IF sedes are correct, certainly R&R are of good will. That has been his experience.
Now, about the statistics. There are 1.313 billion Catholics in the world, out of 7.4 billion people, per latest Vatican official statistics: "Out of a world population of 7,408 million, 1,313 million or 17.7% are baptized Catholic" https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/03/06/190306b.html (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/03/06/190306b.html)
How many Priests in the world? Some 415,000 "Between 1970 and 2017, the number of priests declined from 419,728 to 414,582 in 2017.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church#cite_note-CARA-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church#cite_note-3)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church)
How many Traditional Priests? Around 10,000, or 2.5%.
SSPX: 971 (637 priests) members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X)
FSSP: 418 members (304 priests) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Fraternity_of_Saint_Peter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Fraternity_of_Saint_Peter)
ICRSS: 193 members (100 priests) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Christ_the_King_Sovereign_Priest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Christ_the_King_Sovereign_Priest)
This is already over a 1000, and probably will be well over 2000, I daresay, within a decade from now.
Interested persons can use similar links to research further. About the SSPV, the CMRI or any such group.
There are also about 5000 Traditional Diocesan Priests: "At least 3,000 diocesan priests (maybe up to 5,000, if one includes those who are very cautious because of their local bishops) who celebrate it regularly, even if not exclusively, including 1,000 at least in the United States: this is the Summorum Pontificuм group, by far the largest."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/02/around-5000-priests-currently-celebrate.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/02/around-5000-priests-currently-celebrate.html)
Finally, as for the Thread OP, yes, the Crisis in the Church is a Supernatural Mystery, but as Rev. Father Jean Michel Gleize, Seminary Professor of Ecclesiology at Econe, says so well, a 61 year sede vacante leads to an absurdity, and therefore can be reasonably excluded.
"The Angelus: As for the place of the pope in all this, we certainly must admit that there is a mystery here, a mystery of iniquity.
Fr. Gleize: No doubt, but a mystery is a truth that surpasses reason; that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.”3 Actually, your reasoning is more or less equivalent to sedevacantism. This is nothing new; but it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church.
The Angelus: Thank you, Father Gleize." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501)