As Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.
Quote from: FerdinandAs Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.
Where does the Church teach this?
Any attempted canonisation or beatification process employed by the v2 anti-church is null. :fryingpan:
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: FerdinandAs Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.
Where does the Church teach this?
It would be tied to the Church's infallibility in discipline and not approving for veneration that which is evil.
One should also consider that if canonizations are liable to error, the Communion of Saints (which we profess in the Creed) becomes a joke.
I wouldn't go as far to say that it is "absolutely infallible" because that language seems to suggest that it is de fide, and I don't think that can be proved as of yet. Nevertheless, it is quite imprudent to believe otherwise.
It would appear, in the current state, to simply be a position to adopt in order to obstinately persevere in the R&R framework.
All that is needed is the will, and God provides the water:
There is the most interesting story of the deathbed conversion of the notorious Jєωιѕн mobster Dutch Schultz (you can read the whole article at http://www.killthedutchman.net/chapter_IX.htm. Here's a snippet:
The controversy surrounding Dutch Schultz hardly ended with his burial, of course. The funeral was barely over when the great debate began: what right did that man have to be laid to rest with the rites of the Catholic Church? John A. Toomey, S.J., took up the problem in the Catholic weekly, America, noting at the outset that there were thousands of people saying that "if a guy like that can go to heaven there won't be anybody in hell." But the article went on:
To these thousands, glaring contradictions appeared to be involved. Here was the Catholic Church, which always had impressed on her children a horror of even the slightest sin; which had ceaselessly warned them concerning the danger of presuming on the chances of a death-bed conversion, which had ever inculcated high ideals in asceticism, in selflessness, in heroic virtue; here was the Catholic Church beckoning into her fold a man who through his entire life had represented everything which the Church abhorred and condemned.
"Dutch Schultz" with the angels! "Dutch Schultz" whose beer-trucks once rumbled over the Bronx, whose gorillas blustered through the sidewalks! "Dutch Schultz" associating with the holy saints in Heaven!
He to get the same reward as valiant souls who have clung to the Faith through a ceaseless hurricane of trial and temptation. It seemed more than unjust. It seemed ridiculous, preposterous, almost laughable.
But it may not be so laughable after all. There were a number of things not taken into account by the ... judges. One little thing they missed completely was the fact that there is just One in the entire universe Who is capable of accurately judging the complex skein of a man's life. The influence of bad example, of environment in general: of heredity; the lack of religious training; the exact strength of temptations. ... That One is God Almighty. No one else can even begin to do the job.
Another element that appeared to be fumbled was the interesting truth that the time of mercy for sinners does not expire until the moment of death; that there is no crime and no series of crime....which God will not forgive, this side of eternity, to the truly contrite of heart.
The dynamic power of Divine Grace to move the most obdurate heart to repentance was also omitted from the consideration. Indeed, the intimate and essential connection of grace with final salvation is widely overlooked. ...
Other important bits of evidence were neglected as the clamorous verdict was reached: for example, the fact that nothing happens in this world without the permission of God. The reason "Schultz" was not killed instantly was because it was God's will that he be not killed instantly, and so he was conscious the morning after, and able to receive the grace of conversion, a grace that comes from God.
If "Schultz's" conversion was sincere, it means that God gave him a last chance to save his soul, and that "Dutch" took advantage of the offer. It does not mean that God, or His Church, condoned the evil life of "Schultz" but that ... God judged he should be given another opportunity to save his soul....
After all, Heaven belongs to God. If He wants "Dutch Schultz" to be there, it is difficult to see what we can do about it. Perhaps, instead of worrying about "Schultz" a somewhat more profitable occupation for us would be to do a little more worrying about our own salvation--to make sure we get there ourselves. We may not be given the opportunity for a death-bed repentance. Relatively few are given that chance.
From other discussions on CI, all that was determined was that what is infallible is that the canonized saint is in Heaven. That's it.
Like JPII, the gangster Dutch Schultz could be canonized one day:
Anyone who is in heaven repented of any wrongdoing before death. A Pope who has repented and in heaven would be worthy of honor.
I really don't see why this issue is a problem for a Catholic with even a minimal understanding of canonization.
It appears to only be a problem fro the fringe-crazy few who think they know the disposition of John Paul II's soul at the moment of his death.
..and how could they possibly know that?
You guys are talking about the morality of the thing...the OP was talking about the logic. I answered the logic.
If we want to just discuss the morality of it, that's fine. It's a bad idea. But, that doesn't make it impossible or create some great quandry.
Nah...you're confusing possibility with morality.
You're confusing the possibility of someone being in Heaven with the possibility of them being a canonized saint by name.
Saints are not canonized by name on the off-chance that they "might have made it."
ICTERUS,
Using Ferdinand's logic, I say "Francis is an anti-Pope".
QuoteICTERUS,
Using Ferdinand's logic, I say "Francis is an anti-Pope".
Francis may be an anti-Pope, but this is not a logical reason to think so.
That would indicate that you have special knowledge that JPII is damned, so that you can determine Francis does not possess the charism of infalliblity, ergo he is not Pope.
Ferdinand asked a question in a very simple one or the other answer as an option. What you added here is good but I answered with what was provided. If the choice is whether or not JPII and all the Vatican II "glories" are to be canonized or Pope Francis is an anti-pope, if that is the only choice, I went with what would be my answer in that limited definition.
Quote from: icterusYou guys are talking about the morality of the thing...the OP was talking about the logic. I answered the logic.
If we want to just discuss the morality of it, that's fine. It's a bad idea. But, that doesn't make it impossible or create some great quandry.
Yes, it does.
Saints are venerated because of their heroic virtue. Even the great "sinner saints" (Augustine, St. Paul) publicly confessed their sins and went on to do great things for the Church.
Canonizing JPII is tantamount to canonizing Martin Luther. A deplorable, public heretic who never publicly confessed, atoned or repaired his sins is not someone of heroic virtue or worthy of veneration. Which assaults the logic of the issue as well.
In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define John Paul II to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Quote from: Ecclesia MilitansQuote from: FerdinandAs Catholics we all know (beyond a doubt), Canonization is absolutely infallible.
Where does the Church teach this?
It would be tied to the Church's infallibility in discipline and not approving for veneration that which is evil.
No matter, the only infallible point is that he is in heaven as of the day he is canonized (he could have been in Purgatory since 2005). All the sedevacantes can say is that the Church has erred because JPII is not heaven, they can't say that the Church has erred because JPII did not exhibit heroic virtue. Therefore, they can prove nothing by talking about the infallibility of canonizations, since they have no way of knowing if JPII is in hell or purgatory till the end of time.
(he could have been in Purgatory since 2005)
Then 9 years of Purgatory is jailtime for millions going to hell/ desecration of the sacraments and loss of faith of millions.
QuoteThen 9 years of Purgatory is jailtime for millions going to hell/ desecration of the sacraments and loss of faith of millions.
You here make the mistake of equating Earthly time with purgation. I'll have to go look at the cite much later, but this is not the understanding in the Enchiridion of Indulgences. Working from memory, the teaching is that Earthly years are only a proper measure on Earth, and so X years of purgation means only 'the suffering of X years of hard penance done on Earth'.
In fact, y'all will probably enjoy having a discussion about how terrible the tortures of purgation doubtless were for JPII. Have at it.
That's exactly right.
...since the 1960's with St. Philomena being removed as a saint than canonizations are eligible to be changed at a future date so maybe a future pope will fix this too. :cool: Are canonizations infallible?
The Dominicans of Avrille have rejected the validity of Conciliar canonizations for a long time because of radical changes in procedure.
What an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
Quote from: BTNYCWhat an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
I agree. I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist or even sure if I am a sede vacantist, but knowing that Bergoglio is not a Catholic and was not at the time of his election.
The only thing about the "canonization" that would be a good development in my opinion is that it would initiate the undoing of the eclipse. I am of the opinion that if the true Church is in eclipse than the crisis will end effectively when what is blocking the true Church is moved away completely. A complete separation of the two entities. The true Church will finally declare the heretic impostors a fake church and ignore the Novus Ordo sect completely. This is just my opinion. There has to be a complete identity separation. Right now many traditionalist believe that the Novus Ordo is the mainstream Church. This has got to pass. If the "canonization" of JP2 helps to bring that about quicker than that would be a good thing to happen from something bad. I can see where sedevacantists are hopeful. Unite the true Church already Bergoglio because there is little doubt that he will convert and even if he did there would still have to be a legitimate conclave.
Quote from: CentroamericaQuote from: BTNYCWhat an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
I agree. I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist or even sure if I am a sede vacantist, but knowing that Bergoglio is not a Catholic and was not at the time of his election.
The only thing about the "canonization" that would be a good development in my opinion is that it would initiate the undoing of the eclipse. I am of the opinion that if the true Church is in eclipse than the crisis will end effectively when what is blocking the true Church is moved away completely. A complete separation of the two entities. The true Church will finally declare the heretic impostors a fake church and ignore the Novus Ordo sect completely. This is just my opinion. There has to be a complete identity separation. Right now many traditionalist believe that the Novus Ordo is the mainstream Church. This has got to pass. If the "canonization" of JP2 helps to bring that about quicker than that would be a good thing to happen from something bad. I can see where sedevacantists are hopeful. Unite the true Church already Bergoglio because there is little doubt that he will convert and even if he did there would still have to be a legitimate conclave.
Bp. Sanborn once said that someone asked him, jokingly, what he thought of women's ordination. He replied, "I'm all for it!" His questioner was shocked and asked him why. He said, "Because that would prove, beyond all remaning doubt, that the structure in Rome is not the Church." Bergoglio is the best thing to happen to the Church.
To my knowledge, if JPII is canonized all it means is that he is infallible in Heaven, and that's it! The sedes can argue that the Church has erred....
It is not a matter of procedure, it is a matter of the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ and the Indefectibility of the Church.
What an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
Quote from: bowlerTo my knowledge, if JPII is canonized all it means is that he is infallible in Heaven, and that's it! The sedes can argue that the Church has erred....
You don't seem to understand the sedevacantist thesis. Sedevacantists do not argue that the Church has erred for the acts of the Conciliar sect are not acts of the Church.Quote from: FerdinandIt is not a matter of procedure, it is a matter of the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ and the Indefectibility of the Church.
And this is the crux of the issue, not just the issue of the canonizations, but the entire Conciliar anti-Church. In order to continue to believe that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church, one is forced to abandon the doctrines of the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Moreover, one is forced to do so while denying that one is doing so and boil most acts of the Conciliar sect down to procedure and legalisms.
--The canonization process changed so canonizations are no longer infallible.
--The Novus Ordo wasn't properly promulgated so it is not really the official worship or, at least, isn't really mandatory.
--The Council of 1962-1965 didn't define any doctrine and is merely "pastoral", so nothing it actually teaches is really Church teaching.
Etc., etc., etc. Never mind that the Conciliar sect clearly behaves as if they have established a brand new Church with its own saints, its own doctrines, its own free-wheeling rites and that this new Church has replaced the Catholic Church.Quote from: BTNYCWhat an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
While I don't know about "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" because I don't really know any, I don't know any sedevacantists who "wait with anticipatory glee" for this canonization. We are hopeful, but not optimistic, that it will open they eyes of the faithful who are stuck in the muck and mire of Conciliarism.
Quote from: TKGSQuote from: bowlerTo my knowledge, if JPII is canonized all it means is that he is infallible in Heaven, and that's it! The sedes can argue that the Church has erred....
You don't seem to understand the sedevacantist thesis. Sedevacantists do not argue that the Church has erred for the acts of the Conciliar sect are not acts of the Church.Quote from: FerdinandIt is not a matter of procedure, it is a matter of the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ and the Indefectibility of the Church.
And this is the crux of the issue, not just the issue of the canonizations, but the entire Conciliar anti-Church. In order to continue to believe that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church, one is forced to abandon the doctrines of the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Moreover, one is forced to do so while denying that one is doing so and boil most acts of the Conciliar sect down to procedure and legalisms.
--The canonization process changed so canonizations are no longer infallible.
--The Novus Ordo wasn't properly promulgated so it is not really the official worship or, at least, isn't really mandatory.
--The Council of 1962-1965 didn't define any doctrine and is merely "pastoral", so nothing it actually teaches is really Church teaching.
Etc., etc., etc. Never mind that the Conciliar sect clearly behaves as if they have established a brand new Church with its own saints, its own doctrines, its own free-wheeling rites and that this new Church has replaced the Catholic Church.Quote from: BTNYCWhat an interesting time to live in, where Novus Ordites and Dogmatic Sedevacantists wait with anticipatory glee for one and the same event...
While I don't know about "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" because I don't really know any, I don't know any sedevacantists who "wait with anticipatory glee" for this canonization. We are hopeful, but not optimistic, that it will open they eyes of the faithful who are stuck in the muck and mire of Conciliarism.
Well stated TKGS... offering incense to the Conciliar Sect is not an option, save for the ignorant and the feeble minded. St. Joseph - Ora Pro Nobis.
The Catholic Church cannot cease to have formal successors of the Apostles, and only those who are appointed by the Pope are such. The Petrine succession and the Apostolic succession are inextricably intertwined and the modern heterodox notion that a sede vacante can be indefinitely extended is directly contrary to the defined dogma that Peter must have perpetual successors. If a sede vacante can be indefinitely extended, then there is no need for Peter to have perpetual successors.
How do account for those bishops who were consecrated during papal interegnums? I'm not talking about those since V2, I'm talking about those that were appointed during long interegnums prior to V2.
QuoteHow do account for those bishops who were consecrated during papal interegnums? I'm not talking about those since V2, I'm talking about those that were appointed during long interegnums prior to V2.
Bishops who are consecrated during interregna have no canonical mission, therefore no ordinary power of jurisdiction, and therefore must await confirmation from a future Pope to receive this.
This necessarily means an interregnum cannot be indefinitely prolonged (such would also render the canon on the necessity of perpetual Petrine succession rather meaningless)
This is what happened in the historical cases you mention. By the way, historically, the longest interregnum so far has been slightly over 3 years. I will give you sources if you ask.
QuoteHow do account for those bishops who were consecrated during papal interegnums? I'm not talking about those since V2, I'm talking about those that were appointed during long interegnums prior to V2.
Bishops who are consecrated during interregna have no canonical mission, therefore no ordinary power of jurisdiction, and therefore must await confirmation from a future Pope to receive this.
This necessarily means an interregnum cannot be indefinitely prolonged (such would also render the canon on the necessity of perpetual Petrine succession rather meaningless)
This is what happened in the historical cases you mention. By the way, historically, the longest interregnum so far has been slightly over 3 years. I will give you sources if you ask.
Quote from: NishantQuoteHow do account for those bishops who were consecrated during papal interegnums? I'm not talking about those since V2, I'm talking about those that were appointed during long interegnums prior to V2.
Bishops who are consecrated during interregna have no canonical mission, therefore no ordinary power of jurisdiction, and therefore must await confirmation from a future Pope to receive this.
This necessarily means an interregnum cannot be indefinitely prolonged (such would also render the canon on the necessity of perpetual Petrine succession rather meaningless)
This is what happened in the historical cases you mention. By the way, historically, the longest interregnum so far has been slightly over 3 years. I will give you sources if you ask.
Yes, please give me the sources. I would much appreciate that. Thank you!
Anti-Church Schedule of Events
27 II Sunday of Easter "Divine Mercy Sunday"
Saint Peter's Square, at 10:00
ANTI-PAPAL MASS
"Holy Mass" (aka The Great Sacrilege) and the "Canonization" of Anti-Popes by an Anti-Pope:
- John XXIII (the 2nd), Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm)
- John Paul II, Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm)
Anti-Church Schedule of Events
27 II Sunday of Easter "Divine Mercy Sunday"
Saint Peter's Square, at 10:00
ANTI-PAPAL MASS
"Holy Mass" (aka The Great Sacrilege) and the "Canonization" of Anti-Popes by an Anti-Pope:
- John XXIII (the 2nd), Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm)
- John Paul II, Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm)
From the "Vatican's" Website (edited/corrected):QuoteAnti-Church Schedule of Events
27 II Sunday of Easter "Divine Mercy Sunday"
Saint Peter's Square, at 10:00
ANTI-PAPAL MASS
"Holy Mass" (aka The Great Sacrilege) and the "Canonization" of Anti-Popes by an Anti-Pope:
- John XXIII (the 2nd), Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm)
- John Paul II, Anti-Pope (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm)
Of course the event occurs on JPII's "Divine Mercy" Sunday (aka Low Sunday... a very low Sunday indeed).
Unfortunately there are many foundering souls in the SSPX who have been misled by clergy to accept the "Divine Mercy Message and Devotion" and false/Novus Ordo apparitions like Akita. :facepalm:
Quote from: FerdinandOf course the event occurs on JPII's "Divine Mercy" Sunday (aka Low Sunday... a very low Sunday indeed).
Unfortunately there are many foundering souls in the SSPX who have been misled by clergy to accept the "Divine Mercy Message and Devotion" and false/Novus Ordo apparitions like Akita. :facepalm:
I agree with you about the Divine Mercy, for countless reasons.
But what about Akita makes it dubious or unworthy of belief? I am familiar with the apparition, and it seems quite legit from every angle: From the message, to the seer, to the seer's life, to the apparition itself, etc.
On second thought, if you do choose to respond, please start a new thread. It would cause a major derailing of this thread.
... formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff ... The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter
“...the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.
“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
:detective:
Is this for real?
The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
http://itccs.org/
QUOTES:
“We know from several Cardinals that Pope Francis is a caretaker figurehead who is not actually the Pope. It’s all been a huge deception. Francis doesn’t wear the papal ring and lives in a convent in Rome, not in the Vatican. He is given no official security and wanders about like a private individual. And he makes policy statements which the Curia of Cardinals then disavow, saying Francis doesn’t reflect church doctrine. And all the top appointments have been Germans or those connected to Ratzinger, who continues to speak to reporters like he’s still the Pope.”
Meanwhile, a former member of a child abuse cult known as The Ninth Circle has stated in a deposition that Joseph Ratzinger has been a member of the Circle since at least 1962, and as such has routinely participated in the ritual rape, torture and killing of children.
“The witness claim to have seen both former Pope John Paul the Second, Karol Wotyja, and Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, participate at Ninth Circle rituals held at Catholic cathedrals and a forest grove in France” said George Dufort of the Common Law court.
Hmmmm . . . too bad I gave my copy of Windswept House away . . . :cussing: . . . after asking Bishop Fellay what he thought about the book (question asked in public at a SSPX chapel, late 90s [thereabouts]), he said: If you're basing your understanding of what is going on at the Vatican by that book, then you are basing it on a foundation of sand.
:detective:
Is this for real?
The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
http://itccs.org/
Well, first of all, as everyone should know, it was acknowledged by His Grace, and all our current bishops (and yes, even sedevacantist for that matter) that none of them possess episcopal offices and ordinary jurisdiction.
This is because, as canon law (see Can. 953 and Can. 147, 1917 CIC) lays down, ecclesiastical office can only be validly obtained by canonical appointment, and the pontifical mandate. Pius XII informs us in Ad Apostolorum Principis that no bishop can receive power of jurisdiction unless he is named or at least confirmed by the Holy See.
... formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
There is no problem in individual bishops not occupying offices or diocesan sees. Such have always existed. These will operate under supplied jurisdiction.
What is impossible, however, is all offices throughout the Church becoming vacant.
This means the Church has ceased to be formally Apostolic, because jurisdiction is the form of Apostolicity (see above). But that's where we're heading, because only Peter can appoint bishops to offices and confer on them the apostolic mission.
That's why an indefinite interregnum is not possible.
As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff ... The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter
That's why an indefinite interregnum is not possible.
Quote from: NishantThat's why an indefinite interregnum is not possible.
By the way, every interregnum is indefinite.
“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.”
"The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope."
Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power.
We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority ... Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ... But He was not satisfied with this.. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source
the Saviour, says Cajetan, sends down His power first on the head of the Church, and thence to the rest of the body. When a Pope is created the electors merely designate the person, and it is Christ who then confers on him immediately his dignity and power. But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form.
Quote from: BlackIrish:detective:
Is this for real?
The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
http://itccs.org/
No. It's just a group of people with a website. They have no real political or juridical power or authority.
In case you'd like to keep an eye on the smoke of satan, here's a webcam of JPII's tomb. Yes, a webcam. You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/monumenti/webcam/tomba-del-beato-giovanni-paolo-ii-.html
Whether you ask Bp. Fellay or Bp. Williamson, or Bp. Dolan or Bp. Sanborn for that matter, they will tell you they do not and cannot have episcopal offices and ordinary jurisdiction, because only the Pope can give this. Even sedevacantist bishops admit this, I do not see why you do not.
Canon Law is not speaking of liceity alone, in the canons mentioned. It says ecclesiastical offices cannot be validly obtained without Papal appointment. Validity cannot be dispensed with.
Pius XII mentions why those who oppose this to the ancient rule deceive themselves, he says that the Papal approval is the cause of jurisdiction, that those who have not been named or at least confirmed by the Pope cannot possess power of teaching and jurisdiction. Following Pius VI, he explains that the only reason Patriarchs and metropolitans were permitted to assist in the consecration of bishops was because the Pontiffs of old had permitted this to them expressly, but that the only source of jurisdiction is the Pope.
They thus by the very law that prevailed then, which by the way was long before Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction had been defined, had a mandate to consecrate bishops in their region, under the condition that Rome must later recognize whom they raised to the episcopate.
I could give you a thousand sources, but I don't think you're willing to admit what they say.
The Pope is the foundation of the Church. By the constitution of the Church, he alone has the right and power to establish bishops.
“Only the pope established bishops. This right belongs to him sovereignly, exclusively and necessarily , by the very constitution of the Church and the nature of the hierarchy.”
As plain as the day is long, this authority says no one exercises an office before he is recognized by the Pope.
"The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope."
Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power.
We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority ... Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ... But He was not satisfied with this.. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source
No one has the power of jurisdiction unless he has a visible and demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope.
What Pius XII confirms for us in particular is that the Papal approval is not only the condition of the bishop receiving jurisdiction, it is the cause. Without the Pope, and his power of universal ordinary jurisdiction, the conferral of particular ordinary jurisdiction on a bishop cannot be effected.
If you understood this, you would see why your position that bishops who are not appointed by the Pope have offices and jurisdiction is untenable, and is not held to by any of our bishops, not even sedevacantist. If you don't see this, then we shall have to agree to disagree.
the Saviour, says Cajetan, sends down His power first on the head of the Church, and thence to the rest of the body. When a Pope is created the electors merely designate the person, and it is Christ who then confers on him immediately his dignity and power. But, when the Sovereign Pontiff, either of himself or through others, invests bishops, the proper jurisdiction they receive does not come to them directly from God, it comes directly from the Sovereign Pontiff to whom Christ gives it in a plenary manner, and from whom it comes down to the bishops: somewhat after the manner of the life-pulse that begins in the heart and is transmitted thence to the other organs. And that is why the Sovereign Pontiff must not be conceived as merely designating bishops who then receive directly from Christ their proper and ordinary authority; but as himself conferring the episcopal authority, having first received it from Christ in an eminent form.
Fake metal for a fake saint?
Quote from: CharlemagneFake metal for a fake saint?
...minted by a fake church?
Let's keep our Catholic wits about us...
Anti-Pope Benedict XVI had as little or less claim to the See of Peter than the current Apostate!
Some Catholics believe that the bodies of saints are "incorruptible." That is, they never decompose."
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.
~The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23
Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the Church is not liable to error.
~In Quodlib. IX, a. 16
No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship...
~ Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1895, vol I, pg 311
On April 27th, the R&R club must piously believe that JPII is a Saint in heaven or that the chair is empty.
Some quotes to help you in your discernment:Quote from: St. Alphonsus LiguoriTo suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.
~The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23Quote from: St. Thomas AquinasSince the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the Church is not liable to error.
~In Quodlib. IX, a. 16Quote from: Fr. Sylvester J Hunter, S.JNo writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship...
~ Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1895, vol I, pg 311
Quote from: FerdinandOn April 27th, the R&R club must piously believe that JPII is a Saint in heaven or that the chair is empty.
Some quotes to help you in your discernment:Quote from: St. Alphonsus LiguoriTo suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.
~The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23Quote from: St. Thomas AquinasSince the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the Church is not liable to error.
~In Quodlib. IX, a. 16Quote from: Fr. Sylvester J Hunter, S.JNo writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship...
~ Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1895, vol I, pg 311
Great quotes! Notice it never mentions anything about the so-called "process".
No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken...
"...The whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship."
Sometimes I really wonder if the beloved Vatican remembers the teaching of the holy book.
From dust to dust and to dust thou shalt return.
All this embalming thingy is just not right.
The dead is dead and they need to return to where they first come from, back to earth.
The physical body lies in state of no return whilst the soul rest awaiting for the final call, salvation and eternal life.
Maybe I think too much but what has our faith, the Catholic Church has become, encouraging us to worship dead people who are embalmed.
Is it just a mean of making money?
God bless Spe Salvi
From dust to dust and to dust thou shalt return.
I would like to know by what principle Father Scott uses to declare that the infallibility of solemn acts of a pope is governed by the procedure that the pope uses to decide to solemnly act on a subject.
Which theologians ever taught that the Holy Ghost does not protect the Church against making errors in faith or morals (and the canonisations of saints is a matter of faith) by allowing errors in the procedures leading up to the solemn declaration of error.
It seems to me that the principle the SSPX uses today is: We make it up as we go along.
Novus Ordo Church Leaders Deny
the Bodily Resurrection of Christ
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/_Media/paul6-hall_med.jpeg)
The repugnant sculpture "The Resurrection" by Pericle Fazzini
serves as a background in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican
Read the following, there is no doubt about the complete apostasy of the Vatican V2 Novus Ordo sect.
Novus Ordo Denials of the Resurrection (http://1law-order-and-justice.blogspot.com/2013/05/novus-ordo-denials-of-resurrection.html)
A little natural wisdom on deformed thought...Quote"When a man's finger is deformed, he knows enough to be dissatisfied; but if his mind be deformed, he does not know that he should be dissatisfied. This is called: 'Ignorance of the relative importance of things.'" (Analects, Bk. vi., pt. i., c. xii., v. 2.)
Because there can never be a "line in the sand" for the hardcore R&R club, they refuse to move to higher/Catholic ground. In the end they'll be swept away by the flood waters of Conciliarism.
Quote from: Stephanos II
Novus Ordo Church Leaders Deny
the Bodily Resurrection of Christ
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/_Media/paul6-hall_med.jpeg)
The repugnant sculpture "The Resurrection" by Pericle Fazzini
serves as a background in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican
Read the following, there is no doubt about the complete apostasy of the Vatican V2 Novus Ordo sect.
Novus Ordo Denials of the Resurrection (http://1law-order-and-justice.blogspot.com/2013/05/novus-ordo-denials-of-resurrection.html)
It looks more like Satan beling released from the pit of Hell - purely a coincidence, I'm sure.
Bullet points excerpted from the linked article.QuoteOne has to proceed from basic principles:
1) Conciliarism is a false religion.
2) The conciliar rites of episcopal consecration (see the appendix below) and priestly ordination (see "Father" or Not) are invalid. Depending upon which ordinal Archbishop Ramón José Castellano of Buenos Aires, Argentina, used on December 13, 1969, the Feast of Saint Lucy (Giovanni Montini/Paul the Sick issued the first ordinal with the new rite wasin 1968 and again was issued in 1978) the new conciliar "pope" may not be a priest, and he is certainly not a "bishop."
3) Bergoglio/Francis defects from numerous articles of the Catholic Faith and has, as noted in yesterday's article and in this one, committed excommunicable acts of sacrilege by praying with false religions and being "blessed" by the leaders of false religions. Our Lady is pleased such with words and deeds? Again, just see what see told Pierre Port-Combet on March 25, 1649. She was very direct with him, wouldn't you say?
4) Bergoglio/Francis has thus expelled himself form the bosom of the Catholic Church by virtue of adhering to, no less promoting, one condemned proposition after another. He is as surely excommunicated as any Catholic in public life who supports baby-killing and perversity.
5) Bergoglio cannot thus be a true pope no matter what he attempts. Our Lady hates heresy, and to believe one can be truly devoted to her while promoting those things that are repugnant to her Divine Son is delusional. Here's the skinny, folks: The Chair is Still Empty.)
Antichrist is not going to give us his calling card. We are going to have to use our sensus Catholicus to recognize him.
No matter how kind and sympathetic a figure he may cut for popular consumption, Luis Mario Bergoglio is a figure of Antichrist. Anyone who can give credence to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan is not friend of Our Lady or of her Divine Son, Christ the King.
Those who will want to delude themselves and others worse yet are closing their eyes to truth in order to project onto their "newest only friend in the Vatican" beliefs and desires that he does hold and indeed rejected a long time ago.
As for the rest of us, we must be intent on making reparation for our ow sins, especially now as Passion Week approaches in less than a day with the praying or singing of First Vespers for Passion Sunday tomorrow evening, Saturday, March 16, 2013.
We must, if all possible given our circuмstances, spend more time in prayer before the Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and must continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. And even those of us who are no longer bound by the laws of fasting because we are over the age of fifty-nine should really, health issues requiring the taking of food notwithstanding, of course, make every effort to fast as none us knows the extent of the reparation we must make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate of Mary for only own sins, no less the good that such fasting, especially when it is not obligatory, can do to make reparation for the sins of others, including the conciliar revolutionaries, and to effect their conversion to the true Faith.
The hour is late.
Do not permit yourselves to be snookered.
Let us continue to entrust ourselves to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
I have been see sawing on the sede or not decision for years. Sacramental invalidity makes it impossible to ignore the sede position.
Come, Holy Ghost!
Thanks as usual, LofT for another great post.
The Sedevacantist Argument in Brief (http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/19/sedevacantism-a-quick-primer/)
We have published this little summary of the argument many times over the past decades, and it will be helpful to do so again here. The argument is essentially the same for all the post-Vatican II “popes,” even though its force has become much more evident with the arrival of Bergoglio.
1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
6. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority.
7. Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.
Quote from: CharlemagneQuote from: Stephanos II
Novus Ordo Church Leaders Deny
the Bodily Resurrection of Christ
(http://www.novusordowatch.org/_Media/paul6-hall_med.jpeg)
The repugnant sculpture "The Resurrection" by Pericle Fazzini
serves as a background in Paul VI Hall in the Vatican
Read the following, there is no doubt about the complete apostasy of the Vatican V2 Novus Ordo sect.
Novus Ordo Denials of the Resurrection (http://1law-order-and-justice.blogspot.com/2013/05/novus-ordo-denials-of-resurrection.html)
It looks more like Satan beling released from the pit of Hell - purely a coincidence, I'm sure.
I was in Rome at a General Audience in the "Pope Paul VI" auditorium, and watched John Paul II speak in front of this monstrosity.
Decision Time for The Remnant:
Is the Novus Ordo Church... the True Church or a Counterfeit Church?
For decades the semi-traditionalists at The Remnant have been reporting on the apostasy of the Vatican II Church: its evil disciplines, its erroneous and heretical teachings, its impious liturgical laws, its scandalous clergy, its wicked practices. In short, they have been making the overall case that the Novus Ordo Church is the exact opposite of a trustworthy guide in matters of eternal salvation, that it is not the Ark of Salvation but the Ark of Damnation.
All throughout this time, however, and up to the present day, they have kept insisting that despite all the evidence, nevertheless the institution in the Vatican is ultimately still the Roman Catholic Church of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, that it is identical in essence with the Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors. They have impiously insisted that the men ultimately responsible for this gigantic mass apostasy and destruction of the Catholic sacraments are valid Roman Catholic Popes, to whom every Catholic owes submission, but which submission somehow cannot be rendered under pain of heresy, impiety, and immorality, that is, for all intents and purposes, under pain of eternal damnation. And so they say that while we must "recognize" these modernist "Popes" and their "bishops" as legitimate Roman Catholic pastors, we must nevertheless resist or ignore them in the exercise of their putative offices. (This is sometimes referred to as the "recognize-and-resist" position.)
This schismatic, schizophrenic, theologically indefensible, and totally un-Catholic position is shared by the Society of St. Pius X and many others who call themselves "Traditional Catholics". In contrast to this, Novus Ordo Watch espouses the view known as Sedevacantism as the only possible Catholic position in response to the Novus Ordo Church, a view which holds that the alleged Popes in the Vatican since the death of Pius XII in 1958 are not true Popes but imposters, and that the organization they head is not in fact the Roman Catholic Church but a Masonic counterfeit institution that aims to imitate the Catholic Church in the externals but actually seeks its destruction by changing Catholic teachings, morals, and practices. With this they have been very successful since the election of Angelo Roncalli as "Pope John XXIII" (1958) and the bogus "Second Vatican Council" (1962-65).
To frequent readers of this web site, all this is nothing new.
But now The Remnant has argued itself into a corner. In May of 2011, The Remnant posted an article written by one of its most famous columnists, New-Jersey-based attorney Christopher A. Ferrara, a rhetorically-gifted neo-traditionalist spin doctor who pushes the "recognize-and-resist" position as much as he despises the sedevacantist stance. This article is called "The Beatification of John Paul II: Another Extension of the Great Façade?" and contains Ferrara's commentary on the then-recent "beatification" of the false "Pope" John Paul II (1978-2005). Ferrara finds for himself a "way out" of the ridiculous and impious idea that the true Catholic Church could even so much as beatify a man who demonstrated his impiety, loss of Faith, destruction of moral principles, and scandalous actions in public for decades: He asserts that beatifications are not infallible acts of the Church (true enough). And so attorney Ferrara argues:
In considering the beatification of John Paul II we must never lose sight of what the Church teaches about beatifications: that they are permissions, not commands, to venerate, and thus are not infallible acts of the Magisterium. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, canonization involves “a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church,” whereas beatification only “permits such worship...”
[...]
What is done is done. But in reality, no matter what anyone says, we remain free to pray for John Paul II instead of to him—even in the Diocese of Rome itself. And we remain free as well to pray that the Holy Ghost will never allow the calamity of the last pontificate (or the one before it) to receive, per impossible, the perpetual and infallible imprimatur of a formal canonization. May Our Lady intercede for us, for Holy Church, and for the late Pope John Paul II.
(Ferrara, "The Beatification of John Paul II: Another Extension of the Great Façade?", The Remnant Online, May 9, 2011)
So, while Ferrara correctly points out that beatifications are not infallible, he, again correctly, goes further and says that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to canonize John Paul II, because, unlike beatifications, canonizations are infallible. Now, remember that Ferrara and The Remnant believe that the Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church, so, as far as they are concerned, the Novus Ordo Church will not be able to go through with a "canonization" of John Paul II -- this is the infallible assurance (so they think) of the Holy Ghost.
Ferrara is known for his tendency to use overblown rhetoric and rash dramatizations of bland facts and events, which is usually based on his own fantastic view of how things should be rather than a dispassionate observance of objective reality (see, for example, our article No Friend of Fatima: Unspinning Ferrara's Defense of Benedict XVI). When Benedict XVI resigned from his "papal" office on February 10, 2013, Ferrara, of course, had to find the "real" reason for the resignation and ended up linking it to -- what else? -- the prevention of the looming "canonization" of John Paul II:
...Pope Benedict’s abdication is to take effect a mere seventeen days from today, on February 28, 2013 at precisely 8 p.m. This means that Benedict will avoid the dubious canonization of John Paul II and the simply absurd beatification of Paul VI. The steamroller driving toward those vexatious events, sweeping aside all reasonable objections, has suddenly been stopped dead in its tracks. Did the Pope abdicate, at least in part, to slow down John Paul II’s saint-making machine, which was threatening to canonize the Council of which Benedict himself (in his more candid moments) has been so critical? We may be permitted to think so.
...we can surmise that Benedict faced a dilemma: If he simply refused to exercise the papal primacy to canonize the Council, he would be met with a storm of outrage from conciliarist militants. But if he yielded to pressure and proceeded with those acts, he would have to answer to his own conscience and ultimately to the Judge of us all. Fearing that he would be unable to resist the pressure to perform the ceremonies demanded and already arranged, awaiting only his approving act, he might have concluded that his best course of action was to jump off the steamroller before it could reach its destination. It stands to reason that if Benedict were at all committed to the idea of "Saint John Paul II the Great" and "Blessed Paul VI," he would have remained in office at least long enough to perform the necessary papal acts. Yet he has left office, in a purely discretionary manner, just as those acts were slated to occur—during the ironically designated "Year of Faith" that is taking place in the midst of the "silent apostasy" that is our inheritance from the previous two pontificates.
Or perhaps, even if this was not the Pope’s conscious intent, the Holy Ghost has intervened by prompting him to abdicate rather than inflicting further damage to the Church by acceding to the Council’s canonization via improvident acts of the Magisterium. As this newspaper noted in a recent news item, it does appear to be a miracle that, just days ago, the seemingly imminent canonization of John Paul II was abruptly postponed until at least 2014 [sic]. Was that postponement Pope Benedict’s doing in anticipation of his abdication? Did he act under the influence of the Holy Ghost? These are reasonable questions in view of the shocking decision by a reigning Roman Pontiff to renounce his office even though he is neither physically nor mentally incapacitated.
(Ferrara, "Something Wicked This Way Comes: Pope Benedict XVI Abdicates", The Remnant Online, Feb. 11, 2013)
Apparently the only thing more active in this world than a nuclear reactor operating at full throttle is the imagination of Christopher Ferrara. Ferrara is pulling this conjecture out of nowhere but his own lawyerly fancy. (Later in the same article, he speaks of an "apocalyptic aspect" of Ratzinger's abdication.)
How wonderful it is, then, to see how hollow all these theories have proven themselves to be, because as of July 5, 2013, Mr. Ferrara and The Remnant have a problem: "Pope" Francis has announced he will "canonize" John Paul II within a few months! (See our coverage here.)
Now what? In his Feb. 11, 2013, article, Ferrara reiterates that canonizations are infallible: They are "generally acknowledged by theologians to be an infallible act of the Magisterium because it establishes a cult for the universal Church" ("Something Wicked This Way Comes"). What will our New Jersey lawyer do now? Did it not occur to him that what he argued Benedict had shrewdly prevented by an act of abdication would be picked up again by his immediate successor? All of Ferrara's dramatizations and speculations aside, the bland reality is this: What Benedict didn't get to do with regard to John Paul II is now being done by Francis. That's all. (And it really wouldn't have taken a whole lot of imagination to come up with that simple prediction.)
The reality is that Ferrara will have to eat his own words: It is impossible for the True Church to canonize as a saint a man as publicly scandalous as John Paul II. It is impossible for the Bride of Christ to give the apostate Karol Wojtyla "the perpetual and infallible imprimatur of a formal canonization." So, if the Vatican II Church nevertheless does so, there is only one possible conclusion left: The Vatican II Church is not -- cannot be -- the Roman Catholic Church. This is exactly what sedevacantists have been saying for a long time and what Ferrara & Co. have long been pooh-poohing as "patently absurd."
So, will Ferrara finally concede? Will The Remnant finally accept the necessary logical conclusion? Or will we see more half-baked, pseudo-theological excuses whose only aim is to keep oneself and others from becoming sedevacantists, from recognizing that the Vatican institution is not the true Catholic Church? Will their unsuspecting readership again be hoodwinked into believing that the Ark of Salvation can also be the Ark of Damnation, and that this once again somehow doesn't matter? "And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor. 6:15).
Let us not fool ourselves. The force of logical reasoning has never impressed The Remnant. Besides, the recognize-and-resist position is much too convenient to abandon easily: It allows people to practice the traditional Catholic Faith and gives access to a great many Mass locations (or so they think) on the one hand; and it allows one to ignore, dismiss, reject, and resist all the unpleasant teachings, laws, liturgical rites, etc., of the Novus Ordo on the other. (Plus, one can feel great in lecturing sedevacantists about their apparent inability to explain how the papacy and the Church will be restored.) The only problem: The recognize-and-resist position isn't Catholic and not defensible from Catholic theology -- minor detail.
We pray to God that the semi-traditionalists at The Remnant, Catholic Family News, the Society of St. Pius X, and others will finally realize that what cannot be true, is not true. The Novus Ordo Church is a counterfeit of the Catholic Church, the ape of the Church, just like the devil is the ape of God.
Mr. John Lane, a sedevacantist layman from Australia, has succinctly put the importance of recognizing the counterfeit nature of the False Church into perspective:
The entire force of the Conciliar revolt comes from the fact that it has apparently been imposed by the authority of the Church. How many bishops, priests, religious, and laymen, would have swallowed the lies of the heretics if they had not believed themselves bound to do so by the voice of Christ’s Vicar on earth? Questioning the authority of these men renders their revolution of doubtful authenticity.
(John Lane, "Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism (http://www.novusordowatch.org/sspx_dossier_sede.pdf)" [PDF], p. 65)
Let everyone at long last abandon the False Modernist Church in Rome and its apostate leaders and quit giving them credence. "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2).
The Vatican II Church is not the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors!
there is only one possible conclusion left: The Vatican II Church is not -- cannot be -- the Roman Catholic Church.. Taken from Novus Ordo Watch article above.
Quotethere is only one possible conclusion left: The Vatican II Church is not -- cannot be -- the Roman Catholic Church.. Taken from Novus Ordo Watch article above.
I can think of another possible conclusion.
Ferdinand[/url]]
Might prove helpful to those getting their theology from neo-Cath/Con sources or bogus allocutions, apparitions, exorcisms or even worse... L'Osservatore Romano.
Quote from: I
Are we guaranteed that something being called "canonization" from the Vatican is infallible? Well, while canonizations have been considered to be infallible by modern theologians, why then is the Canonized Latin Mass being called second fiddle, behind a bastard Newmass which is nothing more than a concoction of a Freemason (Bugnini) and 6 Protestant 'ministers'? How can an infallible Bull like Quo Primum be REMOVED from the frontispiece of every Newmissal and then start saying this bastard Newmass is the "Ordinary Rite" of the Roman Catholic Church?
The Robber Council, the Bastard Rites, the Bastard Law, the Bastard Catechism and the pretended Canonizations are obviously not from the Church.
It's been clear to many for decades that the "Conciliar Church" was not the Catholic Church.
Come April 27th a few more souls will awake from their slumber... most of the R&R club will not. :sleep:
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htmQuoteDuring the time of the Council of Trent Pope Paul IV issued his Apostolic Constitution cuм Ex Apostolic Officio of February 15, 1559. This 223rd Successor of Peter would die six months later on August 18th. His four year pontificate was highlighted by his promotion of moral reforms. This Papal Bull below also focused on the validity of a prelate or Pope in the event they were in heresy or apostasy. Because it deals with faith and morals and was issued ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and therefore is considered not only infallible, but to be held in perpetuity.
PRAYER OF SAINT PETER CANISIUS TO THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
Heavenly Spirits, servants of God, the proud, envious, obstinate and cunning evil spirits have conspired for our damnation. And so we call upon your assistance, that this great number of overweening, sly and powerful adversaries may neither in life nor in death be victorious over us.
Stand by us, Holy Angels, day and night, and fight faithfully for us in this perpetual warfare. Especially I appeal to that holy Angel to whom I have been entrusted by the goodness of God.
I ask thee to lead me in my blindness, teach me in my ignorance, strengthen me in my weakness, protect me in my unworthiness, lead me back when I stray, spur me on when lazy, awaken me when I sleep, help me when I walk.
Most especially assist me in that last, hard battle against the evil spirits, which stands before me at the hour of my death, that there may be for me a happy outcome, so that my soul after the accomplished victory may in the fellowship of the Holy Angels joyfully sing: “The snare is broken and we are delivered” (Ps. 123, 7)
Holy Mary, Queen of Angels, send Thy faithful servants upon this earth that they may thrust the hellish powers back into the darkness, in order that so many mortals who are trapped in the net of Satan may be freed and in the light of Mercy may be lead to Thy Divine Son.
AMEN
I'm surprised that anyone would think God is going to take action before Sunday.
What are people going to do AFTER the canonizations? Lose your faith? Become a protestant? Just curious.