Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'  (Read 1964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2026, 11:32:39 AM »
It sounds like two rounds of Pachamama, and countless other heresies and acts of apostasy, have brought them to a Catholic conclusion.

I was reading the +Sanborn newsletter that just arrived and he writes that an imperfect Council has to be created by bishop with jurisdiction, which no one in 'tradition' has. Thoughts?

Offline Twice dyed

  • Supporter
Re: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'
« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2026, 12:36:07 PM »
I know so little about this Unamsanctam proposal (I have limited vision...sorrie.  ;)
.
How about the "sensus ecclesiae" to elucidate the solution ----->the way to a potential fix.

Search Assist
Sensus ecclesiae refers to the collective sense of faith and understanding within the Church, while sensus catholica emphasizes the universal aspect of this faith among all Catholics. Both concepts highlight the shared belief and moral consensus among the faithful guided by the Church's teachings...
________________________________

    Can we, as simple laymen, petition the Cardinals to remove Pope Leo XIV , because of his modernism?  Hopefully everyone of us are still in the same Ark, THE Catholic Church. From the R & R position, somehow apply pressure in that hierarchy and get the motion some traction. How many realize the false path shown by the Pope?  1%.

  Doesn't look too promising, I agree! Just look back 100 years and look closely at the frustrations of Sister Lucia of Fatima, pleading to the POPEs to recognize the First Five Saturday devotion and spread it everywhere: we are still waiting...! And she had Our Lord and the Holy Mother of God as witnesses...  So you can't trust Rome.

It would be great if the 'powers that be'  just clicked on the DELETE 'Vatican II' button. Voilà!

"In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

Just a thought.


Re: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'
« Reply #22 on: May 03, 2026, 04:48:16 PM »
The rot is so deep and the heresy so wide spread, I'm not sure an imperfect Council would even do the trick at this point - no matter who calls it. But it is nice to see people waking up and trying to take measures to remedy the situation.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'
« Reply #23 on: May 03, 2026, 04:58:50 PM »
They are a confused lot.

20 years trad, then 18 years in the NO, now dogmatic sede calling for an imperfect council.....all 30 of them.

They formed to maintain a strict, cloistered life of prayer, apparently they gave that up to concern themselves with something more compelling? 
   

Good point about the "all 30".  You'd think that at least a few would at some point have said, "oh, sorry ... I can't be on board with this."

But that all of them are in lockstep with every dramatic turn?  Something doesn't sound right.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Transalpine Redemptorists declare 'sede vacante'
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2026, 05:06:20 PM »
It sounds like two rounds of Pachamama, and countless other heresies and acts of apostasy, have brought them to a Catholic conclusion.

I was reading the +Sanborn newsletter that just arrived and he writes that an imperfect Council has to be created by bishop with jurisdiction, which no one in 'tradition' has. Thoughts?

I don't agree with +Sanborn that ordinary jurisdiction would be required, given a state of emergency.  That opinion is based on an article written by Father Ricossa back in 1993, and it makes a couple of mistakes in reaching that conclusion:  1) cites Canon Law ... that deal with an EcuмENICAL Council (which this wouldn't be) and 2) doesn't prove that said law is of divine law, either directly or derived from it somehow.

So, the issue is HOW could such a Council have authority to effectively bind the consciences of Catholics to accept their election.  Sure, one way would be if pretty much all the bishops with jurisdiction would hold it.  But the other way would be from the bottom up where Catholics universally accept the Council's election as representing the Church.

Given lack of jurisdiction, Universal Acceptance would be the only way ... and, unless you believe that "the Church" = a handful of Totalist SV +Thuc-line bishops ... to the exclusion of CT, to the exclusion of all "Doubt & Resist", to the exclusion of all Eastern Rite Catholics (millions), to the exclusion of all Conciliar Catholic whom may be in material error only (also millions) ... even moderate SVs would not exclude all these from the Church, so the Totalists wouldn't even get all other Totalists "on board".  Despite my sympathy with CT, in practice I don't believe the Conciliar hierarchy have even material jurisdiction, so in that sense I'm a Totalist ... but I find it preposterous to say that a handful of Totalists could define themselves as "the Church" and that a handful of those bishops would constitutes a representation of the Universal Church.

If they did that and the CMRI dusted off +Shuckhardt's Hadrian VII costume for Pope Pivarunas, they'd have to check with Linus Von Pentz first, since that endeavor would only represent a difference of degree, and not a qualitative difference from that "election".