Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope  (Read 21523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Reputation: +1362/-80
  • Gender: Male
Universal acceptance of a Pope
« on: November 22, 2012, 02:55:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1965,

    Quote from: AER
    Certainty of the Pope's Status

    Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

    Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

    But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.


    Msgr. Gerardus Van Noort explains further some of the principles on which this teaching of the faith is based, applying it to the Supreme Pontiff of his day.

    Quote from: Van Noort
    “So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”

    For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”


    St.Alphonsus as well as Cardinal Billot, in treating the case of Pope Alexander VI, in addition to a host of others have also written about the same.

    This evidently seems to pose a problem for sedevacantists in our day, who say Pope Benedict XVI is not the Pope, for the notion that we are currently in an interregnum would be self-refuting in light of this, especially considering that a mere moral unanimity suffices to establish the above. This renders sedevacantism rather untenable and what Cardinal Billot says also applies here, "

    Quote from: Cardinal Billot
    Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction"


    That is, that the Pope is at best a material heretic, but not a formal one.

    How do sedevacantists who are aware of and accept this Catholic principle deal with its implications to our situation today?
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7114
    • Reputation: +443/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #1 on: November 22, 2012, 05:18:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

    The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

    IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7114
    • Reputation: +443/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #2 on: November 22, 2012, 06:50:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: roscoe
    There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

    The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

    IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


    It might be that Card Pintonello was elected in 1990. If so, the state of sede vacante would be even less.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2424/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 09:36:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nishant,

    I suppose the first thing that needs to be established is which Vatican II "pope" we are discussing.  I believe a very strong case could be made that John Paul II and Benedict certainly lacked a peaceful acceptance.  There has been nothing but turmoil in the Church from the time that they were elected, and a very significant portion of Catholics have during their entire "pontificate" ever submitted to them.

    I think a key point here is that when one accepts the pope, then one obeys the pope and learns from the pope.  I would argue that the SSPX has never accepted the papal claims of these men, as they have not treated them as popes.  They have ignored their teachings and laws and have acted in practice as though they do not exist.  This is not a peaceful acceptance of a pope.

    Now, with Paul VI, I also believe that despite Catholics referring to him as "pope," Catholics were actively resisting him in matters of Faith.  If Catholics had peacefully accepted his claim, then there would have been no turmoil about settled doctrine at Vatican II.  As in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Catholics were clearly treating Paul VI with skepticism about his papal claim while calling him "pope."

    On the point of John XXIII, I will not try to argue that one.  

    I think this really comes down to this:  Do you believe peaceful acceptance of the Pope is accepting him as a figurehead who can be ignored, with no power to rule over Catholics, or is acceptance of the Pope actually accepting him as the head of the Church, the Supreme Teacher and Lawgiver, St. Peter's successor?


    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Laval

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 19
    • Reputation: +23/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #4 on: November 22, 2012, 11:40:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: roscoe
    Quote from: roscoe
    There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

    The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

    IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


    It might be that Card Pintonello was elected in 1990. If so, the state of sede vacante would be even less.


    Even if the sede vacante is thereby limited, it does not seem to negate the near-universal acceptance of John XXIII - Benedict XVI as popes. If universal acceptance is the sufficient condition, then it excludes the possibility of other secret popes.

    On another note - where is this historical evidence you find so compelling - beyond mere speculation, that is?  


    Offline Laval

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 19
    • Reputation: +23/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #5 on: November 22, 2012, 11:45:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #6 on: November 23, 2012, 12:14:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Laval
    Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  


    No, they don't, and haven't, otherwise these discussions would not be taking place.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2424/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #7 on: November 23, 2012, 01:24:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This from John Daly, posted on the Bellarmine Forums May 26, 2006.  This is directly relevant to the current discussion:

    Quote
    Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”

    It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.

    JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

    Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

    On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

    [To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]

    MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?

    JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

    MM Could it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?

    JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.

    MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?

    JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
    Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.

    It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?

    And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.

    If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.

    You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).

    Ave Maria!

    John DALY
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic


    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #8 on: November 23, 2012, 07:01:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: roscoe
    There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

    The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958....

    IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


    Even if this is true, Cardinal Siri renounced his claim to the throne by going along with the revolution.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4553
    • Reputation: +3909/-365
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #9 on: November 23, 2012, 07:43:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A while back, John Lane wrote a series of articles for The Four Marks entitled, "The Church Crucified".  In them, he commented on this precise article from the American Ecclesiastical Review.

    Quote
       On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all the documents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI.  In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review.  “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?”   Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect.  But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest—the question was.

       The same question has been popping up, with greater and greater frequency and with increasing insistence, ever since.

       We must understand why this is so.  To explain the phenomenon of persistent and spontaneous sedevacantism since the Council, it will not suffice to accuse Paul VI of being a heretic or even of teaching heresy and error as pope, both on his own and as president of a General Council.  The cause was not that direct.  The problem was bigger that Paul VI.  It was larger in scope and it was deeper in its implications, and it was sending shockwaves through the Church, precisely because it was an ecclesiological  problem.  Frank Sheed, prolific author and principal of one of the world’s largest Catholic publishing houses, Sheed & Ward, gave expression to the general consternation of the Faithful in the title of a book he wrote immediately after the close of the Council.  It was entitled, Is It the Same Church?

       From the beginning of the crisis the “ecclesiological problem” has been alive in the minds of thinking traditionalists, and it has never disappeared.  As Joseph Ratzinger observed in Chile in 1988, “All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.”   Thus he echoed Frank Sheed, whose book appeared in 1968, and of course, Archbishop Lefebvre, who in 1976 famously declared, “We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.  That 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 institu-tions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive….  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 them-selves from the Catholic Church….”


    Indeed, the fact that the sedevacantist question won't go away is not simply an irrelevancy nor is it simply because people are just too stupid to understand the modern situation.  

    Additionally, through the 1960s there were numerous articles in secular American periodicals (e.g., Life, Look, Time, and others) that clearly and unequivocally highlighted dissention in the Church.  The Conciliar popes and the Conciliar changes were most definitely not peacefully accepted throughout the Church at the time.  Anyone who claims that they were is engaging in wishful thinking and nostalgia at best, or revisionist history at worst.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #10 on: November 23, 2012, 09:19:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok, excellent.

    It's always interesting to read the rather ingenious theories both John Lane and John Daly try to come up with to save sedevacantism, both in trying to blunt the force of the argument and in trying to turn it on SSPXers and non-sedevacantists! It's a good attempt, but I think it falls short.

    Against these, though, two points may be noted, which are both alike easily proved from authority.

    First, that universal consent given to such and such a person as head of the universal Church and the one to whom supreme jurisdiction has passed in act is not something more or less imperceptible or requires great delay to be certain of but is in fact immediately recognizable as such.

    Here is Msgr.Journet describing the same, referencing John of St.Thomas,

    Quote
    But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )

    Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).


    A simple nominal acceptance of his person as Pope, say in one's letters and speeches, or in one's private and public prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as Pope is enough for the same.

    The second point, which it appears to me is even more devastating, is that this is a truth primarily received on magisterial authority - that is, it is declared by a moral unanimity among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort when it is said for instance "The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact" in the former and "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession” in the latter, to which declaration of the ordinary and universal magisterium dispersed throughout the world we give an assent of faith as to something infallibly true called ecclesiastical faith.

    That's why I think the notion that we are in an interregnum is self-refuting - for assuming we were in one, then such a universal consent among Bishops that this individual - Benedict XVI - is the Pope would suffice to actually pass on to him the supreme jurisdiction by such an universal acceptance, and also to show infallibly that "all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled".
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline brotherfrancis75

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 220
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #11 on: November 23, 2012, 03:17:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Quote from: Laval
    Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  


    No, they don't, and haven't, otherwise these discussions would not be taking place.

    Well said, Tele.  Well said!

    There is an "elephant in the parlour" in this discussion.  We have the dangerous falsehood of (to quote the Maritainist heretic Charles Journet) "the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church" of V2 and the Novus Ordo apostasy.  That is false history and something that has never happened.

    This claim of a peaceful consensus in support of the Novus Ordo is something that never occurred in any real time Catholic history.  It took two world wars and the massive violent intervention of Khruschev's K.G.B. (with collaboration by the C.I.A and M-16 Secret Police forces) to brutally bludgeon the Catholics into submission to the Novus Ordo apostasy and that does not fit any description of an alleged "peaceful acceptance" of anything by the Catholics.

    There were savage persecutions of Catholics (such as Padre Pio) under John XXIII while Paul VI persecuted the Catholic bishops mercilessly.  Again, that does not in any way fit the Neo-Liberal's fantasy world of a "peaceful acceptance" among Catholics of V2 and the Novus Ordo or its General Apostasy against the faith.  

    This Modernist false version of history also presumes that our present time is one of a general peaceful acceptance by Catholics of the status quo.  Again, false!  For example, at present there is a most violent Reign of Terror throughout Europe and South America against the Catholics.  In the U.S the small Catholic minority is much too terrified and intimidated to present the existing Marxist authorities with much need to conduct a Reign of Terror, but even here the savage persecution of non-Zionist dissenters is not far to seek.  (For example, not even a famous Jew dissenter like Norman Finkelstein can stay in a rental apartment in New York to keep a roof over his head.  That indicates persecution on the grand scale.)

    There is no "peaceful acceptance" of the Novus Ordo!!  None whatsoever.  Brothers Roscoe and Diego are at least on the right path concerning this.  Cardinal Siri and the Patriarch of Venice fought tooth and nail against the apostasy of Anti-pope Paul VI and finally defeated Paul VI when the Patriarch of Venice became Pope John Paul I in 1978.  The fact that the Modernists had to murder Pope John Paul I so quickly to prevent the Restoration of the Church from happening then is an indication of how strong the Resistance against the Modernists of V2 was among Catholics throughout the 60s and 70s.

    The reason so few publicly opposed V2 was the use of terror methods like assassinations, widespread house-arrests, economic ostracism, bribery, blackmail and other such violent techniques on a massive scale to prevent Catholics from going public against V2 and Paul VI.  Men like Cardinal Siri and Pope John Paul I were not cowards but fought against the Modernists as much as the vicious persecutions of those days would let them.  

    Today Catholics are being subjected to savage persecutions throughout the Western World, especially in Europe and South America.  Most actual non-apostate American Catholics are frightened to death of the Jewish psychopaths and their Modernist underlings.  This is emphatically not "the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church" that only exists in some Catholic's (or perhaps Neo-Catholic's) lively imaginations.

    For the timid souls among us the relevant quote must be:

    "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our temple and our nation."  (John 11:48)

    But, as we know, the Romans always come anyway!  The hypocrites and cowards are wrong because God is not mocked and in the end the "angels" of His vengeance always "come and destroy" His enemies, usually with devastating effect.  We can not hide from God and it is always best not even to try such a foolish thing.

    In truth it is always much safer to be with Him than against Him.  We should forget about the Novus Ordo.  It is not long for this world.

     





    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #12 on: November 23, 2012, 03:20:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Van Noort
    ...For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”


    This is the position that ABL held. I can't remember where I read it.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #13 on: November 23, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Brother,

    How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Universal acceptance of a Pope
    « Reply #14 on: November 23, 2012, 03:25:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en//blog-sacri-palazzi-en/detail/articolo/lefebvre-luciani-17653/

    Quote
    In his homily, Pope Luciani linked the two cases saying: “My brothers, I was a fraternal friend of Franzoni’s and we were on familiar terms; I have heard Lefebvre speak in the Council on many occasions. I am certain that years ago both of them fully accepted the Council’s following words: “by virtue of office and as vicar of Christ, has full, supreme and universal authority, which can be exercised always and everywhere.” How come both Franzoni and Lefebvre now expressly reject these words? To me this is an unexplainable tragedy… Or perhaps “the explanation lies in the conclusion itself, which Paul Bourget gave in his novel Le demon du midi: “We must live according to what we think, otherwise we end up thinking according to how we live”… We may also face this risk…The Lord, however, wants us to obey the hierarchy.” These words are as true today as they were yesterday.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16