Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Hermes on July 31, 2021, 08:35:01 PM
-
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/07/31/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-the-theft-of-the-mass-of-all-ages-by-pope-francis/ (https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/07/31/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-the-theft-of-the-mass-of-all-ages-by-pope-francis/)
-
We have come to the point that even simple people with little knowledge of doctrinal issues understand that we have a non-Catholic pope, at least in the strict sense of the term.
And he trips and stumbles right out of the gate
-
It's alright...everything unacceptable that emanates from Rome (which, apparently, is everything for decades) isn't official, so no worries. You'd think Holy Mother Church would know how to conduct business in a way that was meaningful, but apparently She has been reduced to being merely the senile Whore of Babylon and none of her actions of the last 50+ years is official, etc. What a relief!!!! Indefectibility is SAVED!!!!! :laugh2:
-
It's alright...everything unacceptable that emanates from Rome (which, apparently, is everything for decades) isn't official, so no worries. You'd think Holy Mother Church would know how to conduct business in a way that was meaningful, but apparently She has been reduced to being merely the senile Whore of Babylon and none of her actions of the last 50+ years is official, etc. What a relief!!!! Indefectibility is SAVED!!!!! :laugh2:
Sad but true.
-
And he trips and stumbles right out of the gate
You skipped quoting the next sentence. He says this causes canonical problems that will need to be sorted out. In other words, it’s similar to the position adopted by +Lefebvre where he was inching toward sedevacantism but kept saying that it will have to be sorted out later. This was in line with what he said earlier when asked about Bennyvacantism.
I read this statement as his saying that it’s possible the See is vacant. That might be why it took him so long to respond ... as I speculated before. He was clearly grappling with these “canonical implications” of a non-Catholic pope. Framing it this way implies that he’s probably pondering the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position vs. Bellarmine.
When a pope is a manifest heretic, SOMEONE has to be the first to call it out. Someone has to get the ball rolling toward universal recognition of this fact. His going sedevacantist would create extreme momentum towards that, so he’s afraid to take that first step. I’ll write more when I’m not typing on my phone.
He also felt the need to release a video to address the ghostwriting accusation.
-
This is not a “stumble” ... if you actually understand what he’s saying. It’s unrealistic to expect the man to go full dogmatic sedevacantist “right out of the gate”. But this is CLEARLY a step in the direction of sedevacantism.
-
You skipped quoting the next sentence. He says this causes canonical problems that will need to be sorted out.
The exact words are:
This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.
He doesn't plan on doing anything other than kicking the can down the road.
Having said that, it is good to see that he has finally written his own response. I will read it in its entirety probably tomorrow since I will only have intermittent access to the internet today. However, this sentence alone doesn't bode well for the rest of it.
-
But in order for that theft to be repaired, it is necessary that we show ourselves to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us. Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and the frequent reception of the Sacraments.
He seems to be talking to Indulters. They have to frequently receive the NO sacraments of Antichrist (as a punishment), to earn back permission to worship God in the way God wishes to be worshipped.
:fryingpan:
-
He seems to be talking to Indulters. They have to frequently receive the NO sacraments of Antichrist (as a punishment), to earn back permission to worship God in the way God wishes to be worshipped.
:fryingpan:
No, he’s saying that we must be holy to win back the grace of having the Mass.
-
The exact words are:
This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.
He doesn't plan on doing anything other than kicking the can down the road.
Having said that, it is good to see that he has finally written his own response. I will read it in its entirety probably tomorrow since I will only have intermittent access to the internet today. However, this sentence alone doesn't bode well for the rest of it.
So you expect the man to become full-blown sedevacantist overnight? He’s already adopted basically the Resistance position and is clearly now mulling the implications of having a non-Catholic pope. You’ve been ripping on him since he first started writing about V2 and the New Mass.
-
Even EWTN radio is ripping on Bergoglio ... in unprecedented fashion ... about Amoris Laetitia, Bergoglio’s promotion of LBGT, and even the recent Motu.
-
Even EWTN radio is ripping on Bergoglio ... in unprecedented fashion ... about Amoris Laetitia, Bergoglio’s promotion of LBGT, and even the recent Motu.
They're doing WHAT?
I thought EWTN was basically the "amen corner" for the "conservative Novus Ordo".
Is there a link to any kind of podcast or something? I'd like to hear what they have to say.
-
So you expect the man to become full-blown sedevacantist overnight? He’s already adopted basically the Resistance position and is clearly now mulling the implications of having a non-Catholic pope. You’ve been ripping on him since he first started writing about V2 and the New Mass.
I have recently kept my mind open to him, but that phrase I highlighted shows he is passing the buck...and he took over 2 weeks to write it:
This poses some problems of a canonical nature that are not inconsiderable, which it is not up to us to solve but which sooner or later will have to be addressed.
Wake up Ladislaus. Unless the rest of what he wrote gives a different impression than that phrase (and I do intend to read it), he is NOT going to be the person who calls out Bergoglio as a manifest heretic. He is waiting for someone else to do the dirty work "sooner or later" (ie. it's not up to him).
-
To 2Vermont's point, if he is kicking the can down the road, it may mean that he knows he doesn't hold any Ordinary jurisdiction and meaningful condemnation must come from someone who does. Conversely, +Lefebvre was retired when he started the Society, so perhaps that will be considered by +Vigano.
-
https://youtu.be/etDH1wLEgYQ (https://youtu.be/etDH1wLEgYQ)
-
Vigano avoided calling Francis heretic for good reason. As the speaker of some authority, he'd be setting himself up as pope. His message stems from great humility. He criticized the Novus Ordo/VII in the hope of opening the eyes of people, encouraging them to reach higher spiritually, because he knows that unless more people come to the TLM, faith will fall even lower and necessary resistance to rising tyranny and NWO will be inadequate.
-
No, he’s saying that we must be holy to win back the grace of having the Mass.
That shouldn't be too hard. It's not as if we're trying to survive on physical, intellectual and spiritual scraps in the midst of an unfathomably evil society while almost-universally deprived of access to the greatest means of grace.
-
So you expect the man to become full-blown sedevacantist overnight? He’s already adopted basically the Resistance position and is clearly now mulling the implications of having a non-Catholic pope. You’ve been ripping on him since he first started writing about V2 and the New Mass.
He is EIGHTY, Lad. He's been at the very epicenter of this incomparable ecclesiastical mess for over FIFTY years!! Wanting a grown-ass man who darn well ought to be a well-trained cleric to be an actual shepherd and just call a damn spade a spade is NOT asking too much.
While you think others unjustly rip him, from the (admittedly) little I have seen, your take is far too kind and (groundlessly?) hopeful. Men like him have had their chance to do the right thing during the last, say, FIFTY years. They've completely failed and looking to them for solid help in the ecclesiastical realm is like looking to men like DT for solid help in the civil realm -- not gonna happen.
-
I have recently kept my mind open to him, but that phrase I highlighted shows he is passing the buck...and he took over 2 weeks to write it...
FIFTY. YEARS.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Octogenarians will not be part of the solutions to the present crises. They gave away the store and will die wandering in the desert, just as the Israelites of old.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre was the leading figure in Traditional Catholicism for about 15 years, and never pulled the trigger on becoming a sedevacantist. Not a few priests have (or had) been Traditional Catholic for 50 years without going sedevacantist.
+Vigano has gone from a high-level Conciliar official to a Resistance position in about 2 years, leapfrogging over the SSPX, which has passed over to the left of him. So God knows where his journey will lead him.
Lots of people spent decades in the Conciliar Church before receiving the GRACE to be awakened. I capitalize the word to bring to your attention that you did nothing to deserve it. Perhaps the graces he received in battling the sodomites led to other graces, and then he went into hiding and started to offer the True Mass, which of course led to many other graces. It's only by the grace of God that you have been Traditional Catholics longer, and you need to remind yourselves of that.
You remind me of the parable regarding the laborers who toiled all day in the vineyard and then resented those who came at the 11th hour and got paid the same. This is precisely the point of the parable, that everything either group received was due to the generosity of the Master, Who can choose do distribute His graces as He pleases.
I don't understand the contempt that many sedevacantists have for +Vigano; that's the kindof stuff that makes sedevacantism look bad to a lot of people.
-
FIFTY. YEARS.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Octogenarians will not be part of the solutions to the present crises. They gave away the store and will die wandering in the desert, just as the Israelites of old.
Well, the Catholics prophecies that seem to relate to this crisis mention an elderly Holy Pope along with the Great Monarch. God will decide how He will lead us out of the crisis and whom He'll use to do it.
-
There’s more than one way to skin a cat. But for some of you, there’s only 1 way, or else you’re not happy.
-
That shouldn't be too hard. It's not as if we're trying to survive on physical, intellectual and spiritual scraps in the midst of an unfathomably evil society while almost-universally deprived of access to the greatest means of grace.
It's not as if the Japanese Catholics didn't do that for 300+ years on much less. Where sin abounds grace doth more abound? Maybe that's how we get sanctified.
Just sayin'.
-
It's not as if the Japanese Catholics didn't do that for 300+ years on much less. Where sin abounds grace doth more abound? Maybe that's how we get sanctified.
Just sayin'.
How truly analogous do you think that era is to the modern world?
Modern food is utter trash, electro-smog and The Machine of Mind-F*ckery are ubiquitous, Japan was ONE barren place in a world FULL of certainly-valid Masses and countless Saints, etc... [I could easily go on and on enumerating notable differences.]
Just sayin ;)
-
Well, the Catholics prophecies that seem to relate to this crisis mention an elderly Holy Pope along with the Great Monarch. God will decide how He will lead us out of the crisis and whom He'll use to do it.
I have read them, many times. I don't recall anything specifically mentioning an elderly Pope. I readily admit I haven't bothered to read any of that for a decade, so please feel free to share any citations you believe are useful.
FWIW, the GM is nowhere on the horizon as far as I can tell. Would that he were, but I think we're in for a grueling stretch between now and the foretold restoration (2038?).
As you say, God will use whom He chooses, but gutless V2-Moderns who were adults in the 60s are not likely candidates.
-
It's only by the grace of God that you have been Traditional Catholics longer, and you need to remind yourselves of that.
I don't understand the contempt that many sedevacantists have for +Vigano; that's the kindof stuff that makes sedevacantism look bad to a lot of people.
Thanks for the advice and coming across as if you know my mind and heart, but I am well aware of the situation. I simply don't see any truly solid reason to place hope of any kind in modern men, period. The foretold solution to these sad times, as you should know, will clearly involve miracles of an unfathomable kind and degree and it will be crystal clear to the entire (surviving) world that GOD ALONE healed the mess that men created.
I don't have contempt for him; I just don't buy into whatever you, Sean, et alii do. C'est la vie.
-
I don't have contempt for him; I just don't buy into whatever you, Sean, et alii do. C'est la vie.
Well, perhaps I misread your comments in the context of others who have put a great deal of their contempt for him on display. In that case, I apologize.
Whether or not he is THE "Holy Pope" to come, he's certainly doing a lot of good, making the notion that V2 and the NOM are radically defective (vs. just 5% that can be corrected with a few tweaks) more acceptable even in the Motu/Indult crowds.
-
Well, perhaps I misread your comments in the context of others who have put a great deal of their contempt for him on display. In that case, I apologize.
Whether or not he is THE "Holy Pope" to come, he's certainly doing a lot of good, making the notion that V2 and the NOM are radically defective (vs. just 5% that can be corrected with a few tweaks) more acceptable even in the Motu/Indult crowds.
Time will tell. I'd be thrilled if he -- or anyone else, for that matter, presently in Rome/Vatican -- is the Pope of the time of the GM, because that would mean this difficult time will end sooner than appears to be the case.
I happily confess that I tend to believe most moderns of reasonably good will are so beat down and worked over by the aforementioned Machine and the taxing nature of these times that they take something which is only moderately positive for much more than it really is. I'd argue our intellectual/spiritual/etc depth perception, so to speak, is in desperate need of recalibration.
-
The idea of a “non-Catholic pope” is a total absurdity on par with the ideas of “square triangles” or “compassionate abortionists.” It’s just this kind of desperate nonsense that drove me away from the R&R camp. I couldn’t take it any more.
Popes must be Catholic.
As a pertinacious, manifest heretic, Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
One cannot be the head of a body of which he is not a member.
-
That shouldn't be too hard. It's not as if we're trying to survive on physical, intellectual and spiritual scraps in the midst of an unfathomably evil society while almost-universally deprived of access to the greatest means of grace.
Well said. Well said indeed. Few truly understand the depths of today’s insane impoverishment.
-
The idea of a “non-Catholic pope” is a total absurdity on par with the ideas of “square triangles” or “compassionate abortionists.” It’s just this kind of desperate nonsense that drove me away from the R&R camp. I couldn’t take it any more.
Not if you're a sedeprivationist or else follow more of the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position. Father Chazal is correct in stating that many sedevacantists elevate the Bellarmine position to dogma. Depending on which position you hold on the matter, the V2 papal claimants could be popes secundum quid even if they are heretics (i.e. non-Catholics).
-
The idea of a “non-Catholic pope” is a total absurdity on par with the ideas of “square triangles” or “compassionate abortionists.” It’s just this kind of desperate nonsense that drove me away from the R&R camp. I couldn’t take it any more.
Popes must be Catholic.
As a pertinacious, manifest heretic, Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
One cannot be the head of a body of which he is not a member.
The one I heard from my SSPX priest today was that sedevacantists are subjectively judging the Pope, comparing it to the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, when we need to remain objective in our assessments. I love Father, but no, participating in idolatrous acts (Pachamama, Assisi, etc.), publicly defaming the Trinity, deriding Catholic tradition, et al, are acts performed objectively. These are not judgments of his interior motivations.
-
The one I heard from my SSPX priest today was that sedevacantists are subjectively judging the Pope, comparing it to the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, when we need to remain objective in our assessments. I love Father, but no, participating in idolatrous acts (Pachamama, Assisi, etc.), publicly defaming the Trinity, deriding Catholic tradition, et al, are acts performed objectively. These are not judgments of his interior motivations.
Yeah, they've long tried to pull off the analogy with a "bad parent". And even the "faith is greater than obedience" maxim is completely misapplied. We're talking about obedience not to some simple positive command but subjection to the Magisterium.
And this whole notion of "judging" someone's interior dispositions derives from a distortion of what "formal" heresy means. That term has long bee subjectivized in the interest of undermining EENS dogma.
-
Yeah, they've long tried to pull off the analogy with a "bad parent". And even the "faith is greater than obedience" maxim is completely misapplied. We're talking about obedience not to some simple positive command but subjection to the Magisterium.
And this whole notion of "judging" someone's interior dispositions derives from a distortion of what "formal" heresy means. That term has long bee subjectivized in the interest of undermining EENS dogma.
Yeah, it was tough to hear. He was using the "we've had bad Popes before" argument, which just doesn't apply to men who publicly commit acts of heresy and apostasy. Alexander VI is called a "bad Pope" (which might have more to do with propaganda than truth) but he never did anything through his office as Pope that was antithetical to the Faith.
-
Many prophecies talk of 1-2 holy pope’s, who are killed after short reigns, before the Angelic pope arrives, who then crowns the Great Monarch.
.
There are also a few prophecies who say that the restoration of the Church happens so fast, that people are amazed and taken aback. As times get worse and evil gets bolder, God will respond in kind.
-
Many prophecies talk of 1-2 holy pope’s, who are killed after short reigns, before the Angelic pope arrives, who then crowns the Great Monarch.
.
There are also a few prophecies who say that the restoration of the Church happens so fast, that people are amazed and taken aback. As times get worse and evil gets bolder, God will respond in kind.
Soon, I hope
-
The idea of a “non-Catholic pope” is a total absurdity on par with the ideas of “square triangles” or “compassionate abortionists.” It’s just this kind of desperate nonsense that drove me away from the R&R camp. I couldn’t take it any more.
Popes must be Catholic.
As a pertinacious, manifest heretic, Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
One cannot be the head of a body of which he is not a member.
Indeed, even the idea of a manifestly heretic Catholic (layman) (not confessing the faith but rather confessing heresy) is absurd, which is the reason why divine law imposes what's known as ipso facto excommunication.
-
The truely Catholic prophecy appying to the abomination we're witnessing is 2 Thess 2.
Lord, come soon!
-
Indeed, even the idea of a manifestly heretic Catholic (layman) (not confessing the faith but rather confessing heresy) is absurd, which is the reason why divine law imposes what's known as ipso facto excommunication.
And I thought that Nancy Peℓσѕι and Joe Biden were Catholics in good standing? :laugh1:
-
And I thought that Nancy Peℓσѕι and Joe Biden were Catholics in good standing? :laugh1:
How dare you?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAzrxUfRUkJEVS8wMaoWoCNk6bAEz0HW4KBw&usqp=CAU)
-
The truely Catholic prophecy appying to the abomination we're witnessing is 2 Thess 2.
Lord, come soon!
Yes! Come Lord Jesus Christ! :pray:
-
Indeed, even the idea of a manifestly heretic Catholic (layman) (not confessing the faith but rather confessing heresy) is absurd, which is the reason why divine law imposes what's known as ipso facto excommunication.
As I just now said elsewhere:
If you and I were non-Catholics, we would be outside the Church. Yet according to R&R adherents, somehow the manifestly non-Catholic Bergoglio gets to be pope! The non-Catholic, indeed rabidly anti-Catholic, Bergoglio magically gets to be the head of a body of which he’s not a member. Absurd. Madness!
Rather:
Popes must be Catholic.
As a manifest, pertinacious heretic, Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore, Bergoglio is not pope.
No judgement of any council is required, nor possible, as a pope is judged by no man or council of men. Manifest, pertinacious heretics automatically fall from office. This is the way they lose their office, since no man can judge them. That’s assuming he ever actually became pope at all, a notion I reject. Only Catholics can become popes. Bergoglio was a foaming heretic long before he “took office” in 2013.
One cannot be the head of a body of which he is not a member. There are no “non-Catholic popes.”
If the Novus Ordo organization is the Catholic Church, then the Church has defected. But we’re divinely assured that the Church cannot defect. Hence the Novus Ordo organization cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. Where is the actual Catholic Church? I don’t know. But I’m certain where it isn’t: in Rome, headed by the vile, rabidly anti-Catholic Jorge Bergoglio and his fellow wolves.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QklKLaJdBs
-
As I just now said elsewhere:
If you and I were non-Catholics, we would be outside the Church. Yet according to R&R adherents, somehow the manifestly non-Catholic Bergoglio gets to be pope! The non-Catholic, indeed rabidly anti-Catholic, Bergoglio magically gets to be the head of a body of which he’s not a member. Absurd. Madness!
Well, Salza was backed into a corner and had to affirm that Joe Biden is in fact a Catholic in good standing. Meanwhile, according to him, sedevacantists are outside the Church.
-
Rather:
Popes must be Catholic.
As a manifest, pertinacious heretic, Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore, Bergoglio is not pope.
No judgement of any council is required, nor possible, as a pope is judged by no man or council of men. Manifest, pertinacious heretics automatically fall from office. This is the way they lose their office, since no man can judge them.
Unfortunately, it's not quite this simple. While I lean in this direction, R&R would reject and/or qualify your minor. They would perhaps argue that pertinacity is established in the external forum only after he remains pertinacious after formal admonition from the Church. Who is competent to make a finding of pertinacity? Fr. Cekada's "Aunt Helen"? Now, it's much easier with Bergoglio, but it would have been much more difficult to establish pertinacity on the part of Ratzinger.
With regard to the sentence beneath your syllogism, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and others distinguish that. While they agree that no Pope can be judged juridically, the Church must intervene and make a "finding of fact" judgment against Bergoglio before he would be stripped of his office. Then there's the material vs. formal distinction, that Bergoglio would remain in material possession of the office until the Church declares otherwise.
Actually, the principles of sedeprivationism (which I strongly favor) reconcile the Bellarmine and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas positions quite nicely, and the quote adduced by St. Robert Bellarmine from St Celestine regarding the case of Nestorius would actually back up sedeprivationism.
-
I suggest that we focus less on the personal heresy of Bergoglio and more on the indefectibility of the Church. It's impossible for a legitimate Pope to impose a harmful Rite of Mass on the faithful. I'm not interested in solving the Bellarmine vs. Cajetan debate. Since the Cajetan position has not been condemned by the Church, all R&R have to do is hold that opinion as tenable by Catholics.
-
I don't have contempt for him; I just don't buy into whatever you, Sean, et alii do.
Exactly.
-
You remind me of the parable regarding the laborers who toiled all day in the vineyard and then resented those who came at the 11th hour and got paid the same. This is precisely the point of the parable, that everything either group received was due to the generosity of the Master, Who can choose do distribute His graces as He pleases.
I don't understand the contempt that many sedevacantists have for +Vigano; that's the kindof stuff that makes sedevacantism look bad to a lot of people.
A lot of Sedes on Twitter that I see hating on +Vigano etc are feds and NGO infiltrators, fullstop. You have to remember that the SPLC, ADL etc are actively trying to cause trouble for traditional Catholics. You notice a sort of "divide and conquer" strategy that "they" LOVE to employ being actively practiced in traditional circles, and this twofold benefits by splintering trads and preventing indulters/NOs from getting in.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QklKLaJdBs
Maybe the morning coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet, and maybe I'm still a little slow on the uptake right now, but I have no clue as to what this video is driving at. Is it a defense of Pope Francis and TC, is it an attack, or is it just a neutral depiction of the scenario?
The source (akaCatholic.com) indicates that the producer is traditionalist, but still, the message here isn't clear (to me anyway).
Gotta love the accented, Italianate pronunciation of the Latin. I normally pronounce foreign languages (to the extent I can speak them) in the accent proper to each --- my Spanish tutor was Cuban and he taught me a very orotund pronunciation of the vowels --- but as for Latin, I pronounce the terms in an American accent, as Latin has no accent proper to contemporary native speakers. Do I err in so doing?
-
A lot of Sedes on Twitter that I see hating on +Vigano etc are feds and NGO infiltrators, fullstop. You have to remember that the SPLC, ADL etc are actively trying to cause trouble for traditional Catholics. You notice a sort of "divide and conquer" strategy that "they" LOVE to employ being actively practiced in traditional circles, and this twofold benefits by splintering trads and preventing indulters/NOs from getting in.
I can believe this. Maybe some even on this site.
-
As I just now said elsewhere:
If you and I were non-Catholics, we would be outside the Church. Yet according to R&R adherents, somehow the manifestly non-Catholic Bergoglio gets to be pope! The non-Catholic, indeed rabidly anti-Catholic, Bergoglio magically gets to be the head of a body of which he’s not a member. Absurd. Madness!
Rather:
Popes must be Catholic.
As a manifest, pertinacious heretic, Bergoglio is not Catholic.
Therefore, Bergoglio is not pope.
No judgement of any council is required, nor possible, as a pope is judged by no man or council of men. Manifest, pertinacious heretics automatically fall from office. This is the way they lose their office, since no man can judge them. That’s assuming he ever actually became pope at all, a notion I reject. Only Catholics can become popes. Bergoglio was a foaming heretic long before he “took office” in 2013.
One cannot be the head of a body of which he is not a member. There are no “non-Catholic popes.”
If the Novus Ordo organization is the Catholic Church, then the Church has defected. But we’re divinely assured that the Church cannot defect. Hence the Novus Ordo organization cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. Where is the actual Catholic Church? I don’t know. But I’m certain where it isn’t: in Rome, headed by the vile, rabidly anti-Catholic Jorge Bergoglio and his fellow wolves.
That Jorge Bergoglio is not pope via his public manifest formal heresy is only post factum evidence that he is not pope. That Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce his munus is the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope.
-
Maybe the morning coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet, and maybe I'm still a little slow on the uptake right now, but I have no clue as to what this video is driving at. Is it a defense of Pope Francis and TC, is it an attack, or is it just a neutral depiction of the scenario?
The source (akaCatholic.com) indicates that the producer is traditionalist, but still, the message here isn't clear (to me anyway).
Gotta love the accented, Italianate pronunciation of the Latin. I normally pronounce foreign languages (to the extent I can speak them) in the accent proper to each --- my Spanish tutor was Cuban and he taught me a very orotund pronunciation of the vowels --- but as for Latin, I pronounce the terms in an American accent, as Latin has no accent proper to contemporary native speakers. Do I err in so doing?
n the murk
I think Louie was giving the pretense of being neutral all the while stating the undeniable facts that point to a non-catholic Pope. He is a step more Sede than the murky waters Vigano is wading through but the two are very close indeed.
-
I think Louie was giving the pretense of being neutral all the while stating the undeniable facts that point to a non-catholic Pope. He is a step more Sede than the murky waters Vigano is wading through but the two are very close indeed.
I think Louie's written pieces lean more sedevacantist than this particular video.
-
To 2Vermont's point, if he is kicking the can down the road, it may mean that he knows he doesn't hold any Ordinary jurisdiction and meaningful condemnation must come from someone who does.
This may in fact be what is going on, but that leads to the logical next question: who does he think can and will make the condemnation for him? Can anyone think of any Novus Ordo prelate that will do this?
-
I think Louie's written pieces lean more sedevacantist than this particular video.
Yes , I agree. I think the video was for the "uncommitted" or understandably confused.
-
A lot of Sedes on Twitter that I see hating on +Vigano etc are feds and NGO infiltrators, fullstop. You have to remember that the SPLC, ADL etc are actively trying to cause trouble for traditional Catholics. You notice a sort of "divide and conquer" strategy that "they" LOVE to employ being actively practiced in traditional circles, and this twofold benefits by splintering trads and preventing indulters/NOs from getting in.
But why? Sede Trads are a small group, why do outsiders care about us?
-
I suggest that we focus less on the personal heresy...and more on the indefectibility of the Church.
I have said this countless times over the years, as the REAL issue is and always has been the manifestly counterfeit church which all good Catholics avoid like the spiritual plague it is, not whether or not the latest Modernist stooge in white is or is not Catholic.
Sadly, most people (whether inside or outside Holy Church) are not very bright and will argue endlessly about meaningless minutiae, never addressing anything close to the central issue of whatever discussion is taking place. How many economic discussions even touch upon the evils of usury, private creation of interest-bearing debt-money, etc?
-
I have said this countless times over the years, as the REAL issue is and always has been the manifestly counterfeit church which all good Catholics avoid like the spiritual plague it is, not whether or not the latest Modernist stooge in white is or is not Catholic.
Sadly, most people (whether inside or outside Holy Church) are not very bright and will argue endlessly about meaningless minutiae, never addressing anything close to the central issue of whatever discussion is taking place. How many economic discussions even touch upon the evils of usury, private creation of interest-bearing debt-money, etc?
True that.
But the consiliar church is so ingrained ( understandably) into the fabric of the culture of as well as the individual, that to break free of the "big lie" is an incremental situation for most. I think psychologically it has to be.
I have friends who will never make the break from the NO because they would have to admit that there is a possibility that their " daily communions " for the past 40 years may not have been legitimately transubstantiated . So they stay and double down- pride? I don't know.
I know it is an overwhelming disaster for them and it takes great strength and great grace to accept it. After you do however, your mind is free to honestly address and "see" all of the associated crimes perpetrated against humanity because of the evil consiliar church construct controlled by the judaics.
-
But why? Sede Trads are a small group, why do outsiders care about us?
Because Trads outside of the Vll тαℓмυdic cult are the only true spiritual threat that these demons have.
-
But why? Sede Trads are a small group, why do outsiders care about us?
Jєωιѕн organizations by their nature are in open rebellion against God, simple as.
-
Jєωιѕн organizations by their nature are in open rêbêllïon against God, simple as.
Very true. So that means they know the true Church consists in our movement. They were able at V2 and beyond to corrupt the NO institution and probably are ticked that they cannot succeed with us.
I will say that Jews seem to tolerate prots bc they support Israel...but they know that only the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. That's why they reserve their true venom for us.
-
Very true. So that means they know the true Church consists in our movement. They were able at V2 and beyond to corrupt the NO institution and probably are ticked that they cannot succeed with us.
I will say that Jews seem to tolerate prots bc they support Israel...but they know that only the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. That's why they reserve their true venom for us.
The thing is everyone knows the score. We know, the globalists etc know that God is real and this is the true faith (buildings patterned after Babel, them pushing magicians and pagan rituals, Freemasons infiltrating etc). The only people who don't understand are caught in between, having a naturalistic explanation for the situation at hand or not discerning this as a battle between good and evil. Some acquaintances not in the faith I have are very confused and I tell them that the second you accept this framing everything makes perfect sense, there's no way to understand anything without God.
-
The thing is everyone knows the score. We know, the ɠƖobaƖısts etc know that God is real and this is the true faith (buildings patterned after Babel, them pushing magicians and pagan rituals, Freemasons infiltrating etc). The only people who don't understand are caught in between, having a naturalistic explanation for the situation at hand or not discerning this as a battle between good and evil. Some acquaintances not in the faith I have are very confused and I tell them that the second you accept this framing everything makes perfect sense, there's no way to understand anything without God.
YES YES YES
Even the Satanists know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, hence why their main rite profanes the Latin Mass not the Novus Ordo Missae and they utilize consecrated Hosts because they, at least in the upper echelons, are aware that Catholicism is true.
This has nothing to do with the worldly powers that be, and everything to do with the spiritual forces. Every single one of these groups, be it Illuminati, Freemasons, or Jews, are all pawns to the real power which is Satan himself. And he will toss them away as soon as they have played their role. Just as these same groups throw away global leaders and men of influence as soon as their purpose has been served. Every conspiracy theory I followed before I was Catholic was contextualized and expanded as soon as I became a Catholic.
-
Jєωιѕн organizations by their nature are in open rêbêllïon against God, simple as.
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree. Tradition is doomed, unless trads focus on what is important. Maybe there's a reason why God has allowed the Modernists to take over the church, and for the Sedes to take over Tradition. The Sedes will guarantee that Tradition will never return to the conciliar church.
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries
:facepalm:
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree. Tradition is doomed, unless trads focus on what is important. Maybe there's a reason why God has allowed the Modernists to take over the church, and for the Sedes to take over Tradition. The Sedes will guarantee that Tradition will never return to the conciliar church.
I didn't know I was Jєωιѕн, that's news to me.
Maybe its because we simply think its wrong to proclaim a man as Pope but only pay lip-service to him, contrary to how literally every Catholic behaved toward the Pope up until the 1970s.
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree. Tradition is doomed, unless trads focus on what is important. Maybe there's a reason why God has allowed the Modernists to take over the church, and for the Sedes to take over Tradition. The Sedes will guarantee that Tradition will never return to the conciliar church.
Absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are dogmatic sedevacantists, but you are about as dogmatic an R&R as they come, and this is a classic case of pot and kettle.
As for sedevacantism being Modernism, actually sedevacantism holds the same principles or the same Major as the conservative Novus Ordites, that the Church cannot become as corrupt as R&R say it has and that we are required to remain in submission to and communion with a legitimate hierarchy. It is in fact R&R who line up more with Modernism, in that both hold that they can reject the Magisterium in favor of their own interpretations of Catholic doctrine.
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree.
You do realize that the Catholic Church's mission is to convert the entire world, right? Every Catholic SHOULD want all to believe as the Church teaches, for without supernatural faith it is impossible to please God. Where this crisis is concerned, there is and should be a great deal of latitude granted to those with differing views. Oddly, you are the one manifesting notable disgust and intolerance of those whose view is different from your own.
As for your characterization of SVs or equating SVism with Modernism, it does not line up with reality. It is such a wild bunch of nonsense it is laughable.
Have fun doing whatever ornery, miserable women do with their days. :cowboy:
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree. Tradition is doomed, unless trads focus on what is important. Maybe there's a reason why God has allowed the Modernists to take over the church, and for the Sedes to take over Tradition. The Sedes will guarantee that Tradition will never return to the conciliar church.
Your comments are uncharitable, capricious, and sensationally malicious. If you truly think Sedevacantism is worse than modernism or that Sedevacantists are the reason that the Church is still in crisis then I think you are a person of unmistakable bad will.
I suggest you take your advice and focus on what’s important by cultivating some humility, knowledge, and respect.
-
+Vigano says at the end of the video:
"....But in order for that to be repaired, it is necessary that we should show ourself to be worthy of the treasures that have been stolen from us. Let us try to do this by our holiness of life, by giving example of the virtues, by prayer and frequent reception of the sacrament(s)."
What does holiness of life and virtue mean to sedevacantists? Do they believe that the highest virtue is to proclaim that the See of Rome is vacant? It seems so. Can they get to Heaven upon this one supposed all-consuming virtue of theirs?
-
What does holiness of life and virtue mean to sedevacantists? Do they believe that the highest virtue is to proclaim that the See of Rome is vacant? It seems so. Can they get to Heaven upon this one supposed all-consuming virtue of theirs?
A subjective judgment on the souls of others. You are judging SVists and presuming we are wicked based upon your own hatred of us. You can't possibly know the spiritual lives or devotion of others, so knock it off before you sin.
-
A subjective judgment on the souls of others. You are judging SVists and presuming we are wicked based upon your own hatred of us. You can't possibly know the spiritual lives or devotion of others, so knock it off before you sin.
What does a life of holiness and virtue mean to you? What does virtue mean, in a Catholic sense? What does holiness of life mean, in a Catholic sense, to you?
-
What does a life of holiness and virtue mean to you? What does virtue mean, in a Catholic sense? What does holiness of life mean, in a Catholic sense, to you?
Conforming ourselves to the will of God and doing everything we can to emulate the life of Christ per the precepts of the Church.
There is nothing in that about presuming the state of the souls of others. You can state either what is objective, which means providing proof that all SVists are wicked, or you need to keep your peace and practice charity. I get that there is a Crisis and that there are varying opinions on how to deal with it, but that doesn't mean we act uncharitably and out of presumption and judgment of our brothers. Both SVists and R&R could learn from that.
"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven." Luke 6:37
"Do you not judge within yourselves, and are become judges of unjust thoughts?" James 2:4
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way." Romans 14:13
-
Conforming ourselves to the will of God and doing everything we can to emulate the life of Christ per the precepts of the Church.
There is nothing in that about presuming the state of the souls of others. You can state either what is objective, which means providing proof that all SVists are wicked, or you need to keep your peace and practice charity. I get that there is a Crisis and that there are varying opinions on how to deal with it, but that doesn't mean we act uncharitably and out of presumption and judgment of our brothers. Both SVists and R&R could learn from that.
"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven." Luke 6:37
"Do you not judge within yourselves, and are become judges of unjust thoughts?" James 2:4
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way." Romans 14:13
I agree that conforming ourselves to the will of God and doing everything to emulate the life of Christ per the precepts of the Church is important. But we must also love God with all of heart, mind, soul and strength, and we are to love our enemies and pray for them. You didn't mention love at all.
I will keep posting about the problem of the sedevacantists. That's not going to stop.
Another question: Do you believe that it's an essential virtue to proclaim that the See of Rome is vacant?
-
I agree that conforming ourselves to the will of God and doing everything to emulate the life of Christ per the precepts of the Church is important. But we must also love God with all of heart, mind, soul and strength, and we are to love our enemies and pray for them. You didn't mention love at all.
I will keep posting about the problem of the sedevacantists. That's not going to stop.
Another question: Do you believe that it's an essential virtue to proclaim that the See of Rome is vacant?
I'm done with this. God love you.
-
He is EIGHTY, Lad. He's been at the very epicenter of this incomparable ecclesiastical mess for over FIFTY years!! Wanting a grown-ass man who darn well ought to be a well-trained cleric to be an actual shepherd and just call a damn spade a spade is NOT asking too much.
Watch your profanity...
-
Actually, Sedes are like the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries, because Sedes want to take over and make everyone believe as they do. They don't want any trad to not think like them; hence, they have been allowed to take over this forum. Sedeism and Modernism are just two sides of the same coin. Some will say that Modernism is worse, but I don't agree. Tradition is doomed, unless trads focus on what is important. Maybe there's a reason why God has allowed the Modernists to take over the church, and for the Sedes to take over Tradition. The Sedes will guarantee that Tradition will never return to the conciliar church.
It boils down to this every time: R&R needs dogmatic Sedevacantism as a strawman. Thankfully Meg acknowledges in her last couple of sentences what Sedes always say, that either you accept NOM or Sedevacante. Perhaps all RnRs here should read her post here. I'm glad she finally sees the issue as I do.
-
It boils down to this every time: R&R needs dogmatic Sedevacantism as a strawman. Thankfully Meg acknowledges in her last couple of sentences what Sedes always say, that either you accept NOM or Sedevacante. Perhaps all RnRs here should read her post here. I'm glad she finally sees the issue as I do.
It's worth me making a distinction that her language and phrasing of these issues is incorrect but that her basic idea of the dualistic situation between the counterfeit VII sect and Tradition is correct and that RnR should examine this position more carefully. I wholeheartedly agree with her prescription that "Tradition will never return to the conciliar church". Excellent phrasing Meg, I couldn't agree more.
What does holiness of life and virtue mean to sedevacantists? Do they believe that the highest virtue is to proclaim that the See of Rome is vacant? It seems so. Can they get to Heaven upon this one supposed all-consuming virtue of theirs?
Discussion of membership in the Church goes in the Feeneyism Ghetto ;)
-
It's worth me making a distinction that her language and phrasing of these issues is incorrect but that her basic idea of the dualistic situation between the counterfeit VII sect and Tradition is correct and that RnR should examine this position more carefully. I wholeheartedly agree with her prescription that "Tradition will never return to the conciliar church". Excellent phrasing Meg, I couldn't agree more.
Discussion of membership in the Church goes in the Feeneyism Ghetto ;)
Do you believe that it's an essential virtue to proclaim that the See in Rome is vacant?
-
Do you believe that it's an essential virtue to proclaim that the See in Rome is vacant?
I can't tell if you're joking but no, I'm not a dogmatic Sedevacantist. So now that you've said that Tradition has left the conciliar church permanently are you coming home or what?
-
Do you believe that it's an essential virtue to proclaim that the See in Rome is vacant?
Do you believe it is essential for salvation to believe that Jorge Bergoglio is Pope?
-
Do you believe it is essential for salvation to believe that Jorge Bergoglio is Pope?
I asked you first. I realize it's a difficult question.
::)
-
I asked you first. I realize it's a difficult question.
::)
You asked someone else a similar question first, you mean.
It’s not a difficult question at all. It is not essential for salvation to believe that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, but it is essential for salvation that one reject his false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and by extension their prelates which is much easier, and in line with Traditional Catholic thought, if you believe they are anti-Popes and phony ecclesiastics.
-
You asked someone else a similar question first, you mean.
It’s not a difficult question at all. It is not essential for salvation to believe that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, but it is essential for salvation that one reject his false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and by extension their prelates.
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two issues that you describe above.
-
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two issues that you describe above.
??
-
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two issues that you describe above.
Please clarify in more detail.
-
You asked someone else a similar question first, you mean.
It’s not a difficult question at all. It is not essential for salvation to believe that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-Pope, but it is essential for salvation that one reject his false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and by extension their prelates which is much easier, and in line with Traditional Catholic thought, if you believe they are anti-Popes and phony ecclesiastics.
What you seem to be saying is that we can either believe that Bergolio is an anti-Pope (and therefore can safely reject all of his false teachings and that of all of his conciliar predecessors and prelates, which is easier as a sedevacantist), and this is not essential for salvation....or, we can and must for the sake of salvation reject all of Bergolio's false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and prelates.
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two stances above, except that one is necessary for salvation, and one isn't.
-
What you seem to be saying is that we can either believe that Bergolio is an anti-Pope (and therefore can safely reject all of his false teachings and that of all of his conciliar predecessors and prelates, which is easier as a sedevacantist), and this is not essential for salvation....or, we can and must for the sake of salvation reject all of Bergolio's false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and prelates.
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two stances above, except that one is necessary for salvation, and one isn't.
Being Sedevacantist is not essential for salvation.
Rejecting false conciliar and post-conciliar teachings, doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy is essential for salvation.
You can reject these teachings as an R&R Catholic too which is what many do and did (+Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, et al).
-
Being Sedevacantist is not essential for salvation.
Exactly. It is a theological position on this crisis and a statement of fact during any papal interregnum. One could be a member of any of the many false religions and be a sedevacantist, as all it is is a recognition that the See of Peter is vacant.