Author Topic: What is the Line? (Read 2499 times)

TKGS · « **on:** December 06, 2013, 09:38:12 AM »

I have often wondered what line the Conciliar sect would have to cross before the eyes of the "Conservative" Catholic would be open that the papal claimant was not Catholic and therefore not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

At the parish level, in regards to the ordinary and mostly uninformed Catholic, I still believe that line has to be the actual ordination of priestesses. Frankly, anyone who accepts a woman priest "offering Mass" and pronouncing the words of Consecration (even in the Novus Ordo) is not Catholic.

On the other hand, with regards to the informed Conservative Catholic (for example, Mr. Voris, Bishop Fellay, Mr. Vennari, Mr. Matt, any Catholic or Novus Ordo priest, etc.) I think there may be another line and I am wondering if that line has been crossed.

For years people have told me that, or course, John Paul 2, Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict 16, and many others (especially notorious Conciliar bishops in the United States) are heretics...well, heretics in a material sense but certainly not in a formal sense because their heresies are always stated in speeches, in books, in talks, in interviews, etc., but absolutely never in actual Magisterial docuмents.

While I don't really accept this veracity of this argument (or the actual supposition) I have always believed that one could indeed hold this thesis in good faith.

With the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii gaudium, a docuмent that is most definitely considered a magisterial docuмent and published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, the heresy that the Old Covenant is still in effect for the Jєωs and so Jєωs need not convert to be saved has been formally declared by a papal claimant.

I am trying to understand how the line of demarcation has not been drawn. I am trying to understand how those who insisted that all the heresies uttered by these people in the past were merely those of a "private theologian" and not an act of the Church and, therefore, could not be considered when determining the loss of office are able to justify their continued acceptance of the papacy of Pope Bergoglio.

At least one prominent non-sedevacantist priest has been consistent in his argument and declared against Francis only to return to Benedict 16; but he is being consistent with regards to the "formal heresy" argument (though I am at a loss to understand how he can simply reject the resignation).

Can someone who has previously used the argument about the "private theologian" vs. "official declaration" issue please explain this? I seriously want to understand this but my limited intellect simply can't cross that thought bridge.

soulguard · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2013, 10:42:44 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I am trying to understand how the line of demarcation has not been drawn. I am trying to understand how those who insisted that all the heresies uttered by these people in the past were merely those of a "private theologian" and not an act of the Church...

... I seriously want to understand this but my limited intellect simply can't cross that thought bridge.

Having not called my own opinon the "private theologian" argument, forgive my intrusion onto your thread. I will just sum up some things.

* The magisterium is apparently seen in the habitual actions of the claimant to the papacy. If he says the same thing over and over, it is part of the magisterium, as far as I know.

* Catholics have a duty to know their faith, and to do what theologians have done in the past, investigate matters pertaining to the faith, that we may know how to order our lives rightly.

* This crisis has, as far as I know, never happened since the enormous Arian heresy where almost all bishops were heretics and Catholics were reduced to a remnant. So the unexpectedness of it, and the cant believe it factor, is the reason for the universal hesitation to declare post V 2 popes as antipopes.

* We lost our Catholic doctrine over time thanks to the influence of freemasonic infiltrators and traitors within. We no longer know how to identify heresy, so few resist it.

Again like in the Arian heresy, the true church is reduced to a remnant, who delve into theology not for social status, but out of necessity, even of knowing whether to go to their local church or emulate the man who claims to be pope.

That is what I know.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2013, 01:57:07 PM »

Let's see what wasn't enough:

Perhaps a partial excuse can be made that many people are not aware of the following:

The rejection of the Tiara.

The abolishing of The Oath Against Modernism

The abolishing of the Papal Coronation Oath.

Approving a heretical council.

Approving and promulgating of doubtful and invalid Sacraments

Approving of a "Mass" that is an incentive to impiety.

Approving of Canon Law that is heretical.

Their constant worshiping with heretics.

Kissing the Koran.

Having dung put on your forehead by a witch doctor.

Watering down the exorcism rite so that it is rendered ineffective.

Approving a "consecration formula" from a false religion that has no consecration formula in it.

Lying about Fatima.

Changing the Rosary.

Changing the Stations of the Cross.

Being non-Catholic.

Not being a bishop.

Not being a priest.

I truly believe that one who all think is a valid pope will need to say over and over again for perhaps decades every time he speaks.

I am not Pope. I am not Pope. I am not Pope. I am an agent of Satan to lead as many souls to Hell as possible. We have not had a formal Pope since 1958. It was all planned. I am not Pope. I am not Pope. I am not Pope. Perhaps he would need to walk around in a Satan costume and give everyone he sees the finger and constantly be cussing and swearing and have a harem. I'm not sure what it would take.

Matto · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2013, 02:04:15 PM »

I think it would take either ordaining female priestesses or celebrating sodomite marriages.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2013, 02:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I think it would take either ordaining female priestesses or celebrating sodomite marriages.

Right.

I forgot about

lay readers

Lay male and female Eucharistic ministers

Communion in the hand

Girl Altar Boys.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2013, 05:30:02 PM »

Am I to assume that none of the non-sedevacantists on this forum have an answer to my inquiry?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2013, 05:38:59 PM »

How about "canonizing" heretics/apostates?

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2013, 05:41:36 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I think it would take either ordaining female priestesses or celebrating sodomite marriages.

I have several conservative friends and I have directly asked them if they would consider the Conciliarist modern Vatican II anti-popes as such if they would start ordaining female priest would that be "the sign" and for most of them it would be an overwhelming no. No doubt there are a few who sympathize with the SSPX and it would be these folks that would actually jump ship, to them there is a limit. For most conservatives it is useless to debate with them because if they can't answer the question of what it would take for them to be convinced it will end up being a circular argument. It is like trying to argue with a Ku klux klanner why hating on blacks for no reason whatsoever is silly, but some people really are irrational.

I think celebrating sodomite marriages, might seriously disturb them temporarily making them cross the threshold to the SSPX position but nothing more. There are some that are culpably blind and could careless what happens. To them its just about the easiness of the new religion, quite frankly. It is too hard being a practising Catholic in the modern world.

You mean I can't cohabitate with my girlfriend?
You mean I can't use contraceptives or NFP? Get "Catholic" divorce through the Conciliar Church (invalid)...
You mean I have to abstain from meat every Friday?
You mean I have to attend mass on Sundays and Holy days of obligation on their actual days?
You mean I can't pray with my x or y family member who is an apostate/heretic/false religion?
You mean I can't read heretical non approved books? WOW! Quit oppressing me!
You mean that as a woman I have to be submissive to my husband (if I am married)? You are a mysogonist!
You mean that I have to obey the state so long as they don't ask you to sin?
You mean drugs are mortally sinful to use?
You mean that I am not the saint that I have imagined myself to be?

You are a party pooper and that religion is too hard to follow.

My response would be think not about what you "are giving up", but rather the treasures that you are accuмulating in heaven. It is easy to serve the Lord most especially because He has given us the graces to fulfil our duty. Do anything but sin, which gives you the true freedom to do quite a bit. Our soul was meant to be with God, and if we want true happiness we must desire to be with Him for all eternity.

Do not be surprised in the amount of people that will never wake up, the problem is at the root. Their principles are completely twisted and that is why their theological conclusions will always completely fail in the most epic manner.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2013, 06:05:07 PM »

I think people have to want to see the line first. Until then, I suspect there is no line.

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2013, 09:31:07 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I think it would take either ordaining female priestesses or celebrating sodomite marriages.

Either of those would do it for me. If this were to happen, however, I think I would have to conclude that I had been much more fundamentally wrong than simply believing that a heretic was pope. The true Church could not do such a thing. I would have to admit that the church I thought was true in fact was not. I would become Orthodox then.

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2013, 09:56:06 PM »

TBH, I think the line would actually be in coming back to Tradition - I don't think the pendulum can swing far left enough - they would always find a justification for being that way. Now if they swung all the way back to Tradition, I think you will truly find much uproar.

Thorn · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2013, 10:13:36 PM »

I really hate to say this, but I agree with LoT that it would actually take the Pope going around dressed up in a Satanic costume talking filthy, giving the finger & saying "I'm not the Pope, I'm not the Pope. I'm an agent of Satan."
I've met so many NO older people that grew up with the TLM that should know better. Their children have all left the faith because they sent them to 'Catholic' schools & they're absolutely clueless as to why. Only a few pulled their children out of these 'Catholic' schools in the 70's and their children & they have kept the faith.

No, I don't think that female priests or sodomite marriages will be the line in the sand. They've accepted female 'Eucharistic Ministers' and have therefore been conditioned to see females flitting around the altar. They've been conditioned to be 'tolerant' and now see sodomite marriages all over the place so after a while that won't faze them either.

Surely most of you saw all those female dancers floating down the aisle & dancing around the table of the new Cathedral in Los Angeles when it opened. This is a fairly mainstream church, in their mind at least, with Bishop Mahoney at the helm. The Cathedral was packed!!!! By now it's going to take a bolt of lightening to wake these people up now.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is reality.

soulguard · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2013, 06:47:03 AM »

Perhaps the secular world and its conciliar church appeals to a different type of people than the true Catholic faith does. Perhaps the liberalists in the novus ordo will never become truly Catholic, unless some of their number are constantly dissatisfied with the novus ordo, and then these will leave and seek the truth. Traditional churches need advertising.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2013, 07:39:10 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

Perhaps the secular world and its conciliar church appeals to a different type of people than the true Catholic faith does. Perhaps the liberalists in the novus ordo will never become truly Catholic, unless some of their number are constantly dissatisfied with the novus ordo, and then these will leave and seek the truth. Traditional churches need advertising.

Don't forget that most if not all of us were once there. I also wouldn't be surprised if we all considered (even if for but a moment) what Sigismund considered in this thread: the Orthodox Faith. Of course, when push comes to shove it is clear that is not the correct choice either.

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2013, 08:00:28 AM »

Please note that my question is not about converting the liberal Catholic to the True Faith. They are probably beyond help. My question is also not about the uniformed in the pews who are not really paying attention and barely know enough of the True Faith to possibly save their souls.

My question is about the faithful and informed Catholics who have been admitting that the Conciliar popes have expressed heretical doctrines in their speeches, books, sermons, interviews, etc., while the magisterial docuмents they issued were (so the claim goes) vague enough that it could still be interpreted in a traditional sense.

In particular, I think of Mr. Matt and Mr. Ferrara of The Remnant and Mr. Vennari of Catholic Family News. These editors have indeed made this very argument against sedevacantism (among others). But the fact remains that if this was truly an argument they believed to be exculpatory, it has been utterly demolished with the publication of the magisterial docuмent, Evangelii gaudium .

Are these people going to change their views about sedevacantism?

Are these people going to change their arguments and simply forget their argument about the formal promulgation of heresy in magisterial docuмents?

Are these people going to deny that the formal and clear statement concerning the salvation of Jєωs is heresy?

Is there a line that can be crossed that non-sedevacantists (or anti-sedevacantists) will see as the Rubicon that puts lie to the claim to the papacy by these men?

I am particularly interested in hearing from Matthew on this matter though I don't recall ever seeing that he used this argument against the sedevacantist thesis.

The point is that many well-known non-sedevacantists have used this argument to deny what I see as clear heresy on the part of the papal claimants noting that the Holy Ghost would simply not allow an unambiguously heretical teaching to be promulgated by Conciliar popes--yet here it is! An unambiguously heretical teaching has been promulgated by a Conciliar pope.

At what point can we no longer attributed "good faith" to these individuals?