Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SJB on February 20, 2012, 01:23:13 PM
-
Abjuration
I, ______________________________, on this day of ________________, in the city, state, and country of ___________, ______________, and ________________________, having before my eyes the holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand, and knowing that no one can be saved without that faith which the Holy, Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church holds, believes, and teaches, against which I grieve that I have greatly erred, inasmuch as, having been outside that Church, I have held, believed, and/or was in communion with those who held and believed doctrines opposed to her teaching. I now, enlightened by the grace of God, profess that I believe the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church to be the one true Church established on earth by our Divine Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to which I submit myself with my whole heart. I firmly believe all the articles that she proposes to my belief, I reject and condemn all that she rejects and condemns, and I am ready to observe all she commands me.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. I reject and denounce the Second Vatican Council as a non-Catholic, apostate, invalid council. I reject and denounce as heretical or apostate any and all patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops who signed the docuмents of Vatican II, at which point they all lost their offices, assuming they held the offices to begin with and had not lost it previously to signing the Vatican II docuмents.
1. Note/Explanation: Some so-called “Archbishops”, “Cardinals”, etc. never were actual Archbishops or Cardinals because they were manifest heretics prior to being appointed to office. Others who were occult heretics retained their offices, but lost them once they became manifest and notorious heretics.
2. I reject and denounce the Novus Ordo sect (the Vatican II Sect, the Conciliar Church, etc.) as a non-Catholic, apostate, schismatic sect. Therefore, I reject and denounce as apostate the SSPX, FSSP, ICK, IGS, SSJV, SSCR, SSP, SVM, OLSM, Opus Dei, and all other groups and persons in communion with the Novus Ordo sect. I reject and denounce all the heresies and crimes of the Novus Ordo-Vatican II sect and the heresies and crimes of those in communion with this sect.
3. I reject and denounce Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, and all future leaders of the Novus Ordo sect as non-Catholic, heretical, and apostate anti-popes. I reject and denounce all the heresies and crimes of the Novus Ordo Antipopes.
3. Note/Explanation: An invalid line of antipopes can not produce a true, valid pope. Even if the man “elected” “pope” repented, abjured, and entered the Catholic Church, that wouldn’t make him pope.
4. I reject as invalid, whether I agree with them or not, any “beatification”, “canonization”, “encyclical”, “constitution”, and all other papal acts made by Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, and all future leaders of the Novus Ordo sect.
4. Note/Explanation: An antipope has no papal authority and can not canonize or beatify anyone. Accepting the “beatification” or “canonization” of the Novus Ordo sect would be akin to accepting the “saints” of the Anglicans or the Eastern Schismatics. (This is not to imply that all of the “canonizations” of the Novus Ordo sect were of non-Catholics.) Also, any encyclical, apostolic constitution, dogmatic proclamation, etc. made by a false successor to Peter is invalid. Likewise, any man appointed “Archbishop”, “Cardinal”, etc. by an antipope is not a true Archbishop, Cardinal, etc.
5. From October 29, 1951 onward, I reject communion with Pope Pius XII, who on that date publicly preached the legitimacy of “Natural” Family Prevention, as well as “Baptism of Desire”, thus becoming a manifest heretic and losing his office.
6. I reject as invalid, whether I agree with them or not, any “beatification”, “canonization”, “encyclical”, “constitution”, and all other papal acts made by Pius XII that took place after the date of October 29, 1951.
6. Note/Explanation: See #4 note/explanation above.
7. I believe in the dogma that a heretic places himself outside of the Church. Therefore, I profess that it is a dogmatic fact that a manifest heretic is not papable and can not be elected to the papacy. Likewise, I profess that a true pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope. Therefore, I reject and denounce the notion that the invalidity of the elections of the Novus Ordo anti-popes is just a mere opinion, and not a dogmatic fact. Likewise, I reject and denounce the notion that the vacancy of the See of Peter since October 29, 1951 is a mere opinion, and not a dogmatic fact.
7. Note/Explanation: This is not to imply that the See of Peter will remain vacant forever, although it very well may. There may or may not be another pope of the Catholic Church. But one must hold that the vacancy of the See of Peter from the time of October 29, 1951 until the next pope reigns, or until Our Lord returns to earth, is a dogmatic fact, and not a mere opinion.
8. I reject and denounce the notion that “Cardinal” Siri was ever a legitimate Roman Pontiff. He was not papable since he lost his office and ceased to be Cardinal when he submitted to Eugene Pacelli following his October 29, 1951 allocution to midwives.
8. Note/Explanation: Even if “Cardinal” Siri were papable (which he wasn‘t), and even if he was validly elected (which he wasn‘t), he would have ceased to be pope the moment he submitted to Antipope Angelo Roncalli.
9. I reject and denounce the non-Catholic Novus Ordo Missae (“Mass of Paul VI”) as intrinsically heretical, intrinsically sacrilegious, and intrinsically irreverent. I believe that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid when the mystery of faith is erroneously translated “for all” instead of “for many”. I believe that the Novus Ordo Rite of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration are invalid.
10. I reject and denounce as schismatic all those who were illegally consecrated or ordained, all those persons and groups who condone it, and all those persons and groups who support or promote, illegal priests and bishops. Therefore, I reject and denounce the following non-Catholic priests and bishops, as well as any unrepentant and unabjured man consecrated or ordained by them: Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Pierre Martin Thuc, Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bishop Francis Schuckardt, Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop Moises Carmona, Bishop George Musey, Bishop Jean Laborie, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Richard Williamson, Bishop Bernard Tissier De Mallerais, Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Bishop Robert McKenna., Bishop Clarence Kelly, Bishop Thom Joseph-Francis Sebastian, Bishop Patrick C. Taylor, Bishop Louis Vezelis, and Bishop Dennis McCormack.
11. I presume to be valid all those bishops and priests who are a part of the Lefebvre-lineage and Thuc-lineage.
11. Note/Explanation: Unless there is solid evidence that there was a lack of form, matter, or intention, then they must be presumed to be valid priests and bishops. Illegal, yes. Schismatic, yes. Invalid, no.
12. I reject and denounce as schismatic and heretical the Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV), the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), and Mary’s Little Remnant (MLR). I reject and denounce all the heresies and crimes of the SSPV, CMRI, MHFM, and MLR.
13. I reject and denounce all non-Catholic religions, including Protestantism, Eastern Schismaticism, Post-Temple Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Paganism. I reject and condemn the ʝʊdɛօ-Luciferian cult of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Carbonari, Illuminati, Skull & Bones, and all other secret societies.
14. I reject and denounce Satanism, sorcery, wizardry, witchcraft, and superstition. Therefore, I reject and denounce the usage or consultation of Ouija boards, tarot cards, horoscopes, palm-readers, fortune-tellers, magic, spells, voodoo, etc.
15. I reject and denounce all the false gods and false prophets of non-Catholic cults and religions. I reject and denounce as blasphemy and apostasy the notion that the Triune God of the Holy Catholic Church is not the One and Only True God. I believe that all non-Catholics worship false gods -- devils -- either implicitly or explicitly.
16. I reject and denounce the blasphemous heresy which states that the Jews and Mohammedans worship the One True God. I reject and denounce as apostates anyone who says they do.
17. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the god of the Jews and Mohammedans is the One True God who will judge mankind on the last day. I believe Jesus Christ will be our judge on the last day.
18. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Old Covenant is still valid and salvific for the Jews.
19. I believe that the Jews are under a double curse. The first being the curse of original sin, which all men are born with. I believe that the Jews are deicides, inheriting the guilt of the murder of Our Lord, which is the second curse.
20. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Jews are not rejected by God. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Jews are not under the wrath of God.
21. I reject and denounce the heresy of religious liberty, which states that a person has a God-given right to believe in and practice a false religion. I reject and denounce the notion that the state should be, or that the state has a God-given right to be, separated from the Church.
22. I reject and denounce the heresy of collegiality, which states that the body of bishops, together with the pope, has supreme authority over the Church.
23. I reject and denounce the heresy of false ecuмenism, which states that one may meet with, or engage in dialogue with, non-Catholic sects and persons without any intention of denouncing or converting them. I reject and denounce the heresy that Catholics can, or should, have respect for false gods and religions. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one may attend the mass of, receive the sacraments from, or pray in communion with, notorious heretics and/or schismatics. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one may be in religious communion with heretics and schismatics.
24. I reject and denounce the notion that one may attend, even passively, non-Catholic (Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, Novus Ordo, etc.) services or ceremonies. I reject and denounce the notion that non-Catholics may receive the Last Rites or the Blessed Sacrament.
25. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation.
26. I reject and denounce the heresy of Universalism (Universal Salvation), which states that all souls will be reconciled with God and enter heaven.
27. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one can be in “partial” communion, or “partially” united to the Church of Christ (Catholic Church). I reject and denounce the heresy which states that heretics or schismatics are united to the Catholic Church.
28. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that God’s public revelation was completed with the crucifixion, or some time other than the death of the last apostle.
29. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Catholic Church lacks unity.
30. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that dogma can “evolve” or change it’s meaning.
31. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that we don’t know what types of people go to heaven, or what types of people go to hell.
32. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who die in a state of mortal sin do not go to the hell of the damned to burn in everlasting fire.
33. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the hell of the damned is a mere “state of being” and not an actual place with real fires.
34. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that hell is not eternal.
35. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who die with the sole guilt of original sin go to heaven, or some place other than hell.
36. I reject and denounce as heresy the notion that infants who die with the sole guilt of original sin are eternally happy, painless, and/or united to God even though they are in the hell of the damned.
37. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that there is an eternal place where souls reside other than heaven and hell.
38. I believe that marriage is indissolvable until death.
39. I believe that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.
40. I believe that a wife’s God-given role is a homemaker.
41. I believe that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. I believe that the secondary ends of marriage must always remain subordinate to the primary end.
42. I reject and denounce the notion that sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is intrinsically evil.
43. I reject and denounce “Natural” Family Prevention as mortally sinful birth control, as well as a heresy that denies the primary end of marriage and the subordination of secondary ends.
44. Removed for reasons of decency.
45. I reject and denounce any and all women who wear pants, shorts, mini skirts, belly shirts, tank tops, halter tops, spaghetti straps, strapless shirts and dresses, tight clothes which reveal the female form, and other immodest and unfeminine clothing.
46. I reject and denounce the notion that one may knowingly engage in activities, attend events, or visit places, which are an occasion of sin, or a near occasion of sin. Therefore, I reject and denounce the notion that one may engage go to strip clubs, attend wrestling events, go to a public beach, etc.
46. Note/Explanation: There may be exceptions. While it is sinful in and of itself to place yourself in situations that are a near occasion sin for recreational or unnecessary reasons, it may not be sinful in and of itself to place yourself in a near occasion of sin given the place or situation is absolutely unavoidable, or if there is an absolute emergency. If there is an absolute emergency, or if the situation is completely unavoidable, you would still incur the guilt of any sin committed while in this situation or place, but would not sin just by placing yourself in the near occasion of sin. It would be sinful in and of itself to place yourself in a near occasion of sin only if it was unnecessary or avoidable.
47. I believe that there is absolutely no salvation, nor remission of sin, outside the Catholic Church.
48. I believe that it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
49. I believe that those persons who die without possessing the Catholic Faith can not be saved.
50. I believe that those who have attained the use of reason must be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved.
51. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one can be inside the Church without being a member. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one can belong to the soul of the Church but not the body. I reject and denounce as heresy the notion of an invisible Church within the Catholic Church, which members of false religions are unknowingly united to.
52. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who die in false religions and/or die worshipping false gods can be saved.
53. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who die in a state of invincible ignorance can be saved.
54. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that a non-Catholic who has attained the use of reason can be implicitly Catholic, secretly Catholic, or a Catholic without knowing it.
55. I believe that all baptized children who have not yet attained the use of reason are presumed to hold the Catholic Faith and be members of the Church. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that baptized children who have attained the use of reason and become heretics and/or schismatics remain inside the Church. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that non-Catholics who are baptized after they have attained the use of reason are secretly, or unknowingly baptized into the Catholic Church.
56. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who have attained the use of reason can be saved and/or justified without having an explicit belief in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity.
57. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those who die with the stain of original sin can be saved.
58. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that invincible ignorance washes away the stain of original sin.
59. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those outside the Church can be in a state of grace. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that those outside the Church can receive sanctifying grace.
60. I reject and denounce the heresy which denies that all non-Catholics are on the road to eternal damnation.
61. I reject and denounce the notion that many are saved and few are damned.
62. I believe in one baptism, celebrated in water, for the remission of sins. Therefore, I reject and denounce the heresy which states that infants who die without water baptism can be justified and I reject and denounce the heresy which states that adults who die without water baptism can be justified.
63. I believe that unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter the Kingdom of God. Therefore, I reject and denounce the heresy which states that infants who die without water baptism can be saved and I reject and denounce the heresy which states that adults who die without water baptism can be saved.
64. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that one can be a part of the Church without water baptism.
65. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the man-made doctrines of “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are “allowable opinions”.
66. I believe the Scriptures were written by God through men.
67. I believe that the Scriptures are absolutely inerrant on all matters, including matters of faith, morals, history, and science.
68. I reject and denounce the heresy of Prima Scriptura, which states that Divine Scripture has primacy over Divine Tradition
69. I believe that God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing).
70. I believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days, and not in six unknown periods of time.
71. I believe that Adam, the first man, was created from the slime of the earth, and not from an ape or other lower life forms through various stages of evolutionary process.
72. I believe that Eve, the first woman, was created from the rib of Adam, and not from an ape or other lower life forms through various stages of evolutionary process.
73. I reject and denounce the heresy of polygenism, which states that the human race does not stem from a single pair of parents, but from many.
74. I reject and denounce the false religion of Evolutionism.
75. I believe that the flood of Noah was a global flood which covered all the land, and not a local or regional flood, and that all men on the earth, aside from Noah and his family, perished.
76. I reject and denounce as contrary to the ordinary magisterium, the theory of Heliocentrism (Copernicanism), which states that the sun is at the center of the universe, and that the earth revolves around the sun.
77. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not conceived immaculately.
78. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not ever-virgin. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary had any children other than Jesus.
79. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the Mediatrix of all graces.
80. I reject and denounce the secularization, commercialization, materialization, mergification, and paganization of Christmas, Easter, Vigil of All Hallows, St. Valentine’s Feast Day, St. Patrick’s Feast Day, Corpus Christi, and all other Catholic Holy Days.
81. I reject and denounce “trick-or-treating”, dressing up in costumes, and indulging on candy and other goodies on the Vigil of All Hallows. I reject and denounce Santa (Satan) Claus, the Easter Bunny, and all usage of the pagan god Cupid.
82. I reject and denounce secular so-called “Christmas” music. Therefore, I reject and denounce all songs about Santa, Frosty, Rudolph, songs about snow, winter, and weather such as “Let it Snow” and “Baby it‘s Cold Outside”, songs that sing about the customs of Christmas and/or the day of Christmas such as “I‘ll be Home For Christmas”, as well as all so-called “Christmas” songs that do not explicitly or implicitly mention God, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the three shepherds, Angels, the story of the Nativity, or the events that are commemorated during the Advent Season.
83. I reject and denounce any and all films, movies, and television shows that contain and/or promote vulgarity, profanity, blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, apostasy, wizardry, witchcraft, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the occult, Satanism, superstition, evolution, false religions, the secularization of Catholic Holy Days, non-Catholic theologies and philosophies, anti-Catholicism, mockery of the Catholic Church or Catholic beliefs, mockery of religion in general, mockery of God in general, mockery of the Bible, immodesty, fornication, pornography, divorce, and other immorality. Therefore, I reject and denounce Disney movies such as Fantasia, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, Aladdin, Peter Pan, and Mary Poppins --- Teen Comedies such as American Pie, Porky’s, EuroTrip, Dogma, and The 40 Year-Old Virgin --- Horror Movies such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Shining, and Carrie --- Movies about Santa, Frosty, and Rudolph --- Harry Potter, The Wizard of Oz, Pirates of the Carribean, National Treasure, The Da Vinci Code, Brokeback Mountain --- Charmed, Bewitched, I dream of Jeannie, Ghost Hunters, Saturday Night Live, MadTV, Monty Python, Friends, Seinfeld.
84. I reject and denounce any and all live shows, plays, and events that contain and/or promote vulgarity, profanity, blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, apostasy, wizardry, witchcraft, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the occult, Satanism, superstition, evolution, false religions, the secularization of Catholic Holy Days, non-Catholic theologies and philosophies, anti-Catholicism, mockery of the Catholic Church or Catholic beliefs, mockery of religion in general, mockery of God in general, mockery of the Bible, immodesty, fornication, pornography, divorce, and other immorality. Therefore, I reject and denounce the Rockettes, Cabaret (broadway musical), ballet, gymnastics, wrestling events, all secular “Christmas” shows, comedians such as George Carlin, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Sam Kinison, Sarah Silverman, Jimmy Kimmel, Ellen Degeneres, Dane Cook, etc.
85. I reject and denounce any and all singers, bands, and songs that contain and/or promote vulgarity, profanity, blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, apostasy, wizardry, witchcraft, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the occult, Satanism, superstition, evolution, false religions, the secularization of Catholic Holy Days, non-Catholic theologies and philosophies, anti-Catholicism, mockery of the Catholic Church or Catholic beliefs, mockery of religion in general, mockery of God in general, mockery of the Bible, immodesty, fornication, pornography, divorce, and other immorality. Therefore, I reject and denounce rap music, rock music, romance songs (such as songs by Barry White), Marilyn Manson, Iron Maiden, Motley Crue, Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osborne, Rob Zombie, Kiss, The Beatles, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Led Zeppelin, Britney Spears, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, etc.
86. I reject and denounce any and all books and other reading material that contains and/or promotes vulgarity, profanity, blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, apostasy, wizardry, witchcraft, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the occult, Satanism, superstition, evolution, false religions, the secularization of Catholic Holy Days, non-Catholic theologies and philosophies, anti-Catholicism, mockery of the Catholic Church or Catholic beliefs, mockery of religion in general, mockery of God in general, mockery of the Bible, immodesty, fornication, pornography, divorce, and other immorality. Therefore, I reject and denounce the King James “Bible”, all unapproved bibles such as the New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE Bible, New American Bible, and the NRSV-CE Bible, books that promote unapproved apparitions, all books listed on the Index of Forbidden Books, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, romance novels, books on numerology, astrology, and fortune-telling,
etc.
86. Note/Explanation: There may be exceptions. Certain heretical books may be read for informational purposes, but not for recreational purposes. For example, one may, with the authorization of a bishop, read the King James Version to point out it’s errors, but may not read it “just for fun”, or because you “like it better than the Catholic Bible”.
87. I reject and denounce the blasphemous heresy which states that God created ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.
88. I reject and denounce the notion that Catholics may be cremated.
89. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the office of the papacy was not divinely instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that Peter’s successors do not have supreme authority over the Church.
90. I reject and denounce the heresy of Sedeprivationism (Guerardianism, the Cassiciacuм thesis, etc.), which states that a man can be pope without having supreme authority or jurisdiction over the Catholic Church.
91. I reject and denounce the notion that the See of Peter has never been, never can be, and never will be, vacant. I reject and denounce the notion that “Peter has perpetual successors”, as defined at the Vatican Council, means that there will always be a pope every minute of every day. I reject and denounce the notion that the Church loses it’s mark of visibility once a pope dies.
92. I reject and denounce the notion that a true pope can be the leader of a false church or sect.
93. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that the Holy Catholic Church can, or has, defected.
94. I reject and denounce the heresy of once a Catholic, always a Catholic, which states that schismatics and heretics never cease to be Catholic.
95. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that canonizations are infallible. I reject and denounce as schismatic the notion that laymen have the authority to overrule the Church’s decision on canonizations.
96. I reject and denounce the condemned pseudo-secrets (“Rome will lose the faith”, etc.) of La Salette.
97. I reject and denounce the notion that one may, under certain conditions, attend non-Catholic schools.
98. I reject and denounce the notion that Catholics may ask God to bless non-Catholics. I reject and denounce the notion that Catholics may accept blessings from non-Catholics.
99. I reject and denounce as heretical the alleged 1949 “Holy Office” letter Suprema haec sacra.
100. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that laymen can not decipher error or heresy. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that laymen do not have the duty or the authority to condemn heresy and heretics.
101. I believe that burning heretics, Satanists, sorcerers, and occultists at the stake is a fair punishment and not at all against the will of the Spirit.
102. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that capital punishment, corporal punishment, and war is intrinsically evil and unjust.
103. I reject and denounce all non-Catholic theologies and philosophies. Therefore, I reject and denounce Modernism, Americanism, Liberalism, Rationalism, Humanism, Feminism, Liberation Theology, Communism, Marxism, Materialism, Consumerism, etc.
104. I reject and denounce the heresy which states that Catholics are free to accept or reject doctrines of the ordinary magisterium.
104. Note/Explanation: Rejecting a doctrine of the ordinary magisterium does not make one a heretic. It is a mortal sin against the faith, and will send you to hell just as quickly as heresy will, but rejecting a doctrine of the ordinary magisterium in and of itself does not make one a heretic. The heresy lies in saying one is free to reject any doctrines of the ordinary magisterium, since the Vatican Council infallibly declared that doctrines of the ordinary magisterium must be believed.
105. I renounce my support of and/or my association with the following non-Catholic sects, groups, churches, and/or individuals:
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
_______________________________ _______________________________
With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and abjure each and every error, heresy and/or schism that I have held, and each and every non-Catholic sect that I was associated with.
I beg and pray that Almighty God, the Triune and undivided Godhead, the most holy and eternal Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, will have mercy on me and forgive me, a poor wretched sinner, of each and every mortal sin that has denied him and has placed me outside the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I also beg the holy, perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of God, our Queen, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart; with St. Joseph, patriarch of the most Holy Family and protector of holy Mother Church; St. Michael the Archangel, prince of the heavenly host and our defender in battle; St. John the Baptist; the holy Apostles Peter and Paul; St. Joachim and St. Anne; and all the angels and saints to pray for me before the throne of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the King, that he may hide me in his most Sacred Wounds, cover me with his most Precious Blood, and wash me clean with the water that flowed from his pierced side in his crucifixion and death; and I beg his most Sacred Heart to have mercy on me, that he may strengthen me and suffer me not to fall due to my concupiscence or human weakness into these sins, or any sin, again. May he protect me from the deceptions and snares of Satan who, with his lying signs and wonders, appears as an angel of light. Please, dear God, save me from the world, the flesh, and the devil so that I may not be damned to the eternal fires of hell because I know that I am nothing, can know nothing, and do nothing without thee, O Lord and my God. May I be made worthy, by cooperating with thy priceless graces obtained from thy infinite sacrifice on the cross and by uniting myself with thee, to become the saint that thou hast called me to be in order that I may attain after my death and judgment the perfect happiness and eternal bliss of loving, praising, and glorifying thee by gazing upon thy most adorable and Holy Face in heaven, together with all the angels and saints, forever and ever. Amen.
I promise to live and profess the holy Roman Catholic faith without compromise, until and through my last dying moment, for the salvation of my immortal soul, so help me God, and these his holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand. Amen.
Profession of Faith
I with firm faith believe and profess all and everything which is contained in the Creed of Faith, which the holy Roman Church uses, namely: I believe in one God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried; and he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven; he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets; and in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and I await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace. I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although not all are necessary for each individual; these sacraments are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; and [I profess] that they confer grace, and that of these baptism, confirmation, and order cannot be repeated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments. I embrace and accept each and everything that has been defined and declared by the holy Synod of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
I also profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper sacrifice of propitiation for the living and the dead, and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially present the body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; and this conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also acknowledge that under one species alone the whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament are taken.
I steadfastly hold that a purgatory exists, and that the souls there detained are aided by the prayers of the faithful; likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ should be venerated and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other saints should be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration should be paid to them; I also affirm that the power of indulgences has been left in the Church by Christ, and that the use of them is especially salutary for the Christian people.
I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true obedience.
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, (and by the ecuмenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching), I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold, I do promise, vow, and swear that I will, with the help of God, most faithfully retain and profess the same to the last breath of life as pure and inviolable, and that I will take care as far as lies in my power that it be held, taught, and publicly professed by those who depend on me and by those whom I shall have charge, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.
Therefore, I being of sound mind and reason and by the use of my unrestrained free will, attest, assent, and humbly submit to each and all of the above points of this abjuration and profession of faith, in their entirety and without any reservation. I testify that each of my statements and condemnations have not been written over, stricken out, or erased and re-written; and that all the necessary blank lines have been filled in so as to protect from future tampering of this docuмent.
ABJUREE
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________
Home Address: ___________________________________________________________
Birth Date and Place: ______________________________________________________
Baptismal Date and Place: __________________________________________________
WITNESSED BY
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
City, State: ______________________________________________________________
Country: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: ____________________________________________________________
Baptismal Date and Place (If Applicable): _____________________________________
WITNESSED BY
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
City, State: ______________________________________________________________
Country: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: ____________________________________________________________
Baptismal Date and Place (If Applicable): _____________________________________
WITNESSED BY CATHOLIC PRIEST
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
City, State: ______________________________________________________________
Country: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: ____________________________________________________________
Baptismal Date and Place: __________________________________________________
Date of Ordination: _______________________________________________________
WITNESSED BY CATHOLIC BISHOP
Name: __________________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________
City, State: ______________________________________________________________
Country: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth: ____________________________________________________________
Baptismal Date and Place: __________________________________________________
Date of Ordination and Consecration: _________________________________________
-
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.
-
What is this (lengthy) quote?
-
What is this (lengthy) quote?
It's an abjuration of error drawn up by some misguided, to be nice, individual.
-
Richard Ibranyi?
-
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.
Well Roscoe, I must admit I admire a person who's consistent. So, is it the word you disagree with or the concept? If you choose to answer, please do so soon. When lent starts no computer for me.
-
Richard Ibranyi?
I don't think so. Isn't Mary's Little Portion Portion his group?
The notion that eating a Snicker's bar on October 31 or listening to "I'll Be Home For Christmas" makes one a heretic bound for Hell is beyond funny.
-
They forgot "canned beets". Had they gone all the way and denounced canned beets, I would have signed it, but if they're going to stop there, then I'm sorry, I cannot lend my support.
-
Because they're RIGHT!
-
Because they're RIGHT!
Nuff said.
-
Because they're RIGHT!
Nuff said.
Right about what?
-
These might be good reasons too:
1) Pristina Liturgica Blog (http://www.pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com)
2) Mater Dei Seminary/CMRI Watch Blog (http://materdeicmriwatch.blogspot.com)
3) The Lay Pulpit Blog (http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com)
4) VoV Watch (http://www.vovwatch.com)
5) RC-Corner (http://www.rc-corner.net/)
-
Because they're RIGHT!
Nuff said.
Right about what?
They're right about Jimmy Kimmel; I can't stand him.
-
And when you belong to the church that signs this oath, can you imagine all the fraternal correction that will be going on.
-
I reject and denounce any body that doesn't know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.
-
I reject and denounce any body that doesn't know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.
Oh I don't know about that, it seems if you look through the history of the Church, Our Lady always gave her message to the uninformed or uninstructed, I tend to pay attention to people who make grammatical errors once in awhile. Seems Our Lady loves them.
Everyone here knows I make my share. Then vs. than - advise vs. advice and [code]Diego pointed out; "Your" is a possessive adjective.
"You're" is a contraction of "You are."
I also observed when a person runs out of things to defend their opinion, they point out typos and grammar.
-
Just to set the record straight, I wasn't the one who gave you a thumbs-down.
But Myrna, please! Does that longgg, lonnnggg piece of work look like it came from someone uninformed or uninstructed? My stance has always been that if someone can't figure out simple English, then they shouldn't be expounding on lofty subjects, if for no other reason that it makes them & their case look bad & it's irritating to read. I used to cringe every time I read Dawn's posts because I thought she gave Homeschooling a bad name by her constant misspellings & grammatical errors. It was only at the end when I'd had it with her that I mentioned it & she left. Our Lady loves everyone, btw.
The dig about the person running out of things to defend themselves & therefore resorting to pointing out typos & grammar will not get you many points I fear. That was a cheap shot. Personally I've never seen that happen. Have you honestly seen it on this forum? If so, where? Believe it or not, there are people who spot grammatical errors a mile away & it really does grate on the nerves & slows down reading because you have to read it again. Most people can live with typos.
Lastly, I had no idea where that lonnggg piece came from & didn't care. Now, because of your post, I suspect it's from the CMRI. Am I correct?
-
. Now, because of your post, I suspect it's from the CMRI. Am I correct?
I'm not too sure Thorn. I don't remember which number the statement was, but it denounced the CMRI bishop as well as all the SSPX ones including ABL. You can throw in the SSPV and several independent bishops were nixed as well. As a CMRI sede I thought some of it made sense until I read the list of bishops who are supposedly not. Sorry about the preposition at the end of the sentence, but I'm a little short of time. LOL!
-
Thorn, I confess I haven't read the very loooong OP, and I never read really long notes, because I just don't have that much time to spend on the Internet. I spend most of my Internet time on other creative activities.
Yes, I have seen people with opposite views pick on spelling and grammar, especially when they seem frustrated with the debate.
I suppose you might say, just as it bothers you if someone uses the wrong term, it bothers me when someone feels the need to correct them. Especially in the manner and choice of words, you used. Yet, this is the first time I mentioned it, probably because Diego did it almost the same time you did.
Don't worry about the thumb up or down, I believe you when you say you didn't give me a thumb down.
Yes, Our Lady loves everyone, but she only appears to the uneducated with her messages it seems, which is why I pay attention to what everyone has to say, the very gifted who write well and those who do not write so well.
Since CMRI does not place emphasis on an abjuration, I doubt it came from them, I admit I myself took an abjuration of error but it was very short, I wanted to take it, and you can find them in some prayer books. It is not required, at least I don't think so.
-
I also observed when a person runs out of things to defend their opinion, they point out typos and grammar.
Myrna, you omitted the old --> attempt to guess publicly what a person's real-life name is behind his/her rightful forum pseudonym!
And you forget that you have had at least four different pseudonyms here! It's merely a way to refer to all your "different personalities." Of course, you have a history of inserting yourself into controversies, don't you?
Elizabeth (and others) made a big deal of this in a few cases, but they gave you a pass.
-
Not that it's that important, but I didn't read the whole thing either as I don't have that kind of time either, but as I was scrolling & scrolling down I noticed "it's". It was a semi- lighthearted post. I didn't think it would have engendered such wrath.
You didn't answer where exactly you saw people finding grammatical errors when they were losing a debate. As I said I've never seen it. It bothers you that I corrected an error?!! Wow. I'm grateful when someone takes the time to correct me as then I feel that I get smarter & better. In that vein, what was the matter with the choice of words & manner I used?
-
So sorry - that last post of mine was directed to Myrna & I should have said so.
Forgive the omission, please.
-
Thanks, Cupertino. You're correct.
-
I reject and denounce any body that doesn't know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.
Thorn, it was so much the correction but the way you said it; YOU REJECT AND DENOUNCE...
Also if you think for one moment I am going to search through years of archives to look for people who corrected others, just to prove my point... you have to be kidding. I took your word you didn't give me a thumbs down; take my word on my point.
Also other things posters do when they can't win the debate.
As pointed out, accusing others of multiple accounts, when one does not know for sure.
Not to mention the use of nasty ad hominem.
-
Not that it's that important, but I didn't read the whole thing either as I don't have that kind of time either, but as I was scrolling & scrolling down I noticed "it's". It was a semi- lighthearted post. I didn't think it would have engendered such wrath.
You didn't answer where exactly you saw people finding grammatical errors when they were losing a debate. As I said I've never seen it. It bothers you that I corrected an error?!! Wow. I'm grateful when someone takes the time to correct me as then I feel that I get smarter & better. In that vein, what was the matter with the choice of words & manner I used?
I think one should immediately see the "abjuration" as ridiculous on several levels. The fact that some have not is troubling but not surprising.
My posting the "abjuration" wasn't an attack on those who hold some kind of sede view, but the responses seem to indicate that some are more concerned with defending the sede position at all costs, rather than see the "abjuration" as bizarre and disturbing at best.
-
SJB, justifying yourself by picking apart the faults of sedes is not exactly humility. Your mission now is apparently to paint sedes as sometimes being cultists and extreme, surely to justify your harsh words against SGG -- you don't have to be God to figure that out -- but you're mixing up all kinds of information. An overly strict, kooky abjuration form like this isn't the same as a member of the clergy being against the una cuм, that is a disputed issue.
Why didn't you say whose abjuration form this was, anyway? Unless I missed it, it doesn't say anywhere in the thread. And if I'm wrong about your reasons for posting this, I'd like to hear what they really are.
-
Myrna, it's Fat Tuesday. Lighten up & have a drink & dance around the room or something. You didn't get the humor that since that lonnggg piece was 'I reject & denounce' this & that, that my post was a takeoff of that?
Of course I don't expect you to go digging in archives for an example but I thought that since it was so important to you, that you could give an example off the top of your head or at least name a debate where that took place or something. I had no idea or have no idea who composed the lonngg piece, but when you got so serious & almost defensive, I thought then it must be the CMRI's. Do you see how you just gave them an undeserved bad name? I don't think it was the CMRI now after talking to others. Cheers!
-
Thorn, Just came home from a Fat Tuesday dinner, my tummy is full. :ready-to-eat:
I am happy and content and all is well. :cheers:
Now if we can all make a successful Lent, it may be our last one. :pray:
-
My stance has always been that if someone can't figure out simple English, then they shouldn't be expounding on lofty subjects, if for no other reason that it makes them & their case look bad & it's irritating to read.
I think you should offer that subjective irritation up and humble yourself. In history, there are SO many great Catholics who were even illiterate, yet had a great knowledge of the Faith, expressed verbally, even though they couldn't spell or construct grammar.
:applause:
-
SJB, justifying yourself by picking apart the faults of sedes is not exactly humility.
I know you believe you are the resident expert on other's humility, but I don't think my post was some sort of exercise in humility.
Your mission now is apparently to paint sedes as sometimes being cultists and extreme, surely to justify your harsh words against SGG -- you don't have to be God to figure that out -- but you're mixing up all kinds of information.
Actually, I just happened across the docuмent, had forgotten about it, thought it was both funny and sad, and decided to post it.
An overly strict, kooky abjuration form like this isn't the same as a member of the clergy being against the una cuм, that is a disputed issue.
Some think it's not a disputed issue, but a dogmatic fact.
Why didn't you say whose abjuration form this was, anyway? Unless I missed it, it doesn't say anywhere in the thread. And if I'm wrong about your reasons for posting this, I'd like to hear what they really are.
It came to me from somebody who I had a lengthy email exchange with over a variety of issues. I don't konw his name and I'm not sure it matters.
-
I know of several priests who are not Sedevacantist officially speaking but they admit sedevacantism is a legitimate position to take. So while not being sedevacantist themselves they are not anti-Sedevacantist. They have a realistic picture of the current situation and a firm grasp, based upon their preconciliar readings what authentic Catholicism is.
Our freedom of opinion in this matter also holds true much like our freedom of opinion regarding the apparitions at Fatima. No good Catholic is obligated to believe in any private revelation no matter how likely it is. So you can have a good Catholic not believing in Fatima and a bad Catholic who believes it though the the reverse is more common.
I noticed Christopher Ferrara's words were placed under a feature titled the "Agony of Aggiornamento" last week. Truly we are reaping the agony of aggiornamento and yet, in this time when a united front would serve the purpose of Traditional Catholicism much more in exposing the facts that the church of Vatican II is not Catholic, this high profile author, barrister, and reporter has chosen to turn on the ranks as he delves further in a defense of the position that the conciliar popes are Catholic. In posting his defense of the indefensible, Ferrara, an armchair theologian like myself, has the audacity to say that the mere possibility of sedevacantism is "patently absurd".
While Father Anthony Cekeda, a true scholarly theologian in every sense of the word says that the chair is vacant and bases this on what previous Popes, Doctors and Saints who spoke to the topic taught and that is (to sum up and simplify a confusing issue) a heretic cannot be pope for you cannot be the head of a body in which you are not a member of and a heretic is not Catholic and therefore, ipso facto not a member of and therefore not the head of the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.
A pope not only cannot teach heresy in his official capacity but a Catholic Pope cannot in his official capacity, rule or sanctify in a non-Catholic way either. For instance a Catholic Pope cannot approve Canon Law (ruling aspect of the papacy) that decrees that heretics can receive Communion as John Paul 2 did nor can a Catholic Pope approve a Mass (sanctifying aspect of the papacy) with questionable validity as Paul 6 did. These are not only imprudent things to do but evil (objectively speaking) and quite probably subjectively speaking as well in that these "popes" were not ignorant of the Doctrines of the pre-conciliar Church. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
That said, we are in times unprecedented in the history of mankind. So while it would be wrong to say you must be sedevacantist in order to be a good Catholic it also would be wrong to say that you cannot be a sedevacantist and be a good Catholic either. I know many good sedevcantists that are true Catholics in every sense of the word while there are some sedevacantists that are nuts. The same holds true for non-sedevacantists. Is there any group without sin who will throw the first stone? And yet, lots of stones have been thrown. Are these stones building a foundation of trust and clarity, or are they reinforcing the preconceived prejudices that one had going in? I would hope the former for that is the fruit of what these discussions hopefully will build - a greater understanding of our Faith and what previous Popes, whose papacies were beyond reproach, taught, spoke and acted in every aspect - without exception, without any compromise whatsoever.
So while it is wrong for sedevacantists to condemn others merely for not holding to their sedevacantist opinion, it is also wrong for non-sedevacantists to condemn sedevacantists merely for being sedevacantists. What many misconceived non-sedevacantists don't realize is that true sedevacantists are such because of their love for the Papacy not because they do not believe in it. If a true pope can teach heresy, engage in heretical acts, approve a Mass of doubtful validity and approve heretical canon law then the pope is a mere useless figurehead and that is not what Christ established to unify His Church through the Primacy of Peter!
Many non-sedevacantist traditionalists in reality have the Society of St. Pius X as their pope in that they believe WHATEVER the SSPX says. The SSPX says there are two different Church's (a true Church) and a new false Church and that their pope is the head of the new false Church. A strange position to take but the only acceptable one to most non-sedevacantist traditionalists because the idea of a papal claimant being a heretic is akin to the world being flat or Jesus being Lucifer in their eyes.
A lady said to me that "You cannot be holier than the pope" I said that depends on how holy the pope is. This went completely over her head as does the idea of sedevacantism go over many a good Catholic's head. It is inconceivable to them. This is typical of people immersed in the modernism of the new Church. They are brainwashed to believe unCatholic things because their "popes" teach them such; the Old Covenant is not revoked, the Greek Orthodox do not need to be converted, May John the Baptism protect Islam and on and on and on as the modern "popes" preach Modernism 101.
Her statement if taken to its logical conclusion means that at any given time during the 2000 years of the Church that the holiest person on earth was the pope, no matter who the pope was at the time and no matter what saints were living at that time, even if that pope had sex and children during his papacy as in fact happened with several dark-age popes. This is not logical thinking. One can in fact be holier than the pope. But people are brainwashed into thinking that all popes must be the holiest people on earth which is false and that all those who claim the papacy, even if they teach heresy in their official capacity must also be popes which is also false.
But people are not ready for that, this is the great scandal and apostasy talked about by Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians, by the Mother of God in Quito, Ecuador, at LaSalette, and at Fatima. This great apostasy was foretold not only in Sacred Scripture in the Old and New, by Our Lord Himself (Matthew 24), but also by numerous saints. Yet, those who stubbornly cling to the "pope-has-to-be-the-pope" argument, are not ready to hear such a terrible thing. The truth can be hard to take, hard to accept. Recall what Jesus did when the people walked away after He told them what they must do to gain everlasting life. Did He hurry behind them and say, 'wait a second, let Me explain it better?' No! He merely said to His disciples, "Will you also go away?" (John 6: 68). You'll note that Christ did not "dialogue" with them at all, nor did He ever compromise with any of them. You'll also note He spoke clearly in everything He said except those things which were a mystery and then His analogies and imagery made it quite clear what He was talking about.
You'll also note what Peter said to Him when Jesus asked His disciples that question: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life. And we have believed, and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6: 69-70). Peter testified that He alone had the words of everlasting life. Peter also knew that Christ would not and could not deceive them, nor could our Lord be deceived for He knew all. This is reconfirmed in the Act of Faith said daily with the Acts of Hope and Charity. Let me remind you of its sure words:
"O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."
Sedevacantists pray that very prayer right along with non-sedevacantists. Both groups are good traditional Catholics. Both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists recognize Catholicism as an unchanging religion. Both realize that is not what the Conciliar Church believes. Both groups acknowledge the same problems in the Conciliar Church - a different church, a false church, a man-made church. Yet non-sedevacantists castigate sedevacantists because sedevacantists adhere to all that Christ revealed, all His True Church has taught and that includes the infallible decrees and papal pronouncements condemning the very actions and words of the conciliar "popes." So who do we believe? Who do we owe our allegiance to? Those who say that things are different now, that Christ's teachings can "evolve" and His Church is no longer necessary for salvation as the conciliar "popes" have made it manifestly clear? Or those Popes who stood like Christ and would not compromise, would not dialogue, would not alter or water down one iota of what He revealed? Frankly, that's a no-brainer. Sedevacantists stand with the latter and have every reason to because Christ said it, we believe it, that settles it! The very fact that non-sedevacantists so strongly attack sedevacantists as being wrong proves that the non-sede's arguments are as solid as those who argue that the world is flat.
Here's another argument that could easily be termed a riddle which non-sedevacantists claim is the only way "a pope can be deposed": 'A heretical non-pope is not a heretical non-pope until after he is declared a heretical non-pope' You'll note they don't take into consideration the fact they have caused the eternal damnation of so many souls. That doesn't seem to matter to the equation of the validity of a pope. Why? That's beyond me to figure out. As I mentioned earlier, a pope's holiness is directly connected with the souls he is entrusted with. Yet, those who rail against sedevacantists, maintain the heretical non-pope is a pope until he is declared a non-pope. That makes as much sense as saying the man is a snake. But we must not consider the man to be a snake until he is authoritatively and officially declared to be a snake. Regardless of the fact this snake slithered into the Church just as satan did when he first took the form of the serpent in the Garden, let us say this man/snake lived from 1964 to, oh say, 2020. The man/snake is declared to have never been a man but to have always been a snake in the year 2040. Yet from 1964 until 2040 we are compelled to believe under the force of excomunication and or schism that the snake was in fact a man? If we are to believe that, well then, dear reader, we must believe the world is flat as well.
All riddles aside, the fact of the matter is that it is a terrible thing, if in fact we have not had a pope for nearly 50 years, but the end times are predicted to be terrible, in fact, a "great apostasy" which would be ushered in by the man of perdition - also a snake, aka Satan or Lucifer. Should we follow and acknowledge those who are promoting this obvious apostasy with all the ecuмenism, religious liberty, humanism and so many other heresies formerly formally condemned? Of course not, for Christ said there would be many false prophets and those false prophets could very well be the conciliar "popes." If that is the case, and the evidence points overwhelmingly to that very fact through the actions and words of the past five conciliar "popes", then sedevacantists are really being good, loyal Catholics in adhering to what Christ forewarned and living up to the very Act of Faith they pray every day. To continue to demean them for being totally loyal Catholics constitutes a sin against faith, hope and charity.
-
Why some people dont like "sedevacantists", Sent to me a few years ago.
I wonder how often you get things like this. I've never seen anything like it nor would I ever take anyone who gave it to me seriously.
So, why do "some people" not like "sedevacantists"? When one clearly misguided person sends you something as absurd as this docuмent, you hold onto it for years, brood over it, and finally announce to the world that "some people" just don't like "sedevacantists" because ONE sedevacantist sent you this years ago and OBVIOUSLY all sedevacantists are the same.
On the other hand, it seems that every traditional Catholic periodical published today includes at least one article in each issue taking a pot shot at anyone who doubts that Benedict 16 is really a Catholic while at the same time fretting over Benedict's latest Modernist manifestation.
-
Why some people dont like "sedevacantists", Sent to me a few years ago.
I wonder how often you get things like this. I've never seen anything like it nor would I ever take anyone who gave it to me seriously.
Not often, and I didn't take it seriously.
So, why do "some people" not like "sedevacantists"? When one clearly misguided person sends you something as absurd as this docuмent, you hold onto it for years, brood over it, and finally announce to the world that "some people" just don't like "sedevacantists" because ONE sedevacantist sent you this years ago and OBVIOUSLY all sedevacantists are the same.
Well, I didn't "brood" over it, nor did I "conclude" anything from one example.
That being said, these types are very vocal and get a lot of attention. Sedevacantist becomes associated with this type of stuff.
On the other hand, it seems that every traditional Catholic periodical published today includes at least one article in each issue taking a pot shot at anyone who doubts that Benedict 16 is really a Catholic while at the same time fretting over Benedict's latest Modernist manifestation.
This is understandable, isn't it? The sede position is already perceived as extreme by almost everybody. That's why people like this gent and the Zirconia brothers are so damaging.
-
So, why do "some people" not like "sedevacantists"? When one clearly misguided person sends you something as absurd as this docuмent, you hold onto it for years, brood over it, and finally announce to the world that "some people" just don't like "sedevacantists" because ONE sedevacantist sent you this years ago and OBVIOUSLY all sedevacantists are the same.
Well, I didn't "brood" over it, nor did I "conclude" anything from one example.
That being said, these types are very vocal and get a lot of attention. Sedevacantist becomes associated with this type of stuff.
The only reason this kind of "stuff" gets so much attention is because people like you constantly bring it up. If, on those extremely rare occasions you receive something like this, you discussed it immediately with other sedevacantists and, upon finding out this is an exceedingly rare attitude, you dropped it, then you'd find that this kind of "stuff" wouldn't get a lot of attention.
I wonder who all these people are that are so vocal that I never hear anything about them except when anti-sedevacantists talk about them. It is not I who visit the Dimond Brothers every day to find out what hogwash they are spewing out. It is those people who feel the need to constantly condemn all sedevacantists.
I just don't see all these extremely vocal extreme sedevacantists that people such as yourself seem to find lurking around every corner.
On the other hand, it seems that every traditional Catholic periodical published today includes at least one article in each issue taking a pot shot at anyone who doubts that Benedict 16 is really a Catholic while at the same time fretting over Benedict's latest Modernist manifestation.
This is understandable, isn't it? The sede position is already perceived as extreme by almost everybody. That's why people like this gent and the Zirconia brothers are so damaging.
Funny thing is that when I first found tradition (less than 10 years ago) I didn't know anyone doubted the identity of the pope. Only rarely did I see a reference to sedevacantism. If "almost everybody" discounts it as an extreme rarity, why is it being so often discussed? I know that many on this forum seem to think it is because sedevacantists always make some snarky remark, it seems to me that it is the anti-sedevacantists that go out of their way to defend the indefensible, praise the Modernism of the Conciliar hierarchy, or condemn sedevacantism that bring out the discussion.
-
TKGS, as I think you know, the sede position is a result of an application of Catholic theology to the facts of the current crisis in the Church. For those who know almost no theology or don't think there is a crisis, the sede view can be viewed as nothing but extreme.
-
TKGS, as I think you know, the sede position is a result of an application of Catholic theology to the facts of the current crisis in the Church. For those who know almost no theology or don't think there is a crisis, the sede view can be viewed as nothing but extreme.
Actually, the sedevacantist position is a result of an application of the Baltimore Catechism No. 1. But, you are accurate in the assessment that the Baltimore Catechism No. 1 is considered pretty darn extreme today.
-
Actually, the sedevacantist position is a result of an application of the Baltimore Catechism No. 1. But, you are accurate in the assessment that the Baltimore Catechism No. 1 is considered pretty darn extreme today.
Can you please expound on this?
-
Actually, the sedevacantist position is a result of an application of the Baltimore Catechism No. 1. But, you are accurate in the assessment that the Baltimore Catechism No. 1 is considered pretty darn extreme today.
Can you please expound on this?
When members of the Conciliar clergy, from priest to pope, make outward declarations (such as those about the salvation of Jews in their Jєωιѕн religion) that any first grade child who has studied his Baltimore Catechism No. 1 would immediately know is heresy and the man who teaches one of these heresies is not a Catholic, that's the application of the Baltimore Catechism No. 1.
The fact that virtually no American diocese (at least, I've never heard of any American Diocese in the last 40 years or so) uses the Baltimore Catechism as its primary catechetical text is why I say that the Baltimore Catechism No. 1 is considered pretty darn extreme.
The layman Eusebius was able to publicly declare the archbishop, Nestorius, a heretic and therefore deposed because he knew his faith and he knew that faith comes first. Few German people knew their faith well enough to publicly declare Luther a heretic, and thus, much of Germany was lost to the True Faith.
-
When members of the Conciliar clergy, from priest to pope, make outward declarations (such as those about the salvation of Jews in their Jєωιѕн religion) that any first grade child who has studied his Baltimore Catechism No. 1 would immediately know is heresy and the man who teaches one of these heresies is not a Catholic, that's the application of the Baltimore Catechism No. 1.
I think he'd be more likely to see a contradiction, and be confused more than anything else.
10 Q. How shall we know the things which we are to believe?
A. We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic
Church, through which God speaks to us.
"Catholic Church" in this answer means the Pope, councils, bishops, and
priests who teach in the Church.
-
Your History is wrong, Nestorius was not removed from office formally until he was condemned by a council.
The people in Germany were not idiots as you say, it was not the common people in Germany that made their provinces Protestant rather it was the nobility who were educated and saw in Protestantism a way to achieve greater power, not just secular but religious aswell. It was members of the Nobility who sided with and protected Luther, and imposed Protestantism on the commoners, then brainwashing them.
Martin Luther was a FORMAL HERETIC. He declared that the Catholic Church was wrong and that he was teaching contrary to it.
Now about this Baltimore Catechism, it is a very poor Catechism, I wonder how you believe that the only people in the Church would be those who read a book issued in the last 100 years for the United States and only the United States.
I would stick with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V myself.
The Baltimore Catechism is not your perfect Catechism, a close examination of the Baltimore 3 will lead one to see where modernism started to creep in.
Sedevacantism is caused by knowing a little bit of theology but not enough, it is also caused by a manifest rejection of authority. The Fruits of Sedevacantism are well known and the disunity itself let alone the random condemnations and condemnatory attitudes are schismatic and not Catholic.
That is not to say that there are no Sede's that are Catholic, but the objective statement of the general that I have seen thusfar leads me to believe that many or most are not. So too in the Novus Ordo ranks there are probably some who may be Catholic, but they too are far and few between.
We must pray that they be led to the truth and be led to the true masses that are left in the world. Of course they are worldwide.
We should also pray for the Conversion of the Pope, that he repent from his modernist heresy and be led back to the true faith.
It is not Heresy that deprives one of Office, it is Manifest Formal Heresy, when one says they teach contrary to what the Church believes. Material Heresy is error. John XXII taught Error, he was materially in heresy. He was corrected and repented before he died.
-
That's sounds like the abjuration that can be downloaded from CatholicMartyr's blog. When you fill it out it has to be witnessed and published publicly.
My protestant ancestors would not sign one in France and those that were not executed, fled.
We never had to do abjurations in the preVII Church that I grew up in so I would not do it now and I cannot read it because I will immediately become scrupulous.
-
Some background on LordPhan, Cupertino...
He is SSPX
He panders to the prevailing attitude in each thread (some times he will rail against Caminus and his sophistries...other times he will rail against Vatican II/Modernism and side with the sedes.. other times he will defend ABL to the tomb despite all the writings from ABL saying sedevacantism is a valid opinion and view to take on the Church today). Hes a panderer that plays the "party angle".
He doesn't really know history well, but enough to sound like he knows it.
He's now engaged (used to be single and miserable in Canada) so he's got that "pent up male" axe to grind on those who disagree with him, whether in truth or not.
-
Some background on LordPhan, Cupertino...
He is SSPX
He panders to the prevailing attitude in each thread (some times he will rail against Caminus and his sophistries...other times he will rail against Vatican II/Modernism and side with the sedes.. other times he will defend ABL to the tomb despite all the writings from ABL saying sedevacantism is a valid opinion and view to take on the Church today). Hes a panderer that plays the "party angle".
He doesn't really know history well, but enough to sound like he knows it.
He's now engaged (used to be single and miserable in Canada) so he's got that "pent up male" axe to grind on those who disagree with him, whether in truth or not.
I am busy for a few days, I'll get around to disproving the post by Cupertino which is erroneous in it's entirety. However I will point out for all to see, that you have just manifestly commited an act of Heresy.
I won't even get into the falseness of your other statements which are rediculous, I study university level history, and discuss it from time to time with actual scholars. I know history far better then you do. Your opinion is meaningless, especially since you cannot back it up.
I have never been miserable, not sure what my being in Canada has to do with anything. The "Pent up Male ax to grind" thing is a Freemasonic lie, stated by the Freemasons in the Alta Vendita to attack the Clergy with.
It is a defined Dogma that Married Life is not superior to the Virginal Life. Your continued(You have stated this belief previously) belief that someone should "Get a Date" is a mortal sin. It is apparent for all to see what you meant by "You should get a Date" if you are presupposing this "Pent up frustration" Comment.
One thing I do agree with Caminus on is that you are quite possibly nothing more then a Jew Infiltrator. You revel in disunity, you applaud it when it happens, that in and of itself according to the Summa Theologica makes you ipso facto in Schism.
So you have denied the Dogma:
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
-Council of Trent
You are in Mortal Sin by telling me repeatedly to 'Get a Date' with your intent that one should commit the Mortal Sin of Adultery to relieve 'Pent up Frustration'.
You are in Mortal Sin by Calumning myself.
You are whether intentionally or inadvertantly espousing a viewpoint held by the Freemasons in the Alta Vendita to destroy the Church.
You are also attacking the Clergy once again either intentionally or inadvertantly by your belief that one needs a wife to debate on a forum.
You are commiting a Mortal Sin by Subjectively judging me.
and You are in Schism of the Church by reveling in disunity, applauding disunity when it happens and not wishing for unity amongst the faithful which you are obliged to do.
I suggest you repent. Objectively you are outside the Church from your statements, they are not statements that would be made by a Catholic.
-
One thing I do agree with Caminus on is that you are quite possibly nothing more then a Jew Infiltrator.
Caminus is a neo-Trad. PartyIsOver is far more Traditional than he is. And are you not passing judgement on PIO when you say that he is a Jєωιѕн infiltrator? The "judgement" argument swings both ways.
I suggest you repent. Objectively you are outside the Church from your statements, they are not statements that would be made by a Catholic.
He's more Catholic than Benedict.
-
One thing I do agree with Caminus on is that you are quite possibly nothing more then a Jew Infiltrator.
Caminus is a neo-Trad. PartyIsOver is far more Traditional than he is.
I suggest you repent. Objectively you are outside the Church from your statements, they are not statements that would be made by a Catholic.
He's more Catholic than Benedict.
Caminus is NOT a neo-Trad, he just feels very strong about his position, as I feel strong about my position.
-
Caminus is a neo-Trad. PartyIsOver is far more Traditional than he is. And are you not passing judgement on PIO when you say that he is a Jєωιѕн infiltrator? The "judgement" argument swings both ways.
While I don't agree PIO is a Jew, other than ethnically, I think your assumption that PIO is more Trad than anyone because they're sede or more hardline is silly. Traditionalism shouldn't be calculated by how strict someone sounds, but by the fruit they produce.
Edit: On second thought, I don't think it should be calculated at all.
And the fact is, is that LP is right here- PiO is only ever too happy to 'revel in disunity'. As long as there are sede's arguing with non-sede's, he's to often ready for an un-intellectual fight, as you can see above.
-
Saying anyone is "more Trad" than another person is ridicules, because it's like saying someone is more Catholic, and only God can make that judgement. True one person might have more tact in trying to convince others to their way of thinking, but that is a gift of reaching someone through being tactful or their manner of writing; nothing to do with being "more Trad".
PIO is NOT a Jew, either!
Sometime I suspect someone might not really be who they say they are, but to accuse them on the Internet without proof is another story.
-
Your History is wrong, Nestorius was not removed from office formally until he was condemned by a council.
Actually, it is your historical knowledge that is faulty. Nestorius did in fact occupy his office even after he tacitly resigned from office as a result of his heresy. The Church did not LATER remove him from office, but declared that his office had, in fact, been vacant since his public heresy and that all of his acts were null and void from that day.
cupertino did a sufficient job refuting everything you said so I will not waste further time on this issue.
-
I think your assumption that PIO is more Trad than anyone because they're sede or more hardline is silly.
Where did I say this? You know that's not my position s2s.
Sorry, but anyone who challenges the whole forum to find even one heresy in the Vatican II docuмents and then brushes off any heresy that is presented is a neo-Trad. Not to mention the fact that Caminus implied PIO and I are a gαy couple just because I defended PIO from his absurd claim about being a Jew. My statement had nothing to do with sede vs non-sede. You know I would never call someone a neo-Trad just because they aren't sede. That would be incredibly stupid on my part.
-
On second thought, forget I said anything. I shouldn't be derailing topics by criticizing other users.
-
I know of several priests who are not Sedevacantist officially speaking but they admit sedevacantism is a legitimate position to take. So while not being sedevacantist themselves they are not anti-Sedevacantist. They have a realistic picture of the current situation and a firm grasp, based upon their preconciliar readings what authentic Catholicism is.
Our freedom of opinion in this matter also holds true much like our freedom of opinion regarding the apparitions at Fatima. No good Catholic is obligated to believe in any private revelation no matter how likely it is. So you can have a good Catholic not believing in Fatima and a bad Catholic who believes it though the the reverse is more common.
I noticed Christopher Ferrara's words were placed under a feature titled the "Agony of Aggiornamento" last week. Truly we are reaping the agony of aggiornamento and yet, in this time when a united front would serve the purpose of Traditional Catholicism much more in exposing the facts that the church of Vatican II is not Catholic, this high profile author, barrister, and reporter has chosen to turn on the ranks as he delves further in a defense of the position that the conciliar popes are Catholic. In posting his defense of the indefensible, Ferrara, an armchair theologian like myself, has the audacity to say that the mere possibility of sedevacantism is "patently absurd".
While Father Anthony Cekeda, a true scholarly theologian in every sense of the word says that the chair is vacant and bases this on what previous Popes, Doctors and Saints who spoke to the topic taught and that is (to sum up and simplify a confusing issue) a heretic cannot be pope for you cannot be the head of a body in which you are not a member of and a heretic is not Catholic and therefore, ipso facto not a member of and therefore not the head of the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.
A pope not only cannot teach heresy in his official capacity but a Catholic Pope cannot in his official capacity, rule or sanctify in a non-Catholic way either. For instance a Catholic Pope cannot approve Canon Law (ruling aspect of the papacy) that decrees that heretics can receive Communion as John Paul 2 did nor can a Catholic Pope approve a Mass (sanctifying aspect of the papacy) with questionable validity as Paul 6 did. These are not only imprudent things to do but evil (objectively speaking) and quite probably subjectively speaking as well in that these "popes" were not ignorant of the Doctrines of the pre-conciliar Church. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
That said, we are in times unprecedented in the history of mankind. So while it would be wrong to say you must be sedevacantist in order to be a good Catholic it also would be wrong to say that you cannot be a sedevacantist and be a good Catholic either. I know many good sedevcantists that are true Catholics in every sense of the word while there are some sedevacantists that are nuts. The same holds true for non-sedevacantists. Is there any group without sin who will throw the first stone? And yet, lots of stones have been thrown. Are these stones building a foundation of trust and clarity, or are they reinforcing the preconceived prejudices that one had going in? I would hope the former for that is the fruit of what these discussions hopefully will build - a greater understanding of our Faith and what previous Popes, whose papacies were beyond reproach, taught, spoke and acted in every aspect - without exception, without any compromise whatsoever.
So while it is wrong for sedevacantists to condemn others merely for not holding to their sedevacantist opinion, it is also wrong for non-sedevacantists to condemn sedevacantists merely for being sedevacantists. What many misconceived non-sedevacantists don't realize is that true sedevacantists are such because of their love for the Papacy not because they do not believe in it. If a true pope can teach heresy, engage in heretical acts, approve a Mass of doubtful validity and approve heretical canon law then the pope is a mere useless figurehead and that is not what Christ established to unify His Church through the Primacy of Peter!
Many non-sedevacantist traditionalists in reality have the Society of St. Pius X as their pope in that they believe WHATEVER the SSPX says. The SSPX says there are two different Church's (a true Church) and a new false Church and that their pope is the head of the new false Church. A strange position to take but the only acceptable one to most non-sedevacantist traditionalists because the idea of a papal claimant being a heretic is akin to the world being flat or Jesus being Lucifer in their eyes.
A lady said to me that "You cannot be holier than the pope" I said that depends on how holy the pope is. This went completely over her head as does the idea of sedevacantism go over many a good Catholic's head. It is inconceivable to them. This is typical of people immersed in the modernism of the new Church. They are brainwashed to believe unCatholic things because their "popes" teach them such; the Old Covenant is not revoked, the Greek Orthodox do not need to be converted, May John the Baptism protect Islam and on and on and on as the modern "popes" preach Modernism 101.
Her statement if taken to its logical conclusion means that at any given time during the 2000 years of the Church that the holiest person on earth was the pope, no matter who the pope was at the time and no matter what saints were living at that time, even if that pope had sex and children during his papacy as in fact happened with several dark-age popes. This is not logical thinking. One can in fact be holier than the pope. But people are brainwashed into thinking that all popes must be the holiest people on earth which is false and that all those who claim the papacy, even if they teach heresy in their official capacity must also be popes which is also false.
But people are not ready for that, this is the great scandal and apostasy talked about by Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians, by the Mother of God in Quito, Ecuador, at LaSalette, and at Fatima. This great apostasy was foretold not only in Sacred Scripture in the Old and New, by Our Lord Himself (Matthew 24), but also by numerous saints. Yet, those who stubbornly cling to the "pope-has-to-be-the-pope" argument, are not ready to hear such a terrible thing. The truth can be hard to take, hard to accept. Recall what Jesus did when the people walked away after He told them what they must do to gain everlasting life. Did He hurry behind them and say, 'wait a second, let Me explain it better?' No! He merely said to His disciples, "Will you also go away?" (John 6: 68). You'll note that Christ did not "dialogue" with them at all, nor did He ever compromise with any of them. You'll also note He spoke clearly in everything He said except those things which were a mystery and then His analogies and imagery made it quite clear what He was talking about.
You'll also note what Peter said to Him when Jesus asked His disciples that question: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life. And we have believed, and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6: 69-70). Peter testified that He alone had the words of everlasting life. Peter also knew that Christ would not and could not deceive them, nor could our Lord be deceived for He knew all. This is reconfirmed in the Act of Faith said daily with the Acts of Hope and Charity. Let me remind you of its sure words:
"O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."
Sedevacantists pray that very prayer right along with non-sedevacantists. Both groups are good traditional Catholics. Both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists recognize Catholicism as an unchanging religion. Both realize that is not what the Conciliar Church believes. Both groups acknowledge the same problems in the Conciliar Church - a different church, a false church, a man-made church. Yet non-sedevacantists castigate sedevacantists because sedevacantists adhere to all that Christ revealed, all His True Church has taught and that includes the infallible decrees and papal pronouncements condemning the very actions and words of the conciliar "popes." So who do we believe? Who do we owe our allegiance to? Those who say that things are different now, that Christ's teachings can "evolve" and His Church is no longer necessary for salvation as the conciliar "popes" have made it manifestly clear? Or those Popes who stood like Christ and would not compromise, would not dialogue, would not alter or water down one iota of what He revealed? Frankly, that's a no-brainer. Sedevacantists stand with the latter and have every reason to because Christ said it, we believe it, that settles it! The very fact that non-sedevacantists so strongly attack sedevacantists as being wrong proves that the non-sede's arguments are as solid as those who argue that the world is flat.
Here's another argument that could easily be termed a riddle which non-sedevacantists claim is the only way "a pope can be deposed": 'A heretical non-pope is not a heretical non-pope until after he is declared a heretical non-pope' You'll note they don't take into consideration the fact they have caused the eternal damnation of so many souls. That doesn't seem to matter to the equation of the validity of a pope. Why? That's beyond me to figure out. As I mentioned earlier, a pope's holiness is directly connected with the souls he is entrusted with. Yet, those who rail against sedevacantists, maintain the heretical non-pope is a pope until he is declared a non-pope. That makes as much sense as saying the man is a snake. But we must not consider the man to be a snake until he is authoritatively and officially declared to be a snake. Regardless of the fact this snake slithered into the Church just as satan did when he first took the form of the serpent in the Garden, let us say this man/snake lived from 1964 to, oh say, 2020. The man/snake is declared to have never been a man but to have always been a snake in the year 2040. Yet from 1964 until 2040 we are compelled to believe under the force of excomunication and or schism that the snake was in fact a man? If we are to believe that, well then, dear reader, we must believe the world is flat as well.
All riddles aside, the fact of the matter is that it is a terrible thing, if in fact we have not had a pope for nearly 50 years, but the end times are predicted to be terrible, in fact, a "great apostasy" which would be ushered in by the man of perdition - also a snake, aka Satan or Lucifer. Should we follow and acknowledge those who are promoting this obvious apostasy with all the ecuмenism, religious liberty, humanism and so many other heresies formerly formally condemned? Of course not, for Christ said there would be many false prophets and those false prophets could very well be the conciliar "popes." If that is the case, and the evidence points overwhelmingly to that very fact through the actions and words of the past five conciliar "popes", then sedevacantists are really being good, loyal Catholics in adhering to what Christ forewarned and living up to the very Act of Faith they pray every day. To continue to demean them for being totally loyal Catholics constitutes a sin against faith, hope and charity.
What an amazing post.. I hope people took the time to read it. Good little parts, I've bolded for you lamers that don't like to read big blocks of text. Lover of Truth, you are alright in my book.
-
Some background on LordPhan, Cupertino...
He is SSPX
He panders to the prevailing attitude in each thread (some times he will rail against Caminus and his sophistries...other times he will rail against Vatican II/Modernism and side with the sedes.. other times he will defend ABL to the tomb despite all the writings from ABL saying sedevacantism is a valid opinion and view to take on the Church today). Hes a panderer that plays the "party angle".
He doesn't really know history well, but enough to sound like he knows it.
He's now engaged (used to be single and miserable in Canada) so he's got that "pent up male" axe to grind on those who disagree with him, whether in truth or not.
I am busy for a few days, I'll get around to disproving the post by Cupertino which is erroneous in it's entirety. However I will point out for all to see, that you have just manifestly commited an act of Heresy.
I won't even get into the falseness of your other statements which are rediculous, I study university level history, and discuss it from time to time with actual scholars. I know history far better then you do. Your opinion is meaningless, especially since you cannot back it up.
I have never been miserable, not sure what my being in Canada has to do with anything. The "Pent up Male ax to grind" thing is a Freemasonic lie, stated by the Freemasons in the Alta Vendita to attack the Clergy with.
It is a defined Dogma that Married Life is not superior to the Virginal Life. Your continued(You have stated this belief previously) belief that someone should "Get a Date" is a mortal sin. It is apparent for all to see what you meant by "You should get a Date" if you are presupposing this "Pent up frustration" Comment.
One thing I do agree with Caminus on is that you are quite possibly nothing more then a Jew Infiltrator. You revel in disunity, you applaud it when it happens, that in and of itself according to the Summa Theologica makes you ipso facto in Schism.
So you have denied the Dogma:
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
-Council of Trent
You are in Mortal Sin by telling me repeatedly to 'Get a Date' with your intent that one should commit the Mortal Sin of Adultery to relieve 'Pent up Frustration'.
You are in Mortal Sin by Calumning myself.
You are whether intentionally or inadvertantly espousing a viewpoint held by the Freemasons in the Alta Vendita to destroy the Church.
You are also attacking the Clergy once again either intentionally or inadvertantly by your belief that one needs a wife to debate on a forum.
You are commiting a Mortal Sin by Subjectively judging me.
and You are in Schism of the Church by reveling in disunity, applauding disunity when it happens and not wishing for unity amongst the faithful which you are obliged to do.
I suggest you repent. Objectively you are outside the Church from your statements, they are not statements that would be made by a Catholic.
What are you talking about? You are a loose cannon, bud. Calling out all these supposed sins of mine, its insanity. And error at the least. Mortal sin on your part, at the worst.
Don't do your subjective/objective relativist dance with me, modernist. I have dealt with "20-something scholars with philosophy majors" like you and you don't really upset me or show me anything novel. The only schism here is your mind from reality in how you can somehow reconcile the opinion that the Pope is a heretic, yet he is your Pope.
Makes my head spin. Glad you're getting married, maybe you'll get off this forum and give us all a break from your misplaced youthful swagger.
-
I think your assumption that PIO is more Trad than anyone because they're sede or more hardline is silly.
Where did I say this? You know that's not my position s2s.
Sorry, but anyone who challenges the whole forum to find even one heresy in the Vatican II docuмents and then brushes off any heresy that is presented is a neo-Trad. Not to mention the fact that Caminus implied PIO and I are a gαy couple just because I defended PIO from his absurd claim about being a Jew. My statement had nothing to do with sede vs non-sede. You know I would never call someone a neo-Trad just because they aren't sede. That would be incredibly stupid on my part.
Thanks SS and Myrna, 2 Catholics on this board.
No one here cares that Caminus called us ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lovers. Its because that flaming dart didn't wiz by their heads, that they just turn the other way and ignore the evil that is so pervasive and permissive on this board by the neo-Trads towards real Traditional Catholics.
For the 15th time, I am not a Jew. :jester: Its amazing how that myth has still been carried on, by the slander of someone whom I forgot even started calling me a Jew sympathizer and insider out to destroy Catholicism on here. I am a JEW CONVERT...ya know? like St. Paul? Ever heard about him, guys? Read up and see how zealous he was, then you may catch a glimpse into who I am. Its eerie how similar my conversion was to his, and my turnaround from Judaism/paganism into traditional Catholicism/sedevacantism was. It's only by the grace of God, in the plainest explanation I can give.
And as for my fruits, I am not able to judge that. I just hope God sees my actions and what I have done for those around me (maybe not so on this internet forums) but in real life. I think He will atleast smile approvingly at my efforts to keep and pass on the Faith to others. I can hope...