Author Topic: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII (Read 17446 times)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #45 on:** May 27, 2022, 08:58:23 PM »

Quote from: Sir Percival on May 27, 2022, 08:50:45 PM

In reality, it’s the Dimonds who are blinded that they cannot see the good in anything or anyone but themselves. In this sense, they are mentally unstable nutcases of prideful will who have gone off the deep end into sectarian extremism. They shouldn’t be compared to a great figure like Tertullian because they aren’t worth 1/10000000000000000th of his worth, but essentially they fell into the same trap of zealotry.

In my view, they are schismatics without a doubt.

It's great you think that. Now, try addressing their arguments.

Sir Percival · « **Reply #46 on:** May 27, 2022, 09:02:07 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 27, 2022, 08:58:23 PM

It's great you think that. Now, try addressing their arguments.

Regarding…?

Cheerios vs Frosted Flakes?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #47 on:** May 27, 2022, 09:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Sir Percival on May 27, 2022, 09:02:07 PM

Regarding…?

Cheerios vs Frosted Flakes?

Start with what I posted and go from there, I don't care.

Sir Percival · « **Reply #48 on:** May 27, 2022, 09:18:32 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 27, 2022, 09:12:48 PM

Start with what I posted and go from there, I don't care.

I already did bruh. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas’ positions were never condemned. R&R hold to them. They’re not heretical positions.

The bros Dimond think that +++Lefebvre, Williamson, some Sede clergy like Jenkins, et al are all heretics for not being dogmatic Sedevacantists. EENS is another issue for which they think the above were damned heretics, but that’s another can of worms.

+Lefebvre saw Assisi. He didn’t espouse Sedevacantism before he passed. He thought it was possible, but not certain. Dimonds think he was a heretic of bad will. Do you agree with that?

Also if you believe in the Dimond position, how is it that you attend an SSPX chapel and receive sacraments from “notorious heretics” who are not Sedevacantists and who don’t hold to the “true” position of EENS while being in the Dimondite terminology “imposing heretics?” Hmmm?

Just stay home alone and pray the 15 decades bruh.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #49 on:** May 27, 2022, 09:33:02 PM »

Quote from: Sir Percival on May 27, 2022, 09:18:32 PM

I already did bruh. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas’ positions were never condemned. R&R hold to them. They’re not heretical positions.
Plenty of other sedevacantists have refuted the issues with the way R&R utilize Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. I'm not going to waste my time on that here.

The bros Dimond think that +++Lefebvre, Williamson, some Sede clergy like Jenkins, et al are all heretics for not being dogmatic Sedevacantists. EENS is another issue for which they think the above were damned heretics, but that’s another can of worms.
First, they have never said they were "damned heretics" you aren't damned until you're dead, and that's impossible for them to know.
Second, yes, EENS is a dogma of the faith, making statements suggesting that pagans, Jєωs, and Muslims can be saved in their own religions, but not by them, is an explicit denial of that point. +Sanborn and +McKenna have both proclaimed these errors.

+Lefebvre saw Assisi. He didn’t espouse Sedevacantism before he passed. He thought it was possible, but not certain. Dimonds think he was a heretic of bad will. Do you agree with that?
He explicitly teaches that people in non-Catholic religions can be saved by the Catholic Church without being Catholic in Against the Heresies. That would at least constitute material heresy, but not of bad will. Where are you getting the bad will part from?

Also, if you believe in the Dimond position, how is it that you attend an SSPX chapel and receive sacraments from notorious heretics who are not Sedevacantists and who don’t hold to the “true” position of EENS while being in the Dimondite terminology “imposing heretics?” Hmmm?

Quote
So, a traditional Catholic who is uncompromising about the Catholic faith - who wants to take advantage of the inestimable graces the sacraments provide - would have to receive sacraments from a priest who is not in full agreement with him on one of these issues, if he is to receive them at all. Is that an acceptable course of action? As will be shown in this section, we believe the answer is yes – provided that the Catholic doesn’t agree with or support the priest, and provided that the priest is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. But fewer and fewer priests meet these requirements as this Great Apostasy continues. Moreover, there is no positive obligation to receive sacraments from any priest who holds a heretical position, even if he is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. Therefore, if people don’t want to go they don’t have to.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/

I'm also not the only person here who holds to the dogma of EENS or agrees with MHFM on a lot of issues. In the above, I am the one who "wants to go" to the Sacraments and am well aware of my priest's position, which is actually not at all the liberal teachings of the SSPX leadership.

Just stay home alone and pray the 15 decades bruh.

Nah. I'll do the daily 15 decades and go to Mass on Sunday.

Responses are in red, bruh

Sir Percival · « **Reply #50 on:** May 27, 2022, 09:41:29 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on May 27, 2022, 09:33:02 PM

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/question-whether-one-may-receive-sacraments/

I'm also not the only person here who holds to the dogma of EENS or agrees with MHFM on a lot of issues. In the above, I am the one who "wants to go" to the Sacraments and am well aware of my priest's position, which is actually not at all the liberal teachings of the SSPX leadership.

Just stay home alone and pray the 15 decades bruh.

Nah. I'll do the daily 15 decades and go to Mass on Sunday.

Responses are in red, bruh

LOOL!

Your responses didn’t address the issues at all. They are an apologia de la Dimond with an embarrassing hesitancy to take matters to their most necessary implications because of being on a forum which is R&R and because you attend an SSPX chapel.

Just come out of the closet with the logical conclusions of your beliefs instead of dancing around the issues.

DigitalLogos

:

-R&R are heretics.
-non-Feeneyites are heretics.
-The vast majority of Trads are heretics and their leaders heresiarchs.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #51 on:** May 27, 2022, 10:50:40 PM »

Quote from: Sir Percival on May 27, 2022, 09:41:29 PM

LOOL!

Your responses didn’t address the issues at all. They are an apologia de la Dimond with an embarrassing hesitancy to take matters to their most necessary implications because of being on a forum which is R&R and because you attend an SSPX chapel.

Just come out of the closet with the logical conclusions of your beliefs instead of dancing around the issues.

DigitalLogos :

-R&R are heretics.
-non-Feeneyites are heretics.
-The vast majority of Trads are heretics and their leaders heresiarchs.

That's an over-simplification of where I stand. I can tell we are not going to get along.

This thread isn't an apologia of MHFM or a critique of it. So the argument ends here for me.

roscoe · « **Reply #52 on:** May 28, 2022, 02:51:17 AM »

Acc to H Mann( Lives Popes) there is a dispute re Stephen II whom he describes as ' elected but not consecrated'... thereby rendering him as true or not true Il Papa acc to whom one agrees w/...

This sounds very similar to Siri election..

Ladislaus · « **Reply #53 on:** May 28, 2022, 09:11:26 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on May 27, 2022, 08:34:22 PM

No, he wasn't, that's absurd. If you know it, and I know it, and every catechized fourth-grader knows it, then a pre-Vatican 2 cardinal certainly knew it. He was just a coward who refused to stand up and do his duty.

Great. That's your interpretation for which you have no proof. That has no impact to whether or not he was the legitimate pope.

And it's easy for you to sit in you easy chair with a beer and declare someone a coward, when you have absolutely no idea whether given the types of threats he was facing you'd buckle as well. He had a large extended family. What if someone told you step down as pope and shut up, or else we'll start murdering, kidnapping, and torturing your nieces and newphews. Or we're going to round up and execute every single priest behind the Iron curtain unless you comply. Or we're going to nuke the Vatican and a bunch of majority-Catholic cities. Sure, he should have trusted God and gone ahead with it, but for you to sit here and judge him a coward from your easy chair, just shut the hell up. God alone is his judge, not you.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #54 on:** May 28, 2022, 09:14:45 AM »

I've been mulling over the Siri Thesis, and while I am quite convinced that Siri was indeed elected Pope in 1958 but, for whatever reason, did not endure in his exercise of the office, handing it over to Roncalli in another conclave, I'm puzzled by a couple of things:

First, the threat of a nuclear attack on Rome. Presumably this would have been by the Soviets, "egged on" by whomever wanted Roncalli to ascend to the papacy --- again, this was apparently not so much because Siri was Siri, but because he was not Roncalli, and if another cardinal had been elected, the objection would have been the same --- "we wanted Roncalli". So let's say that Siri had said "go ahead, make my day", and had remained as Pope Gregory XVII. Then the bombs start falling, and there is a parking lot where the Vatican and Rome used to be. Who, then, benefits? Cui bono? How are the ends accomplished that would have been accomplished if Roncalli had been elected? (And, unless he had been spirited out before the nuclear attack, Roncalli would be dead, as would be the rest of the Cardinals.) Was it a question of "well, we can destroy the Church and undermine the Faith one way or the other --- either Roncalli can become Pope and things can be set in motion according to our plan, or there will be no Cardinals, no Vatican, and, at least at the moment, no Pope, and we will accomplish our ends that way"? The communists, the "learned elders", the Freemasons will then destroy the Church and the Faith through a "Plan B"? And what would that plan have consisted of? Or do they just throw up their hands, say "that Siri was one tough [insert expletive of choice here], we tried, it didn't work, such is life"?

Second, there are supposedly going to be these riots that break out. Where? Led by whom? How widespread will they be, and how long will they last? And will there be riots because all of these rioters so object to Siri being Pope? Or riots because all of these people wanted Roncalli and didn't get him? I seriously doubt there was a place anywhere in the Catholic world, where any large groups of people would have objections either way. Did Roncalli promise all of these people something that they'd better get "or else"? And what would that have been?

Again, I can buy Siri having been elected Pope, but the other things, they don't quite add up.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #55 on:** May 28, 2022, 09:17:08 AM »

As for your assertion that it doesn't matter, that's surprising coming from SVs because it absolutely matters. You should know (having duked it out with R&R over the matter) that the Holy Spirit will prevent a legitimate pope from destroying the Church the way Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla et al. have done. Heck, even Archbishop Lefebvre said that it's impossible ... and openly mused about how this could have possibly happened given that protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church and the (legitimate) papacy

Here's the answer right here. THIS is how it's possible. You stick an illegitimately-elected imposter, impeded from legitimate election due to Gregory XVII having been forced out of office under grave duress, and that imposter is not protected by the Holy Spirit. Had Roncalli won outright, say on the first ballot, God would have struck his Modernist butt dead before he could perpetrate the evils that he did, and the same for Montini.

As for Ratzinger and Bergoglio, "elected" when Siri had already died, there are several possible explanations. First of all, both of these were the first ones consecrated in the new rite of episcopal consecration that's very likely invalid. So, not being bishops, they couldn't exercise teaching authority in the Church (only bishops are part of the ecclesia doens). Alternatively, the Cardinals appointed by the illegitimate anti-Popes (who in this case didn't even MATERIALLY possess papal office) would have all been illegitimate.

So maybe SVism isn't quite true, nor is SPism what's actually happening here. Maybe it's sedimpeditsm, that election to the Holy See was impeded by the fact that there was a rightful pope already there. St. Francis's prophecy spoke of the destroyer pope having been "uncanonically elected".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #56 on:** May 28, 2022, 09:24:41 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on May 28, 2022, 09:14:45 AM

I've been mulling over the Siri Thesis, and while I am quite convinced that Siri was indeed elected Pope in 1958 but, for whatever reason, did not endure in his exercise of the office, handing it over to Roncalli in another conclave, I'm puzzled by a couple of things:

First, the threat of a nuclear attack on Rome. Presumably this would have been by the Soviets, "egged on" by whomever wanted Roncalli to ascend to the papacy --- again, this was apparently not so much because Siri was Siri, but because he was not Roncalli, and if another cardinal had been elected, the objection would have been the same --- "we wanted Roncalli". So let's say that Siri had said "go ahead, make my day", and had remained as Pope Gregory XVII. Then the bombs start falling, and there is a parking lot where the Vatican and Rome used to be. Who, then, benefits? Cui bono? How are the ends accomplished that would have been accomplished if Roncalli had been elected? (And, unless he had been spirited out before the nuclear attack, Roncalli would be dead, as would be the rest of the Cardinals.) Was it a question of "well, we can destroy the Church and undermine the Faith one way or the other --- either Roncalli can become Pope and things can be set in motion according to our plan, or there will be no Cardinals, no Vatican, and, at least at the moment, no Pope, and we will accomplish our ends that way"? The communists, the "learned elders", the Freemasons will then destroy the Church and the Faith through a "Plan B"? And what would that plan have consisted of? Or do they just throw up their hands, say "that Siri was one tough [insert expletive of choice here], we tried, it didn't work, such is life"?

Second, there are supposedly going to be these riots that break out. Where? Led by whom? How widespread will they be, and how long will they last? And will there be riots because all of these rioters so object to Siri being Pope? Or riots because all of these people wanted Roncalli and didn't get him? I seriously doubt there was a place anywhere in the Catholic world, where any large groups of people would have objections either way. Did Roncalli promise all of these people something that they'd better get "or else"? And what would that have been?

Again, I can buy Siri having been elected Pope, but the other things, they don't quite add up.

I'm not sure how things would have played out had Siri stayed in office. Perhaps they were bluffing, or perhaps they had some backup plan. Some Cardinals and bishops did not attend Vatican II because of "poor health" or "other obligations". They could have had some guy in reserve. We don't really know.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #57 on:** May 28, 2022, 09:34:48 AM »

I think Marie Julie Jehenny alluded to the suffering Pope ( Siri) choosing a successor- I'll look for it.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #58 on:** May 28, 2022, 10:02:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 28, 2022, 09:24:41 AM

I'm not sure how things would have played out had Siri stayed in office. Perhaps they were bluffing, or perhaps they had some backup plan. Some Cardinals and bishops did not attend Vatican II because of "poor health" or "other obligations". They could have had some guy in reserve. We don't really know.

The rioting thing especially doesn't add up. If that's all that would have happened, if there had been riots in cities throughout Europe (hard to imagine it anywhere else), how long would that have lasted, and what would it have accomplished? Riots by their nature are short-lived phenomena. The Francophone countries love their manifestations, street demonstrations that might take place over a day, or the course of a few days, but in the end, they accomplish nothing other than raising of consciousness among the sympathetic and potentially sympathetic.

In the United States, the only people who riot are members of certain demographics or aggrieved political groups, and, to be sure, they can do damage, just look at 1968 after the King assassination, but they don't constitute a permanent takeover of the power structure. (Some would add the January 6 storming of the Capitol that way, but that was pretty much just goobers with cellphones taking selfies --- the selfies, always the selfies, there will be pinheads taking selfies when Christ comes again in glory, think about it! --- and waving various flags.) Possibly the closest thing we have to French manifestations are all of these "runs for a cure" of dread diseases and the like, so typically American, people in good physical shape (that deselects a lot of people) lending their presence and their exertion to some nobly-perceived cause punctuated by colored ribbons.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2022, 02:12:42 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on May 28, 2022, 10:02:18 AM

The rioting thing especially doesn't add up.

We don't really know the details of what the threats were. It's mostly a combination of speculation and Malachi Martin (about which, who knows?). Paul Williams talked about the rioting, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Malachi Martin at one point said that there were threats against Cardinal Siri's extended family, and at another time implied that it would involve nukes. But these could have been two different episodes. Martin claims that Siri was again elected at the conclave that eventually rolled out Montini as the pope.

Author Topic: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII (Read 17446 times)

DigitalLogos

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Sir Percival

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

DigitalLogos

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Sir Percival

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

DigitalLogos

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Sir Percival

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

DigitalLogos

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

roscoe

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Ladislaus

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

SimpleMan

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Ladislaus

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Ladislaus

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

josefamenendez

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

SimpleMan

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII

Ladislaus

Re: White Doves - Popes Gregory VII and Gregory XVII