Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 11, 2019, 02:21:47 PM
-
(https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/vatican-releaes-pope-francis-servant-of-hope-logo-morocco-islam-muslims-2019-chrislam-933x445.jpg)
https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/vatican-officially-releases-chrislam-logo-for-pope-francis-upcoming-servant-of-hope-tour-to-the-muslim-nation-of-morocco/
This epitomizes religious syncretism and indifferentism. Notice too how his pectoral cross is cut off at the bottom while the abominable Koran is featured prominently.
-
That's a Prot site of course, but this is confirmed by a Novus Ordo site as well:
https://feliciancjpo.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/pope-francis-servant-of-hope/
(https://feliciancjpo.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg?w=335&h=188)
-
Yet more meaningless, pointless trips around the world to kiss the feet of heathens. What on Earth does he hope to achieve? He doesn't want to convert them, and he can't seriously think he's somehow stopping Islamic terrorism, so why does he do all this? Oh right, good publicity in the media. That's it. Because that's all that matters to the Church today - getting 5 minutes of good press from a media that spends the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day promoting degeneracy, blaspheming, and attacking the Church. That's what Vatican 2 was all about too at the end of the day - selling the soul of the Church to try and "keep up" with the modern world. Sacrificing eternal truths for the acceptance of the Church's enemies, which we didn't even get(unsurprisingly).
The "Servant of Hope" bullshit name also pisses me off. Yet more meaningless, feel-good mumbo jumbo from Pope Francis. There was a time when Popes were eloquent and intelligent, and spoke lucidly. Now we just get strings of buzz-words designed to make catchy headlines.
-
Let's be patient, keep the Faith and have confidence that soon, on the same night:
"two worm ridden popes will die"
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholictradition.org%2FMary%2Fsalette-virgin8.jpg&f=1)
Our Lady of LaSalette
-
If he turned red and grew horns, the vast majority of Novus Ordo's would still follow him and call him pope.
-
If he turned red and grew horns, the vast majority of Novus Ordo's would still follow him and call him pope.
Just "Novus Ordos"? Most of the trad world would too.
-
Notice too how his pectoral cross is cut off at the bottom
(https://feliciancjpo.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg?w=335&h=188)
That "pectoral cross" looks like a lime peel lying over a lemon peel.
The Whore of Babylon has been, incrementally, removing the Cross from the Church.
-
"two worm ridden popes will die"
Incredulous, can you provide the link for this quote? I’ve searched in LaSallete docs and find no mention of this. I want to read the entire context. Thanks.
-
Let's be patient, keep the Faith and have confidence that soon, on the same night:
"two worm ridden popes will die"
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholictradition.org%2FMary%2Fsalette-virgin8.jpg&f=1)
Our Lady of LaSalette
No transcript of the Apparition refers to that at all.
-
The apparations at LaSalette were ignored and maligned much like the 3rd Secret of Fatima. It's hard to know the specifics of what was said, because the Vatican has never revealed an official text, even if the general gist is well-known.
-
I think what Incredulous is referring to is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_WJHWPdrH4&t=105s
Fr. Gregory Hesse discusses this, and says that phrase was censored.
Starting at the 1:45 mark
-
No transcript of the Apparition refers to that at all.
Forlorn,
You are correct, I haven't been able to produce the transcript with "two-worm ridden popes".
I've researched it and "authenticity" seems to be the main controversy surrounding the apparition.
I'm still searching, but trust Father Hesse's account. Perhaps the best sources of the messages are still in France?
While searching, I did find something utterly fascinating.
A lecture on Sister Melanie. Please watch it.
It will give you a whole new perspective on her holiness and the importance of the apparitions being made public.
Through Divine providence, she found Bishops and priests who assisted her:
Presentation on Our Lady of LaSalette (https://youtu.be/ndoR3fhpJO0)
Note:
I recall reading a contemporary account of La Salette.
Providentially, the marrano, Roy Shoeman had inserted an epilogue to the story.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.do_Kg2xb2X7_d5-vE8CddwAAAA%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
He claimed that traditionalist Catholics had misrepresented the message, to make it apply to corruption within the entire Church.
He insisted this was false and that the messages applied only to the immediate French village.
So we can see, even now, Jєωs and apostates are fighting to keep the true message suppressed.
-
Thanks, IHSV and Incredulous. I'll look through all of this with interest.
-
Two worm ridden Pope? Why just two?
I count 5.
-
Right, this is certainly hard to understand. My guess would be Paul VI and Francis. One could make the argument that JPI, JPII and Benedict were not "all bad"; they did plenty bad but also a few, small, good things. It's easy to argue that Paul VI and Francis were/are just abominously evil.
Fr Hessee does not say that "two worm-ridden popes" will die, implying that they are alive at the same time (i.e. Benedict/Francis). If this is written somewhere else, i'd like to see it.
-
Two worm ridden Pope? Why just two?
I count 5.
Because some of them are already dead perhaps?
-
Yet more meaningless, pointless trips around the world to kiss the feet of heathens. What on Earth does he hope to achieve?
And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say to you: Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings. -- Luke 16:8-9
-
Inter-faith “dialogue” and prayer-ceremonies have only one purpose - to unite the world religions for the freemasonic/luciferian/Jooish hoped-for one-world religion of the anti-Christ, the New Testament version of the Tower of Babel.
Yet, I do not believe that we will see the culmination of their plans (maybe in part we will, but only shortly), as the Age of Mary has yet to come and She will reign before God allows satan his dream.
-
The crescent moon is a sign of the Blessed Virgin. It sits under her feet.
-
What a terrible mistake. Catholic prophesy suggests it will be Muslims who will play a major role in World War III and the foretold invasion of Rome to come. Apparently, God has already foreknown and pre-announced that this foolish appeasement will not work. Peace can come only when man and nations submit to the reign of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. As Pope Pius XI put it in Quas Primas, "We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord."
-
What a terrible mistake. Catholic prophesy suggests it will be Muslims who will play a major role in World War III and the foretold invasion of Rome to come. Apparently, God has already foreknown and pre-announced that this foolish appeasement will not work. Peace can come only when man and nations submit to the reign of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. As Pope Pius XI put it in Quas Primas, "We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord."
It is not about appeasement. It is about preaching the Gospel to all nations.
-
It is not about appeasement. It is about preaching the Gospel to all nations.
How is kissing Qurans and telling Muslims they are saved preaching to all nations?
-
The crescent moon is a sign of the Blessed Virgin. It sits under her feet.
And there are images of her with a serpent under her feet too.
Yes, I'm sure this is why Francis picked the symbol for his trip to the Muslim countries.
poche, you become ridiculouser and ridiculouser with each post.
This symbol is obviously an attempt to present a syncretistic blending of Christianity and Islam. Take this together with his recent statements about God having willed all (false) religions, and it's clear where he's going with it. And one cannot fail to notice that the cross is inside the crescent ... as if to suggest Christianity being inside of and absorbed by Islam.
Not to mention that this symbol also bears an eerie resemblance to the old Soviet hammer and sickle. And everyone knows that Jorge Bergoglio is a Communist (probably their agent in the papacy). Just take the top portion of the cross off, put a handle on one end of the crescent, and you've got it. In fact, take the top part of the cross and move it over to the end of the crescent, and it's the Communist symbol. In fact, it's already leaning that way, so you just have to move it a little bit.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61fTWRLoYPL._SY355_.jpg)(http://www.cogwriter.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Chrislam2-247x300.jpg)
-
Jorge Bergoglio, Servant of Satan would be a more suitable text to go along with this symbol.
-
How many times in his short tenure, has the "Destroyer clown" broken the 1st Commandment, in view of all nations?
To our benefit, Poche's posts are "instagram" examples of how unhinged, lukewarm minds can rationalize these abominations against our Holy Faith.
-
Yes, it's gotten to the point where, if this man is not a heretic, then there's no such thing as a heretic. He's objectively and manifestly a heretic. Some kind of appeal to sincerity (the bane of theology for the past 700 years) would exonerate pretty much ANY heretic, even Martin Luther himself. And isn't it this which Bishop Williamson has rightly identified as the core problem with Vatican II, subjectivism? Isn't this appeal to sincerity in the internal forum the same thing which Bergoglio used to come up with Amoris Laetitia? It most certainly is. So I guess if a purported sincerity in the internal forum (unknown to anyone but God) allows someone to be considered a Catholic in good standing in the external forum, then those who assert that Bergoglio is a legitimate pope cannot have anything to say about admitting the divorced to Holy Communion. It's identical in principle.
There can be no doubt that Jorge Bergoglio has no formal authority as Pope, but remains a material pope only. He has no authority whatsoever.
It's manifest and obvious that Bergoglio tenaciously adheres to a denial of EENS and to religious indifferentism.
-
As you know, a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. So how could there be any doubt about a non-member of the Church possessing an ecclesiastical office? The SSPX is careful not to accuse Francis (or Benedict for that matter) of manifest heresy because they know what that leads to. Bishop Tissier caused a minor stir in 2006 when he accused Ratzinger/Benedict of heresy. And Bishop Fellay likewise made a controversial statement about Bergoglio being a thorough modernist (as if he had forgotten that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies).
-
As you know, a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. So how could there be any doubt about a non-member of the Church possessing an ecclesiastical office? The SSPX is careful not to accuse Francis (or Benedict for that matter) of manifest heresy because they know what that leads to. Bishop Tissier caused a minor stir in 2006 when he accused Ratzinger/Benedict of heresy. And Bishop Fellay likewise made a controversial statement about Bergoglio being a thorough modernist (as if he had forgotten that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies).
That's because I believe that the material designation counts for something. He possesses the office materially but not formally. I have been persuaded of this by reading Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, who in turn bases his principles on the distinction made by St. Robert Bellarmine. I find it persuasive.
Many have since confused the term "modernism" with a vague liberal tendency and don't think of it as heresy in the strict sense.
-
How is kissing Qurans and telling Muslims they are saved preaching to all nations?
Pope Francis didn't kiss the Koran. What he did do was to get one of the most recognized leaders of the Islamic world to sign a docuмent (like a fatwa) that says that all of the Christians are equal citizens with their fellow Muslims.
-
That's because I believe that the material designation counts for something. He possesses the office materially but not formally. I have been persuaded of this by reading Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, who in turn bases his principles on the distinction made by St. Robert Bellarmine. I find it persuasive.
Many have since confused the term "modernism" with a vague liberal tendency and don't think of it as heresy in the strict sense.
I was not aware that you had taken the cassiciacuм position. I haven’t studied it myself. Whatever I do know about it, I picked up from various online sources. I’m not attracted to that at all because a simple sede vacante explains it well enough in my mind. I don’t see how material designation can impede the exercise of legitimate authority by the existing Catholic hierarchy. cuм Ex Apostolatus regardless of its current legal status seems to rule out any possibility of materially designated popes and/or cardinals impeding the exercise of authority by the hierarchy. Isn’t that the gist of the theory - that the See is impeded by the material designate. I think all that needs to happen is for the Catholic clergy of Rome to meet and elect a new pope. Even if there are only a handful of Catholic clergy left in Rome. And although it would be more difficult to do, I think a general council of the Catholic bishops of the whole world could also credibly elect a true pope. What I cannot believe is that a non-Catholic sect could legally impede the Catholic hierarchy from fulfilling its commission.
-
Hey, Poche, +Francis may not have kissed the Koran, which is a heretical act and a grave sin against the 1st commandment, but he did worse - he said that God wills that false religions exist. This is outright heresy because it denies the dogma of the social Kingship of Christ and His Church! From the inter-Faith docuмent:
The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/ (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/)
p.s. ...
JPII did kiss the Koran though...one of his many heretical acts which he never publicly abjured.
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/03/john-paul2-kissed-muslim-koran/ (https://novusordowatch.org/2018/03/john-paul2-kissed-muslim-koran/)
-
I think all that needs to happen is for the Catholic clergy of Rome to meet and elect a new pope. Even if there are only a handful of Catholic clergy left in Rome. And although it would be more difficult to do, I think a general council of the Catholic bishops of the whole world could also credibly elect a true pope.
Only the College of Cardinals can elect a Pope. In the extraordinary absence of Cardinals, it is commonly believed that an imperfect General Council could do so, but it does require Jurisdiction, not only Holy Orders. Bishops or clergy without Jurisdiction cannot elect the Pope. And of course Catholic laity cannot elect the Pope, either.
Only these in the hierarchy could have a decisive vote in the case of an imperfect General Council:
CIC 1917, Canon 223:
There are to be called to the General Council the following persons who shall have a decisive vote:
1. The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, even those who are not bishops.
2. The patriarchs, primates, archbishops, residential bishops, even those not yet consecrated.
3. The abbots and prelates nullius.
4. The abbot Primas, abbots who are superiors of Monastic Congregations, and the supreme heads of clerical exempt Orders of religious. The superiors general of other religious bodies are not to be called, unless the bull of convocation explicitly states that they are to be called. If titular bishops are called to the General Council, they have a decisive vote, unless it is otherwise stated in the convocation. The theologians and experts of the sacred Canons who may be invited to the General Council have but a consultive vote.
In theory, even Cardinals, residential Bishops, abbots or prelates not yet consecrated could participate in said Council because they have Jurisdiction over a territory. But Titular Bishops without jurisdiction could be not convoked to the Council or have the right to vote. In the Cassisiacuм Thesis, the NO Cardinals still have the power to designate, as we know that it is impossible that the Church is left without possible electors of the legitimate successor of St. Peter.
-
From the Constitution Vacante Apostolica Sede promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1904.
On the election of the Roman Pontiff:
27. Ius eligendi Romanum Pontificem ad S. R. E. Cardinales unice et privative pertinet, excluso prorsus atque remoto quolibet cuiuspiam alterius Ecclesiasticae dignitatis, aut laicae potestatis cuiuslibet gradus et ordinis interventu (23).
In this, Pope Pius X decrees that "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church", all others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have.
-
# 81 from the same Constitution is also of interest because it completely forbids the intervention of any civil or lay authority in the process of election of the Roman Pontiff. "This prohibition to be extended to all interventions, intercessions and other means whatsoever, in the order in which lay the authorities at all levels and become involved in the election of the Pontiff might wish to become".
81. Quae autem in memorata Nostra Constitutione Commissum Nobis de civili Veto seu Exclusiva, uti vocant, in electione Summi Pontificis ediximus et sanximus, hic omni ex parte atque integre renovantes, confirmata esse volumus. Quamobrem iterum in virtute sanctae obedientiae, sub interminatione divini iudicii et poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, omnes et singulos S. R. E. Cardinales, tam praesentes quam futuros, pariterque Secretarium S. Collegii Cardinalium aliosque omnes in Conclavi partem habentes, prohibemus ne, quovis praetextu, a quavis civili potestate munus recipiant Veto sive Exclusivam, etiam sub forma simplicis desiderii, proponendi. Ipsumve hoc Veto, qualibet ratione sibi cognitum, patefaciant sive universo Cardinalium Collegio simul congregato sive singulis purpuratis Patribus, sive scripto, sive ore, sive directo ac proxime, sive oblique ac per alios, sive ante Conclave sive ipso perdurante. Quam prohibitionem extendi volumus ad omnes interventus, intercessiones aliosque modos quoslibet, quibus laicae potestates cuiuslibet gradus et ordinis voluerint sese in Pontificis electione immiscere.
-
Only the College of Cardinals can elect a Pope. In the extraordinary absence of Cardinals, it is commonly believed that an imperfect General Council could do so, but it does require Jurisdiction, not only Holy Orders. Bishops or clergy without Jurisdiction cannot elect the Pope. And of course Catholic laity cannot elect the Pope, either.
Only these in the hierarchy could have a decisive vote in the case of an imperfect General Council:
CIC 1917, Canon 223:
In theory, even Cardinals, residential Bishops, abbots or prelates not yet consecrated could participate in said Council because they have Jurisdiction over a territory. But Titular Bishops without jurisdiction could be not convoked to the Council or have the right to vote. In the Cassisiacuм Thesis, the NO Cardinals still have the power to designate, as we know that it is impossible that the Church is left without possible electors of the legitimate successor of St. Peter.
A disciplinary law which cannot reasonably be followed cannot bind. The legitimate electors by divine law can only consist of members of the clergy. But who amongst the clergy can vote is a disciplinary law. In the past it had been for a time the responsibility of the Roman clergy to elect the pope. In an extraordinary situation they could do it again. Keep in mind that the disciplinary laws concerning the papal elections were set by previous popes and were often ignored by the electors. But those elections once confirmed not only by the electors but by the bishops of the Church were nevertheless legitimate. The legitimacy of papal elections is something that has been treated by theologians prior to V2 and it is generally agreed that violations of the electoral rules do not invalidate an election that has been confirmed by the bishops. But according to cuм Ex Apostolatus, heresy can invalidate an election even if the election was confirmed by the bishops.
-
A disciplinary law which cannot reasonably be followed cannot bind. The legitimate electors by divine law can only consist of members of the clergy. But who amongst the clergy can vote is a disciplinary law. In the past it had been for a time the responsibility of the Roman clergy to elect the pope. In an extraordinary situation they could do it again. Keep in mind that the disciplinary laws concerning the papal elections were set by previous popes and were often ignored by the electors. But those elections once confirmed not only by the electors but by the bishops of the Church were nevertheless legitimate. The legitimacy of papal elections is something that has been treated by theologians prior to V2 and it is generally agreed that violations of the electoral rules do not invalidate an election that has been confirmed by the bishops. But according to cuм Ex Apostolatus, heresy can invalidate an election even if the election was confirmed by the bishops.
A couple of things come to mind. First, the "Roman Clergy" is composed also by the Cardinals. As a matter of fact, they are the main members of the "Roman Clergy", unless you are thinking of the "Roman Clergy" as exclusively referring to the lower status priests born and living in Rome or belonging to the Roman Diocese. Second, even in the total absence of any Cardinals, all the "Roman clergy" is Novus Ordo, and in full communion with Francis anyway, so for practical purposes, it makes absolutely no difference to us, if the electors were to be the College of Cardinals as it has been stipulated in Canonical Law since 1179 (and the Thesis of Des Lauriers preserves), or some lesser unknown members of the "Roman Clergy".
CIC 1917, Canon 108 on the Clergy:
85. Those who have been assigned to the Divine ministry by the first tonsure, are called clerics. They are not all of the same degree, there is a sacred hierarchy by which one is subordinate to the other. This hierarchy which is of Divine institution by reason of the sacred orders, consists of bishops, priests and ministers; by reason of jurisdiction it consists of the supreme pontificate and the subordinate episcopate. By institution of the Church other degrees have been added. (Canon 108.
-
A couple of things come to mind. First, the "Roman Clergy" is composed also by the Cardinals. As a matter of fact, they are the main members of the "Roman Clergy", unless you are thinking of the "Roman Clergy" as exclusively referring to the lower status priests born and living in Rome or belonging to the Roman Diocese. Second, even in the total absence of any Cardinals, all the "Roman clergy" is Novus Ordo, and in full communion with Francis anyway, so for practical purposes, it makes absolutely no difference to us, if the electors were to be the College of Cardinals as it has been stipulated in Canonical Law since 1179 (and the Thesis of Des Lauriers preserves), or some lesser unknown members of the "Roman Clergy".
CIC 1917, Canon 108 on the Clergy:
So, Cantarella, doesn't that mean that we are waiting for these men to convert to the Catholic Religion? Or for some "pope" they elect converts to the Catholic Religion? Doesn't that place the future of the Catholic Church in the hands of heretics?
-
So, Cantarella, doesn't that mean that we are waiting for these men to convert to the Catholic Religion? Or for some "pope" they elect converts to the Catholic Religion? Doesn't that place the future of the Catholic Church in the hands of heretics?
Well the only other option is that there are NO electors.
-
Well the only other option is that there are NO electors.
I don't know...is it? If these men who DON'T have the Faith can have "material succession" and can be "electors", why can't the Traditional clergy who DO have the Faith have material succession and be electors?
I know there are many who think it is absolutely impossible for the Traditional clergy to be valid successors to the apostles, but as time marches on I wonder whether this is something that is just taken for granted in trad land.
I don't have the answers, but I can not look to the Novus Ordo heretic-"bishops" for the next true pope.
-
I don't know...is it? If these men who DON'T have the Faith can have "material succession" and can be "electors", why can't the Traditional clergy who DO have the Faith have material succession and be electors?
I know there are many who think it is absolutely impossible for the Traditional clergy to be valid successors to the apostles, but as time marches on I wonder whether this is something that is just taken for granted in trad land.
I don't have the answers, but I can not look to the Novus Ordo heretic-"bishops" for the next true pope.
Well how would we know it's a legitimate conclave? Right now there are already a number of "traditionalist" anti-Popes.
-
Well how would we know it's a legitimate conclave? Right now there are already a number of "traditionalist" anti-Popes.
Granted, this is pie in the sky and would require a lot of things to happen beforehand, but what if ALL of the well-known traditional bishops united to elect a pope? How would that conclave be any less legitimate than all of the Novus Ordo "bishops" uniting to elect a "pope"?
-
Because some of them are already dead perhaps?
Then it should say "two more worm-ridden popes will die"
-
Granted, this is pie in the sky and would require a lot of things to happen beforehand, but what if ALL of the well-known traditional bishops united to elect a pope? How would that conclave be any less legitimate than all of the Novus Ordo "bishops" uniting to elect a "pope"?
Regarding Papal elections, the authority remains in the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904. See # 17. "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have.
Even if you wanted to argue as Clemens Maria said, that this Decree belongs to the realm of Disciplinary Law and could potentially be reversible, who could reverse it? Only a legitimate Pope has the authority necessary to abrogate a disciplinary Constitution of a previous Pope. In this case, Pius X, an unquestionable legitimate successor of St. Peter.
I know this is not what you or I want to hear, but it is what it is. Even conclavists must admit it, and they can become rather pathetic really fast (think Pope Michael). Reality does not go away just because we wish to. We, Catholic laywomen, personally don't need to be "waiting" for anything. What we need to do is saving our souls on a daily basis.
-
Regarding Papal elections, the authority remains in the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904. See # 17. "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have.
Even if you wanted to argue as Clemens Maria said, that this Decree belongs to the realm of Disciplinary Law and could potentially be reversible, who could reverse it? Only a legitimate Pope has the authority necessary to abrogate a disciplinary Constitution of a previous Pope. In this case, Pius X, an unquestionable legitimate successor of St. Peter.
I know this is not what you or I want to hear, but it is what it is. Even conclavists must admit it, and they can become rather pathetic really fast (think Pope Michael). Reality does not go away just because we wish to. We, Catholic laywomen, personally don't need to be "waiting" for anything. What we need to do is saving our souls on a daily basis.
Yes but, following on from your logic here, it'd be impossible for us to ever have a Pope again bar a sudden mass conversion of the Novus Ordo clergy. And even that would have some issues, seeing as their validity is certainly in question.
-
Then it should say "two more worm-ridden popes will die"
From the 1950's we had a series of wormy Jєω-popes, but the prophecy of two keeling- over on the same night implied a big event, a demarcation point.
-
Yes but, following on from your logic here, it'd be impossible for us to ever have a Pope again bar a sudden mass conversion of the Novus Ordo clergy. And even that would have some issues, seeing as their validity is certainly in question.
Do you know how to read? Only the Cardinalate would have to convert.
"Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904. See # 17 [...] the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church".
"All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have."
I advise you to take remedial reading to improve your comprehension.
Regarding the question of the Cardinalate's validity, they still hold material offices and positions of their bishopric and cardinalate, therefore, if they were to publicly abjure their heresy, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Sacrilege, their material episcopacy and cardinalate would be made whole & formal, hence, they'd become valid bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, and they could elect a legitimate pope.
-
“Only the College of Cardinals can elect a pope”
The College of Cardinals didn’t exist for the first 800 years of the Church’s existence and they were not the sole electors of the pope until the 12th century. Clearly it is not by Divine law/institution that they are so now. So it is by the Church’s disciplinary law that only the Cardinals can elect the pope. But a disciplinary law has no force in cases where necessity dictates an act contrary to the law. e.g. exceeding the speed limit to rush an injured person to the hospital.
On the other hand, that the hierarchy is solely responsible for the election of the pope is by Divine institution. So that law can not be violated under any circuмstances.
As you mentioned, and no one would disagree, an imperfect General Council can elect a pope. But you also say that only the jurisdictional hierarchy can convoke a General Council. Can you provide a reference for that? Not that I have never heard that before but I have never seen a pre-Vatican 2 reference for it.
It certainly isn’t required that the electors of the pope must have ordinary jurisdiction because otherwise how is it that the pope was elected in the past by the local clergy of Rome?
“as we know that it is impossible that the Church is left without possible electors of the [Pope].”
Yes because the Church is a perfect society. And a perfect society contains within itself everything necessary to fulfill its mission. But the Novus Ordo is not within the Church. So the notion that the legitimate electors are non-Catholic members of the Vatican 2 sect would place the electors (necessary for the continuation of the Church) outside the Church. The material designation wouldn’t put them inside the Church. Because a manifest heretic is outside the Church.
When I use the term Roman clergy I mean to include all the members (clerics) of the local diocese of Rome including the Cardinals, the auxiliary bishops, the priests, deacons, subdeacons, porters, etc as defined by the canon which you quoted.
You asked who can reverse disciplinary law? In cases of necessity a disciplinary law does not bind and the authority to elect the pope devolves to the highest existing authority in the hierarchy of the Church. These types of scenarios were contemplated by pre-Vatican 2 theologians and as far as I know I’m not proposing a novel point of view. Maybe it’s not a popular view but I didn’t make anything up. I’m basing my view on what pre-Vatican 2 theologians have written.
Finally, I disagree that there are no traditional Catholic clerics in Rome. I’m sure Fr Abramovitz knows better than I. Msgr Fenton and Msgr Van Noort both speculated about the possibility that a nuclear war could wipe out whole dioceses and even possibly all of them except the Roman See. It has been asserted by many theologians that the Roman See will always have at least some faithful living there or at least associated with the See even if they might be in exile. Of course it is dogma that the Holy See will never fail but to what level it can be reduced is not clear.
-
Do you know how to read? Only the Cardinalate would have to convert.
"Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904. See # 17 [...] the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church".
"All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have."
I advise you to take remedial reading to improve your comprehension.
Regarding the question of the Cardinalate's validity, they still hold material offices and positions of their bishopric and cardinalate, therefore, if they were to publicly abjure their heresy, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Sacrilege, their material episcopacy and cardinalate would be made whole & formal, hence, they'd become valid bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, and they could elect a legitimate pope.
There are quite a lot of Cardinals. It's still a mass conversion.
-
Regarding Papal elections, the authority remains in the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X, in 1904. See # 17. "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". All others being absolutely excluded whatsoever ecclesiastical or lay position they may have.
Even if you wanted to argue as Clemens Maria said, that this Decree belongs to the realm of Disciplinary Law and could potentially be reversible, who could reverse it? Only a legitimate Pope has the authority necessary to abrogate a disciplinary Constitution of a previous Pope. In this case, Pius X, an unquestionable legitimate successor of St. Peter.
I know this is not what you or I want to hear, but it is what it is. Even conclavists must admit it, and they can become rather pathetic really fast (think Pope Michael). Reality does not go away just because we wish to. We, Catholic laywomen, personally don't need to be "waiting" for anything. What we need to do is saving our souls on a daily basis.
So basically the Novus Ordo sect gets to hold the authority of the Catholic Church hostage until...... ?
-
So basically the Novus Ordo sect gets to hold the authority of the Catholic Church hostage until...... ?
The power of DESIGNATION remains under their control. What's the alternative? Pope Michael, who was elected pope by his mother and ex girlfriend?
According to the principles of sedeprivationism, if Francis were to convert tomorrow, with a miraculous vision turning him into a new St. Pius X, the crisis is over. What is sedevacantism's answer? Thuc bishops gather and elect a new Pope? In fact, why haven't they done it already? Oh, wait, some have. Good luck having the Universal Church accept that election.
You keep beating your head against the wall because for some reason you cannot grasp the difference between the formal authority and the material office.
-
There are quite a lot of Cardinals. It's still a mass conversion.
The number of "Cardinals" compared to the rest of the "episcopacy" and clerics in the Novus Ordo is much less. You're using the term "mass" (as in large) loosely, when a true mass conversion would be the conversions of the far higher number of "bishops" and priests outside of the "cardinalate", which is exactly what you implied because you misread what was posted by Cantarella. Just own your mistake.
-
So the heretics hold the power of designation. Still sounds like they have the upper hand here... until Francis converts. And what if he doesnt? What if none of these cardinal-heretics convert?
Meanwhile the men that are Catholic and are undoubtedly true bishops have their hands tied. I still think there has got to be another answer that lines up with Catholic teaching.
Don't worry I'm not banging my head. I just disagree that the Cassiciacuм Thesis is the answer. It places too much power in the hands of heretics.
-
The power of DESIGNATION remains under their control. What's the alternative? Pope Michael, who was elected pope by his mother and ex girlfriend?
According to the principles of sedeprivationism, if Francis were to convert tomorrow, with a miraculous vision turning him into a new St. Pius X, the crisis is over. What is sedevacantism's answer? Thuc bishops gather and elect a new Pope? In fact, why haven't they done it already? Oh, wait, some have. Good luck having the Universal Church accept that election.
Yes, it does seem unlikely at the moment but it’s the duty of the hierarchy to provide the Church with a pope so not holding an election is not an option. The question isn’t whether it should be done or not but how it should be done such that there can be no reasonable objection by the existing clergy.
That the Novus Ordo sect possesses the power of designation does not in my opinion qualify as a reasonable objection.
-
It certainly isn’t required that the electors of the pope must have ordinary jurisdiction because otherwise how is it that the pope was elected in the past by the local clergy of Rome?
That was probably long before the Ecuмenical Second Lateran Council in 1139 defined that the entire election of the Pope belonged exclusively to the Cardinals. Also, that the choice of Pope is left to the Cardinals, was re-affirmed in the Third Lateran Council (also Ecuмenical) in 1179, when it decreed "he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the Cardinals."
-
That was probably long before the Ecuмenical Second Lateran Council in 1139 defined that the entire election of the Pope belonged exclusively to the Cardinals. Also, that the choice of Pope is left to the Cardinals, was re-affirmed in the Third Lateran Council (also Ecuмenical) in 1179, when it decreed "he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the Cardinals."
There was a controversy in the Middle Ages (I may have some of the details wrong but I think I have the gist of it here) where someone was accusing a pope of having gained the papacy by conspiring with a group of Cardinals to manipulate the election. Which would have been a violation of the electoral law. But theologians agreed that even if the law had been violated if the Cardinals and the bishops accepted the results, it was a legitimate election and the man elected was truly the pope. If that election was valid, how much more valid would it have been if the violation of the law was necessary for the election to even take place? So yes, the current law says that only the Cardinals can be electors but there are no members of the Church who are Cardinals so obviously the law cannot bind. That’s a basic principle of law. Look it up.
-
The power of DESIGNATION remains under their control. What's the alternative? Pope Michael, who was elected pope by his mother and ex girlfriend?
According to the principles of sedeprivationism, if Francis were to convert tomorrow, with a miraculous vision turning him into a new St. Pius X, the crisis is over. What is sedevacantism's answer? Thuc bishops gather and elect a new Pope? In fact, why haven't they done it already? Oh, wait, some have. Good luck having the Universal Church accept that election.
That is true. A Divine intervention of that nature would resolve the whole crisis by removing the "impediment". It really does not matter the destiny of the hundreds of Modernist bishops existing today, or what happens to the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy, as long as the Roman Catholic Papacy is fully restored. Everything hinges exclusively upon the person of the successor of St. Peter, where all Jurisdiction comes from.
Another example of a bizarre conclavist attempt was that of The El Palmar the Troya, where a certain deluded individual "Clemente Dominguez" tried to make himself Pope and was known as "Pope Gregory XVII".
-
Do you really think Our Lord would allow the Lavender Mafia to designate the pope much less elect one? They aren’t just a bunch of wayward men. They are an organized religion consisting of an estimated 80% perverts who think child molestation is just boys being boys. If they professed the Apostolic faith this crisis would be their fault. But as it is they do not profess the Apostolic faith, they are not in communion with one another much less in communion with the saints. They have banal, unholy rites. Their orders are not valid never mind holy. They are not catholic because no saint from previous centuries would recognize their doctrine nor their liturgies. You might as well assert that the devil himself has the power to designate. I find that to be absurd.
-
Yes, the Pope converting is the most likely way a solution will come. There are around 120 Cardinal electors. If the conservative Prelates are smart, at least a majority (it could be even 20 to 30 on the first ballot, later coming up to 50 to 60) will coalesce around the most conservative/Tradition-leaning candidate. A solution could come like that also.
Fr. Kevin Cusick https://twitter.com/MCITLFrAphorism/status/986280515232821248 a Rorate Caeli contributor, said he was told Cardinal Burke is now a leading Papabile/candidate most likely to be elected when the next conclave comes.
Pope Michael is hardly a solution. A conclave without the Roman clergy will always lead to a similar result regrettably. Cardinals are an ecclesiastical dignity, just like Archbishops. But you had Roman clergy with St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome (like St. Clement and St. Linus) right from Apostolic times.
Then there are about 5100 Bishops in the universal Church. Trying to assemble all of them (or even a majority of them) at a general Council is very unlikely. I doubt the solution will come like that. Then, there are the jurisdiction issues. I doubt any Bishop will ever agree the last 5/6 Popes were never Popes in the first place, as they would radically undermine their own episcopal authority if they did.
Maybe, they may pass judgment, or make the declaration of nullity against the current Pope in office, but that's it. More likely, the Cardinals will unite to elect the best possible candidate as Pope. Anyway, God is still in control. If in the next 10-15 years, God willing, a solution comes, we can plan how we will re-evangelize the world after that in the decades to come. Setting things right in the Church is only the first stage. Combatting aggressive secularism and all that is wrong in the world will have to take place anyway after that.
Ven. Mary of Agreda says Christ has reserved the triumph over all heresies for His Blessed Mother, and it will be She Who in a special way will extend His reign over the Mohammedans near the end times. Also, the symbol of the moon under Her feet in Revelation is another indication from Sacred Scripture, like "She will crush your head" from Gen 3:15, that Mother Mary will play a special role in defeating this heresy of Islam and all other heresies. Let us pray for the conversion of all non-Christians to Christ and the Church.
-
XavierSem, hope you are practicing making acts of perfect contrition. Your priests, if they aren’t already invalid will soon be.
-
Don't worry I'm not banging my head.
No, but maybe your neck is too stiff.
-
Hey, Poche, +Francis may not have kissed the Koran, which is a heretical act and a grave sin against the 1st commandment, but he did worse - he said that God wills that false religions exist. This is outright heresy because it denies the dogma of the social Kingship of Christ and His Church! From the inter-Faith docuмent:
The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/ (https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/)
p.s. ...
JPII did kiss the Koran though...one of his many heretical acts which he never publicly abjured.
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/03/john-paul2-kissed-muslim-koran/ (https://novusordowatch.org/2018/03/john-paul2-kissed-muslim-koran/)
What is meant is that God permits this diversity. However he is leading the Muslims in the direction of Christianity. He got the sheikh to sign a docuмent recognizing the right to full citizenship for all Christians in the countries in which they reside.
-
No, but maybe your neck is too stiff.
:laugh1: :ready-to-eat:
-
Do you really think Our Lord would allow the Lavender Mafia to designate the pope much less elect one? They aren’t just a bunch of wayward men. They are an organized religion consisting of an estimated 80% perverts who think child molestation is just boys being boys. If they professed the Apostolic faith this crisis would be their fault. But as it is they do not profess the Apostolic faith, they are not in communion with one another much less in communion with the saints. They have banal, unholy rites. Their orders are not valid never mind holy. They are not catholic because no saint from previous centuries would recognize their doctrine nor their liturgies. You might as well assert that the devil himself has the power to designate. I find that to be absurd.
I have said it elsewhere that the Cassiciacuм Thesis made more sense in the earlier days of the Crisis, but at this point? Not so much.
-
Poche, you are interpreting +Francis in an orthodox manner but what he said was heresy.
-
What is meant is that God permits this diversity. However he is leading the Muslims in the direction of Christianity. He got the sheikh to sign a docuмent recognizing the right to full citizenship for all Christians in the countries in which they reside.
We know that's not what Francis Bergoglio meant. Yes, God, by His permissive will, does allow false religions to flourish ... as per the parable in which the master allowed the cockle to grow among the wheat. But we know that Francis meant that God willed these religions as a positive good by which people can be united to Him by many roads. In the parable, it was declared that "an enemy hath done this" (planted the cockle), but for Francis it was God Himself who sowed the cockle.
-
I have said it elsewhere that the Cassiciacuм Thesis made more sense in the earlier days of the Crisis, but at this point? Not so much.
On the contrary, it makes even more sense now. With sedevacantism, since the crisis has gone on so long, it would appear as if the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church has completely ceased.
-
So the heretics hold the power of designation. Still sounds like they have the upper hand here... until Francis converts.
... or dies and is replaced by a Catholic.
Of course they hold the upper hand; that's why we're in the mess.
-
I recall some Catholic prophecy to the effect that St. Peter himself would appear at a conclave to designate the man who should be elected Pope. Regardless about our quibbles on the theological fine points, we Catholics all agree that God can and will end this crisis when He sees fit.
-
Poche, you are a true lighthouse on this tempestuous sea of life. Your light and insight prevents so many ships from wrecking themselves on the rocks of the Novus Ordo seacoast.
Were it not for your constant reminders of the banality and mind-bending mental gymnastics of Novus Ordo Land, some of those lost vessels may be tempted to seek safety within its harbors.
</scarcasm>
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O9sWCEqZmSo/TRD7BLTWNuI/AAAAAAAAAn8/lPb2HS7UQz8/s1600/anniemaguire2.jpg)
-
Poche, you are a true lighthouse on this tempestuous sea of life. Your light and insight prevents so many ships from wrecking themselves on the rocks of the Novus Ordo seacoast.
Were it not for your constant reminders of the banality and mind-bending mental gymnastics of Novus Ordo Land, some of those lost vessels may be tempted to seek safety within its harbors.
One could almost say the same thing about Francis Bergoglio. Some in the Novus Ordo, those who have any sense of Catholic faith left, have started to wake up about the crisis thanks to his over-the-top antics.
-
Regardless about our quibbles on the theological fine points, we Catholics all agree that God can and will end this crisis when [and how] He sees fit.
With a slight change to your quote, I certainly can agree with you there. I think the "how" is where we disagree. In my opinion, the "how" will eventually include the well known, traditional Catholic clergy, not the heretic, Novus Ordo clergy.
-
We know that's not what Francis Bergoglio meant. Yes, God, by His permissive will, does allow false religions to flourish ... as per the parable in which the master allowed the cockle to grow among the wheat. But we know that Francis meant that God willed these religions as a positive good by which people can be united to Him by many roads. In the parable, it was declared that "an enemy hath done this" (planted the cockle), but for Francis it was God Himself who sowed the cockle.
Anyone that believes that non-pope Francis means it any other way needs to get off the weed. It is getting way to late in the game to believe that he means it in a traditional way.
-
Yes, the Pope converting is the most likely way a solution will come. There are around 120 Cardinal electors. If the conservative Prelates are smart, at least a majority (it could be even 20 to 30 on the first ballot, later coming up to 50 to 60) will coalesce around the most conservative/Tradition-leaning candidate. A solution could come like that also.
Fr. Kevin Cusick https://twitter.com/MCITLFrAphorism/status/986280515232821248 a Rorate Caeli contributor, said he was told Cardinal Burke is now a leading Papabile/candidate most likely to be elected when the next conclave comes.
Pope Michael is hardly a solution. A conclave without the Roman clergy will always lead to a similar result regrettably. Cardinals are an ecclesiastical dignity, just like Archbishops. But you had Roman clergy with St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome (like St. Clement and St. Linus) right from Apostolic times.
Then there are about 5100 Bishops in the universal Church. Trying to assemble all of them (or even a majority of them) at a general Council is very unlikely. I doubt the solution will come like that. Then, there are the jurisdiction issues. I doubt any Bishop will ever agree the last 5/6 Popes were never Popes in the first place, as they would radically undermine their own episcopal authority if they did.
Maybe, they may pass judgment, or make the declaration of nullity against the current Pope in office, but that's it. More likely, the Cardinals will unite to elect the best possible candidate as Pope. Anyway, God is still in control. If in the next 10-15 years, God willing, a solution comes, we can plan how we will re-evangelize the world after that in the decades to come. Setting things right in the Church is only the first stage. Combatting aggressive secularism and all that is wrong in the world will have to take place anyway after that.
Ven. Mary of Agreda says Christ has reserved the triumph over all heresies for His Blessed Mother, and it will be She Who in a special way will extend His reign over the Mohammedans near the end times. Also, the symbol of the moon under Her feet in Revelation is another indication from Sacred Scripture, like "She will crush your head" from Gen 3:15, that Mother Mary will play a special role in defeating this heresy of Islam and all other heresies. Let us pray for the conversion of all non-Christians to Christ and the Church.
Just as people continue to put their faith in the NO Cardinals like Mueller and Burke they are putting their faith in the wrong place. Just listen to what Mueller the savior had to say very recently:
Spiegel: Is Pope Francis a heretic, a denier of dogma, as some few princes of the Church insinuate?
Müller: No. This Pope is orthodox, that is, doctrinally sound [rechtgläubig] in the Catholic sense. But it is his task to bring the Church together in truth, and it would be dangerous if he were to succuмb to the temptation of pitting the camp that boasts of its progressivism, against the rest of the Church. …
(Walter Mayr, “Als hätte Gott selbst gesprochen” (http://www.spiegel.de/plus/gerhard-ludwig-mueller-kritisiert-papst-franziskus-als-haette-gott-selbst-gesprochen-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000162407662), Der Spiegel, Feb. 16, 2019, p. 50; our translation.)
Heresy is so prevalent in the NO now down to the smallest parish, that to believe that the Bark of Peter is going to right itself by human efforts such as a conclave is total nonsense.
-
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow called and he wants everyone to know that Frank is not Orthodox.