I don't think I ever started a thread before. I did so this time because the thread on which the subject of Mother Teresa came up had been such a nice and friendly thread, I didn't want to spoil it.

I think that Mother Teresa, like countless other Catholics who went along with the New Pentecost of Vatican II, was led astray by false prophets of Apocalyptic proportions.

What really sticks in my craw when it comes to Mother Teresa is that some of the same Traditional Catholics who hone in (rightly) on her outrageously Indifferentistic statements ("We pray that Hindus become better Hindus, Catholics better Catholics...") are far more diffident towards the theologically savvy and foxy Churchmen who created the ecuмenical  "ambiguities" of Vatican II and continue to promote them.

The diabolical cruelty of the Vatican II system lies in the fact that ordinary souls are BOUND to assimilate the Vatican II "ambiguities" in a crudely heretical way, but then the Modernist churchmen who programmed them to veer from Catholic Truth into indifferentism can piously protest, "The theology if it is far more nuanced than THAT..."

It kills me that a case could be made that poor little old Mother Teresa was a material heretic and that those whose "ambiguous" doctrine drove her to that state could get off on all sorts of technicalities that Thomas Aquinas himself would be bound to honor.

Let's not go after little old ladies who helped the poor and loved Jesus and kind of got swept away in the Flood.

Let's go after that unspeakable creep in Vienna.

It's so misleading to speak of their being a "crisis" in the Church and among Catholics. What we've got here, folks, is Armageddon. "Men fainting for fear of what is coming upon the world..."

Take this very forum. There are SSPX supporters (or adherents) here. A sedevacantist or two. A Home Aloner Type. We find ourselves being Catholics in ways that strike other Catholics as being very peculiar. And yet there is some sort of unity about a basic Faith...

Mother Teresa probably imagined that her indifferentism was fully in line with the new and improved teaching and spirit of the Roman Pontiff.

I don't see the point in robbing her of the name Catholic.

She was a Catholic of a certain kind.

A post-Vatican II Catholic. Same as the rest of us, God help us all.

mt followed Whore Of Babylon v2 'church'. Whomever led her there is certainly more to blame but that doesn't absolve her of being a heretic. There is no such thing as a heretic who is a Catholic.

I'm not going to enter into the whole debate about whether adhering to Rome makes one a heretic; I see sedevacantism as it stands today as a great threat to the Faith. I'm sure some (or all) of the sedes see me as heretical for trusting in the Pope as being the successor of St. Peter.

What I think we need to be dreadfully careful about (because here we are talking about a deceased lady who cannot defend herself against these cries of "Heretic!") is chucking these tags around. Roscoe, it is possible to be MATERIALLY a heretic and yet act in good faith.

I quote from the Catholic Encylopedia newadvent.org:

There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.

Now assuming, hypothetically, that one believed heresy, because one had learnt it in innocence from a superior who one believed to be entirely orthodox, there would be no sin.

The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or  material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".

Also:

The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church.

I don't believe Mother Theresa was a heretic; but even if you want to argue that she was, you can hardly hold her culpable for it.

Ultimately, it's down to God to judge, thank goodness.

I meant "and her eventual (I daresay) canonization..."

It is those who adhere to said VI Constitution who comprise the true congegation of Faith. You cannot even doubt one word of the docuмent without committing a heresy. The v2 'church' has drastically altered the articles of Faith that evolved necessarily over eightheen hundred yrs into the Infallible docuмent.

The fact is that mt was an adherent of the v2 sect: it is that cut and dried for me.

I was hoping that someone here would have read Cuthbert-Butler's Vatican Council because this is the source from which I obtained what has been posted on Infallible Const. No one has ever attempted to argue about this with me so I am assuming to be correct in my interpretation of the author whos is by far a more qualified theologian than myself

For mt or anyone one else suffering from mpd/did.

Although a Protestant( and possibly a shill on top of that), Springmeier's book on MK is Illuminati Formula.  It is well worth reading in understanding the sytem of anti-christianity.

I am not trying to be difficult but have never described myself specifically as a sede vacantist. I do of course belive that the v2 'council' is no council at all and the modern 'popes' beg with john23 to be in fact anti-popes.

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com has evidence that Card Siri was actually elected Pope in 1958. TCW position is that he was held in a captivity of sorts until his death in 1989. Previous Popes like Pius VI and VII were held in captivity by Napoleon and so were other Popes in the past. There certainly is a precedent that this could be presently so.

Again I would recommend reading Poncins because historical truth is an end in itself. There is nothing in the book that is dangerous of threatening--it is a HISTORY book plain and simple

The current situation is different from the great schism when different Popes claimed the title. There was no heretical doctrine that came from either side. Now with v2, we have that in addition to their being anti-popes. Acc to Fr. Butler, there has been no infallibly declared word from the Vatican since the VI Constitution.

And I will stand corrected but even today one is still free to call any of the conflicting Popes during the GWS the true Pope--it has never been settled for sure.