Author Topic: "Pope Michael" on the SSPX (Read 25697 times)

VinnyF · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:33:42 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: VinnyF
I think it is high time that we had a pope who sounds like he came from an Arkansas trailer park - it would drive the Vaticanistas insane. Hopefully, though, it would be a Pope that is at least an ordained priest.

Hi Vinny!

This your maiden voyage here?

Nope .. been pontificating on Cathinfo since early 2012.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2014, 12:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Columba
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance?
Yes. Bishop Tissier said so in his 2013 Pentecost Sermon (see Catholic Family News May 2013). ABL said "we have the four marks". Bishop Tissier says we have apostolocity.

Quote from: Columba
If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.
That is true regardless of one's position with respect to the validity of Francis' claim to the papacy. The pope is the bishop of Rome.

Excellent. We have Apostolocity. Prepare to march upon Rome.

I think instead of marching upon Rome as if worldly glory was important, Catholics need to stand fast in the Catholic Faith. Any outward public action would probably be goaded on by the Evil One. In fact, that's "Pope" Michael's biggest sin. A well-read guy with above average intelligence could see some issues with the R&R view, but if he takes a drastic action (like proclaiming himself "pope") then he would at that point engage in likely sinful activities.

Best I can tell, there are only three available non-temporary postures toward modernist Rome: separation, submission, and conquest. The first would equate to schism and the second to modernism. That leaves only the third option, if constrained by a requirement to maintain Apostolocity.

I get the feeling that you are working on the assumption that the modernists in Rome are actually members of the hierarchy of the Church. They are not. They are heretics and schismatics who have no authority in the Church whatsoever. If there is separation it is between them and the Church. Traditionalists are not separated from the Church. It is the schismatics who are separated from the Church hence they are also separated from traditionalists. Don't forget that ABL called the Romans schismatic. He called the Conciliar Church a schismatic church. So the separation/submission/conquest distinction doesn't really work in this situation. The modernists in Rome ought to convert to Catholicism but if they choose not to the Church is not thereby lacking anything necessary. The only thing that truly is necessary is for traditionalists to wake up and understand that they have the authority to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They have that authority right now. The only thing blocking the restoration of the Church hierarchy is the confusion of traditionalists.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2014, 12:03:50 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

This should be doubly true for those around here who refer to Pope Francis as "Bergoglio," despite the plain fact of his being pope by all outwardly apparent criteria.

Does he have the four marks? Does he have apostolicity of doctrine (you can research it by reading Van Noort's ecclesiology text book). If he doesn't have apostolicity of doctrine, he is not the pope--not even by "outwardly apparent criteria".

Columba · « **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:11:56 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Columba
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance?
Yes. Bishop Tissier said so in his 2013 Pentecost Sermon (see Catholic Family News May 2013). ABL said "we have the four marks". Bishop Tissier says we have apostolocity.

Quote from: Columba
If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.
That is true regardless of one's position with respect to the validity of Francis' claim to the papacy. The pope is the bishop of Rome.

Excellent. We have Apostolocity. Prepare to march upon Rome.

I think instead of marching upon Rome as if worldly glory was important, Catholics need to stand fast in the Catholic Faith. Any outward public action would probably be goaded on by the Evil One. In fact, that's "Pope" Michael's biggest sin. A well-read guy with above average intelligence could see some issues with the R&R view, but if he takes a drastic action (like proclaiming himself "pope") then he would at that point engage in likely sinful activities.

Best I can tell, there are only three available non-temporary postures toward modernist Rome: separation, submission, and conquest. The first would equate to schism and the second to modernism. That leaves only the third option, if constrained by a requirement to maintain Apostolocity.

I get the feeling that you are working on the assumption that the modernists in Rome are actually members of the hierarchy of the Church. They are not. They are heretics and schismatics who have no authority in the Church whatsoever. If there is separation it is between them and the Church. Traditionalists are not separated from the Church. It is the schismatics who are separated from the Church hence they are also separated from traditionalists. Don't forget that ABL called the Romans schismatic. He called the Conciliar Church a schismatic church. So the separation/submission/conquest distinction doesn't really work in this situation. The modernists in Rome ought to convert to Catholicism but if they choose not to the Church is not thereby lacking anything necessary. The only thing that truly is necessary is for traditionalists to wake up and understand that they have the authority to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They have that authority right now. The only thing blocking the restoration of the Church hierarchy is the confusion of traditionalists.

If traditionalists were to wake up shake off confusion, how would they go about restoring the hierarchy of the Church?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2014, 02:09:43 PM »

Columba,

Traditionalists would make a very big mistake if they tried to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They must only remain true to the Catholic Faith and wait. To remain faithful, that would be a big enough challenge in and of itself.

Picking up swords and storming the bastille - that's all bloody fun but it will only get you dead and anyone trying out this option will almost certainly commit a mortal sin in the process.

Maybe this will all straighten itself out over the next several centuries.

I did say in another post that it's unlikely that any of us alive now and posting will live to see the Restoration.

But we must hold fast to the Catholic Faith. As Fr. Cekeda said, "You can be saved without the Catholic Mass but you cannot be saved without the Catholic Faith."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #50 on:** January 31, 2014, 02:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Columba
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance?
Yes. Bishop Tissier said so in his 2013 Pentecost Sermon (see Catholic Family News May 2013). ABL said "we have the four marks". Bishop Tissier says we have apostolocity.

Quote from: Columba
If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.
That is true regardless of one's position with respect to the validity of Francis' claim to the papacy. The pope is the bishop of Rome.

Excellent. We have Apostolocity. Prepare to march upon Rome.

I think instead of marching upon Rome as if worldly glory was important, Catholics need to stand fast in the Catholic Faith. Any outward public action would probably be goaded on by the Evil One. In fact, that's "Pope" Michael's biggest sin. A well-read guy with above average intelligence could see some issues with the R&R view, but if he takes a drastic action (like proclaiming himself "pope") then he would at that point engage in likely sinful activities.

Best I can tell, there are only three available non-temporary postures toward modernist Rome: separation, submission, and conquest. The first would equate to schism and the second to modernism. That leaves only the third option, if constrained by a requirement to maintain Apostolocity.

I get the feeling that you are working on the assumption that the modernists in Rome are actually members of the hierarchy of the Church. They are not. They are heretics and schismatics who have no authority in the Church whatsoever. If there is separation it is between them and the Church. Traditionalists are not separated from the Church. It is the schismatics who are separated from the Church hence they are also separated from traditionalists. Don't forget that ABL called the Romans schismatic. He called the Conciliar Church a schismatic church. So the separation/submission/conquest distinction doesn't really work in this situation. The modernists in Rome ought to convert to Catholicism but if they choose not to the Church is not thereby lacking anything necessary. The only thing that truly is necessary is for traditionalists to wake up and understand that they have the authority to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They have that authority right now. The only thing blocking the restoration of the Church hierarchy is the confusion of traditionalists.

I happen to like the 3 options proposed by Columba and his conclusion. I am not claiming to be a sedevacantist. However, if there is no pope in Rome and the entire Vatican is occupied by enemies of Christ's Church are we to sit at our comfortable homes on the internet typing about it or are we going to reclaim Rome for Christianity? The crusaders were willing to suffer everything to put the Holylands back into Christian hands and traditionalists who claim to be sedevacantists are willing to forfeit all of Rome to non-Chritians! It is apparent cowardice in my opinion. Christians won't let the see remain empty and occupied by an impost, they would take back their Church and establish a legitimate successor by force. Am I wrong?

Ambrose · « **Reply #51 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Columba
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance?
Yes. Bishop Tissier said so in his 2013 Pentecost Sermon (see Catholic Family News May 2013). ABL said "we have the four marks". Bishop Tissier says we have apostolocity.

Quote from: Columba
If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.
That is true regardless of one's position with respect to the validity of Francis' claim to the papacy. The pope is the bishop of Rome.

Excellent. We have Apostolocity. Prepare to march upon Rome.

I think instead of marching upon Rome as if worldly glory was important, Catholics need to stand fast in the Catholic Faith. Any outward public action would probably be goaded on by the Evil One. In fact, that's "Pope" Michael's biggest sin. A well-read guy with above average intelligence could see some issues with the R&R view, but if he takes a drastic action (like proclaiming himself "pope") then he would at that point engage in likely sinful activities.

Best I can tell, there are only three available non-temporary postures toward modernist Rome: separation, submission, and conquest. The first would equate to schism and the second to modernism. That leaves only the third option, if constrained by a requirement to maintain Apostolocity.

I get the feeling that you are working on the assumption that the modernists in Rome are actually members of the hierarchy of the Church. They are not. They are heretics and schismatics who have no authority in the Church whatsoever. If there is separation it is between them and the Church. Traditionalists are not separated from the Church. It is the schismatics who are separated from the Church hence they are also separated from traditionalists. Don't forget that ABL called the Romans schismatic. He called the Conciliar Church a schismatic church. So the separation/submission/conquest distinction doesn't really work in this situation. The modernists in Rome ought to convert to Catholicism but if they choose not to the Church is not thereby lacking anything necessary. The only thing that truly is necessary is for traditionalists to wake up and understand that they have the authority to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They have that authority right now. The only thing blocking the restoration of the Church hierarchy is the confusion of traditionalists.

If traditionalists were to wake up shake off confusion, how would they go about restoring the hierarchy of the Church?

There are only two ways:

1. God's direct intervention.

2. The mechanism of the Church.

If #2, then in the absence of the Cardinals the power of election falls to the Roman Clergy and the hierarchy. These two bodies cannot in toto defect from the Faith and become extinct. If a Pope is to be elected, the electors must be from these two groups.

The Pope must also rule over the diocese of Rome, so some or at least one faithful Roman priest must submit to him.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #52 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Traditionalists would make a very big mistake if they tried to restore the hierarchy of the Church. They must only remain true to the Catholic Faith and wait.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the "Reject and Wait" position is just as internally inconsistent as the "Recognize and Resist" position. The only position that really makes sense is to reject the authority of the modernist schismatics and recognize the authority of those clerics who remain in the Church. The Church must have a pope and it is up to the Church's clergy to elect a pope. There is no law preventing Catholic clergy from electing a pope in a sede vacante period.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #53 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:13:08 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

I happen to like the 3 options proposed by Columba and his conclusion. I am not claiming to be a sedevacantist. However, if there is no pope in Rome and the entire Vatican is occupied by enemies of Christ's Church are we to sit at our comfortable homes on the internet typing about it or are we going to reclaim Rome for Christianity? The crusaders were willing to suffer everything to put the Holylands back into Christian hands and traditionalists who claim to be sedevacantists are willing to forfeit all of Rome to non-Chritians! It is apparent cowardice in my opinion. Christians won't let the see remain empty and occupied by an impost, they would take back their Church and establish a legitimate successor by force. Am I wrong?

The way to reclaim Rome is to elect a Bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome must live and provide care to the people of Rome. He can't live with his parents in the Midwest. There is nothing preventing Catholic clergy from electing a legitimate bishop of Rome during a sede vacante period.

Matto · « **Reply #54 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:16:18 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

There is nothing preventing Catholic clergy from electing a legitimate bishop of Rome during a sede vacante period.

Hasn't this been tried before? What about Lucian Pulvermacher ("Pope Pius XIII").

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #55 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

There are only two ways:

1. God's direct intervention.

2. The mechanism of the Church.

If #2, then in the absence of the Cardinals the power of election falls to the Roman Clergy and the hierarchy. These two bodies cannot in toto defect from the Faith and become extinct. If a Pope is to be elected, the electors must be from these two groups.

The Pope must also rule over the diocese of Rome, so some or at least one faithful Roman priest must submit to him.

I would like to add only one thing to what you have said. The hierarchy eligible to elect the pope includes those bishops and/or priests who do not currently have or claim to have jurisdiction. For example, Bishop Tissier claims to have apostolic succession (see May 2013 Catholic Family News) and I would agree with him. If he does have apostolic succession he is certainly a member of the Catholic hierarchy even if he does not currently claim any jurisdiction. Therefore he is eligible to elect a pope. It is a fact of history that even laymen have cast votes for legitimate/valid popes.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #56 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:37:28 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Clemens Maria
There is nothing preventing Catholic clergy from electing a legitimate bishop of Rome during a sede vacante period.

Hasn't this been tried before? What about Lucian Pulvermacher ("Pope Pius XIII").

It's definitely a grey area. When a man is elected to the papacy he must be accepted by the clergy of Rome. What it means to be accepted by the clergy of Rome is not well defined. But I don't think an American priest who refuses (or can't afford) to set foot in Rome is not going to have much credibility. Also, such details as where the election is held and who participates also have an impact on the credibility of a candidate. If all the traditional bishops of the world participated in an election held in Rome and the candidate agreed to live in Rome and was accepted by all those bishops as the Bishop of Rome then that candidate would have enough credibility to be accepted (at least by Catholics) as the legitimate successor of Peter.

Please read the book _Behind_Locked_Doors_ ([url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403969620/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1403969620&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 for an interesting history of papal elections. I think you will be surprised (maybe shocked) at how mysterious and sometimes tenuous the legitimacy of a claim to the papacy can be. It definitely is not a black and white issue.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #57 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:43:47 PM »

Griff Ruby has written some interesting articles on the history of the traditional Catholic movement.

http://www.the-pope.com/library.html

He has also written some interesting articles for Daily Catholic which touch on the issue of a traditional Catholic papal election.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/

Matto · « **Reply #58 on:** January 31, 2014, 03:46:23 PM »

I don't trust Griff Ruby when it comes to religion.

P.S. the main reason I don't trust Griff Ruby is because he believes in evolution (at least I think he does from reading his website).

Ambrose · « **Reply #59 on:** January 31, 2014, 04:01:00 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Ambrose
There are only two ways:

1. God's direct intervention.

2. The mechanism of the Church.

If #2, then in the absence of the Cardinals the power of election falls to the Roman Clergy and the hierarchy. These two bodies cannot in toto defect from the Faith and become extinct. If a Pope is to be elected, the electors must be from these two groups.

The Pope must also rule over the diocese of Rome, so some or at least one faithful Roman priest must submit to him.

I would like to add only one thing to what you have said. The hierarchy eligible to elect the pope includes those bishops and/or priests who do not currently have or claim to have jurisdiction. For example, Bishop Tissier claims to have apostolic succession (see May 2013 Catholic Family News) and I would agree with him. If he does have apostolic succession he is certainly a member of the Catholic hierarchy even if he does not currently claim any jurisdiction. Therefore he is eligible to elect a pope. It is a fact of history that even laymen have cast votes for legitimate/valid popes.

Has anyone contacted Bp. Tissier to confirm as a fact that he is now claiming apostolic succession?

The traditional bishops and priests other than those sent by the Church have no more power to act in the Church than you or I. They have orders, and use those orders, but no mission or authority, or any greater power than a layman. The traditional clergy have no legal status, and operate strictly by the request of the people for the sacraments, and supplied jurisdiction for confessions on a case by case basis.

Laypeople in the early Church may have voted, but it was the clergy of Rome that mattered. Without the acclamation of the Roman Clergy, a man cannot be Pope.