Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
Quote from: obscurusWho cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."
Quote from: MattoQuote from: obscurusWho cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."
Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!
Quote from: FranciscoQuote from: MattoQuote from: obscurusWho cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."
Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!
Sorry! I've just looked at his stuff on the web. I withdraw my comment!
Quote from: MattoQuote from: obscurusWho cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."
Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!
Sorry! I've just looked at his stuff on the web. I withdraw my comment!
These opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.
Quote from: FranciscoQuote from: FranciscoQuote from: MattoQuote from: obscurusWho cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."
Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!
Sorry! I've just looked at his stuff on the web. I withdraw my comment!
This guy is no dummy. His video provides a laboratory demonstration of self-interpreting Tradition to custom-design one's own post-Vatican II traditionalist position (PV2TP). His action parallels the protestants' self-interpretation of the bible when custom designing their own denominations.
Michael's position is arguable, just like most of the other PV2TP's. Traffic on trad forums largely consists of such argumentation. Typically, each of the more thoughtful trads to develops his own unique PV2TP.
The protestant denomination development process ensures diverse conflicting doctrines, as the PV2TP development process also results in diversity.
It is mistaken to hold out one's own or one's groups' PV2TP as a test of Catholic orthodoxy. Instead, the sole measure should consist of pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but with the current status of papal office consigned as a paradox for the duration of the crisis.
I think it is schismatic for Catholics to divide from others who share pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but I do not hold this opinion out as a test of Catholic orthodoxy.
Quote from: WessexThese opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.
ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? 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.
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: WessexThese opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.
ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? 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.
Archbishop Lefebvre was dancing on a tightrope with an end to the modernist piper's tune nowhere in sight. It was a frightful and fruitless effort as the carnal melody still resounds louder than ever in Rome, having never ceased the siren of Gehenna.
Traditionalists don't really know what heritage they claim if any. There is black and there is white. That is orthodoxy according to what the Church has always said, and according to what She has always taught, believed and practiced. And there is heterodoxy which exists in rebellion to the former in direct parallel of its dark author.
But most traditionalists in general are happy living in an in between no man's land believing that Catholics can exist with a bit of grey over here and a bit over there as long as they can stand in the white circle on Sunday.
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?
Quote from: cantatedomino
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?
Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.
Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.
I wouldn't complain if I was in a fox hole with a solider who swore a lot because the enemy is trying to kill us both.
But I agree more introspection would be a good thing, in an ideal world.
Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.
Anyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut.
Anyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!
Quote from: cantatedomino
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?
Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.
Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.
I think it's actually introspection and questioning the status quo that convinced us trads to become trads.
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: WessexThese opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.
ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? 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.
Archbishop Lefebvre was dancing on a tightrope with an end to the modernist piper's tune nowhere in sight. It was a frightful and fruitless effort as the carnal melody still resounds louder than ever in Rome, having never ceased the siren of Gehenna.
Traditionalists don't really know what heritage they claim if any. There is black and there is white. That is orthodoxy according to what the Church has always said, and according to what She has always taught, believed and practiced. And there is heterodoxy which exists in rebellion to the former in direct parallel of its dark author.
But most traditionalists in general are happy living in an in between no man's land believing that Catholics can exist with a bit of grey over here and a bit over there as long as they can stand in the white circle on Sunday.
Quote from: ggregQuote from: cantatedomino
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?
Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.
Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.
Anti-social types are, by definition, those most resistant to the undertow of social change. When a society veers toward insanity, the anti-social will by default remain among those closest to sanity and therefore will disproportionately gravitate toward sanctuaries of sanity like the traditionalist movement.
The anti-social personality "package" that includes benefits such as ability to resist to mass insanity may also include negatives such as an inability to practice self-criticism.
Again, the "pope" Michael video serves as an illustrative example of common trad behavior. He fails to apply the critical faculties used against somebody else's (ABL's) position toward his own.
You cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.
R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: ggregQuote from: cantatedomino
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?
Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.
Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.
Anti-social types are, by definition, those most resistant to the undertow of social change. When a society veers toward insanity, the anti-social will by default remain among those closest to sanity and therefore will disproportionately gravitate toward sanctuaries of sanity like the traditionalist movement.
The anti-social personality "package" that includes benefits such as ability to resist to mass insanity may also include negatives such as an inability to practice self-criticism.
Again, the "pope" Michael video serves as an illustrative example of common trad behavior. He fails to apply the critical faculties used against somebody else's (ABL's) position toward his own.
I have a question: When you refer to the "anti-social personality package," do you exclude sociopathology?
I presume you do, but want to make sure.
And if, indeed, you do exclude psychopaths from this personality profile, then anything else you might be able to add by way of definitions or qualifying terminology would be most welcome.
Columba,QuoteYou cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.
R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.
Orthodoxy being the light of the Kingdom and heterodoxy being the darkness of Satan, black and white are laid out clearly enough. One resides in one or in the other. The "grey" appears by one unlike substance washing into the other. Imbibing this greyness excludes a soul from being in one or the other, leaving such people in a flux of adulteration thereby making I difficult or impossible to identify those who have left the light for darkness.
The modern papacies are not grey paradoxes. They have been stunningly heterodox, they have left the light and reside firmly in the Kingdom of Satan.
Mixing that reality with one's purity of Faith is the gravest danger to the soul, and all of the arguments for the greyness are no more than carnal excuses for the faithlessness of the Conciliarists of the parishes, in the Chanceries, and upon the Roman throne.
Trads need only consider what is orthodox and judge and act accordingly, rejecting all that in not of it.
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are? Have you noticed that cliche, party line, 'position,' and default settings have forcefully asserted themselves in that craven realty that self-nominates "traditional Catholic," apparently entirely replacing prayer, meditation, objective consideration, deep study, and consequent militant Catholic action?
What comes out of the mouth comes forth from the heart.
Whenever anything refuses to prune itself, God will come in and do the pruning.
A guy who has no evidence of ever having been ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, claims to occupy the Seat of Peter, because his parents and relatives held a papal election. That same man, proceeds to celebrate or pretend to celebrate the Holy Mass, and then points the finger at ABL for never declaring the new rite of ordination to be invalid. Is "pope" Michael's ordination valid? Who performed it? How about his consecration? Furthermore, even as a layman, his argument against ABL is ludicrous, because how could ABL have made a declaration of something about which he was not certain? Is "pope" Michael suggesting the the archbishop should have lied??? And his reasoning for why ABL should have made the declaration is for political/pragmatic reasons. Does the Holy Church make theological declarations based on politics, pragmatics, and convenience??? So let me reiterate what others have said already, who cares what "pope" Michael thinks?
Oh come on. It is always nice to hear from "His Holiness". :wink:
I am pretty sure that no pope has ever used the phrase, "Dag gum".
Sojourning in this veil of tears, one encounters problems where there is no clear or clean solution. One chooses the lessor of apparent evils with confidence that God will judge our decision on subjective motive rather than objective outcome.
You apparently ascribe to a version of Sedevacantism despite arguments put forth that such a position is erroneous. I do not begrudge you this position, except to say that dogmatizing it into an issue of black and white is mistaken. Pre-Vatican II orthodoxy is dogmatic, but one's personal post-Vatican II position cannot be.
I dare say that if your position were fully fleshed out and dogmatized, it would divide you from practically every other professed traditionalist Catholic alive today.
I do not begrudge you this position, except to say that dogmatizing it into an issue of black and white is mistaken. Pre-Vatican II orthodoxy is dogmatic, but one's personal post-Vatican II position cannot be.
If pre Vatican II orthodoxy is the benchmark of what you dogmatize, I am saying that you should live according to and by that dogmatic framework, be guided by it, and be faithful to it.
The problem with Traditionalists today is that they content themselves with living in a constant state of "lesser of two evils", so often compromising and salving their conscience by appealing to the maxim. A concept so well overtaxed today just as R&R is, Such actions which should be used occasionally or a short term solutions, are now institutionalized in Catholic thought as a permanent way of life.
And yet you, like so many others are quite dogmatic when one criticizes an aspect of the Archbishop or the inconsistency of R&R or the faithlessness of the Conciliar popes, whereby such a one must be determined to be a Sedevacantist as a given fact.
You can be assured that orthodoxy is dogmatic, but to say that "one's personal post-Vatican II position cannot be" is the clear surrender to Conciliar induced pragmatism and is itself an alarming statement.
Only when uncompromised and unalterable orthodoxy is championed once again by Traditionalists, will it be possible to rout the Conciliar criminals and mitered rats from the safe harbor which this pragmatism and prudence has provided for them since the council.
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.
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.
Quote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
Quote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
Quote from: SigismundOh come on. It is always nice to hear from "His Holiness". :wink:
I am pretty sure that no pope has ever used the phrase, "Dag gum".
He also published an encyclical, dated August 10, 2010, well sort of... the title itself speaks volumes:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-bawden/strange-contacts/144323052264532
Strange Contacts
There are several people who have been causing my friends and me trouble over the past years. They are separated into two unrelated groups. I wish to take this time to issue a warning to my friends of these problems, and ask you to forward me anything suspicious.
Let us proceed to the first group of people, who have been plaguing my friends and I for about seven years, according to their claim. They have masqueraded as everything from Catholic laymen to priests, to communities who wish to join with me in the Catholic Church, to Bishops and even to a claim to the Papacy. They have used so mamny names and fake email addresses over the years that I have been unable and unwilling to attempt and sort them out. They have not only attacked my friends and I, but also my enemies.
Although I see no difficulty through Facebook of a serious attack, you should be warned of what they have done. In early 2005, I had just built a new computer with a fresh install of Windows XP and Norton Antivirus. I received an email with an attachment from pope@vatican.va. I deleted the attachment immediately, but not quickly enough, because the computer slowly went down sick with a virus. (No, I do not believe they are connected with Antipope John Paul II the Great Deceiver or Benedict XV or the usurpers in the Vatican City State.) More recently my computer got sick again and would simply shut down for no reason. I would be going along and the power would shut immediately off. I reformatted and the computer began showing signs of sickness again. Several others I was in contact with at the same time also suffered serious problems. However, if you run Vista or Windows 7, you should be fine. I was still running XP at the time. This group may even have stolen the identity of a former friend, who has decided to become my enemy and is part of the other smaller group I will discuss in a moment. Note well, I have seen no evidence that these two groups are in any way related, except the group I am discussing has made contact with the other group I will soon discuss, as well as many others on the internet.
This group will make wild claims from being a Bishop supporting Pope Michael to being totally against Pope Michael, and anything in between. I would name names, but that would only stir them up again. They will most likely see this note and may be my 'friend' on Facebook at the moment. I have a policy of accepting most friend requests. I only turn down those, which are not proper, such as a recent one from a prostitute, promoting her wares on Facebook, which I believe is against Facebook policy. (I also reported here as well, but probably some of you have had to do this as well.) I am simply here, because there is a community that wishes to discuss serious matters. This enemy I am discussing so harassed members of an egroup I was in for the same reason, that we all had to shut it down. Security must be better here at Facebook, which protects all of us.
Now to the other smaller group. In this group there are only two, possibly three on the internet. Only one is on Facebook, and she has 'declared war' on me, stating: “Know this, ..., I will NOT be silenced!!! If I can help just one person to know what you are doing to people I will do my best. I have all the proof I'll ever need for any situation which may arise and I'm not afraid. It is my duty and my right to expose who and what you are.” She has contacted at least two of my friends and made some rather strong statements about me that are utterly false. However, I prefer not to name any names, for the same reason as I gave above. However, I don't think she can see what you or I write as none of you are friends with her. (This was not true, a few days ago, but the mutual friend unfriended both of us.)
In the same message she claims not to have contacted me in two years, when she sent me an email on February 5, 2010, and a signed notarized letter from herself and three others from July 2009. This should be enough to discredit this person, who admitted to me in an email in 2008, that she does not remember things well, when I inquired about incidents from the previous year. She was my friend, but a fair-weather friend at the time.
If you receive anything, I will happily answer any and all questions and help make all things clear. Until then, I ask you to pray for these people that they may cease what they are doing and start working for the good of the Catholic Church, which is why I believe all of us are friends here.
Pope Michael
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
Quote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
So, cutting to the chase, can I say "separation, submission,conquest from/of Pope Francis"? If so, separation and submission are fairly straightforward. Conquest, in the Catholic sense, can only mean conversion, assuming he is Pope and layman cannot (canonically) depose a pope. True?
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.
Quote from: VinnyFI 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?
Quote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
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.
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
Quote from: ColumbaQuote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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.
Quote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: ColumbaDoes 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: ColumbaIf 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?
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 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?
There is nothing preventing Catholic clergy from electing a legitimate bishop of Rome during a sede vacante period.
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.
Quote from: Clemens MariaThere 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").
Quote from: AmbroseThere 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.
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.
Quote from: BTNYCThis 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".
Quote from: CentroamericaI 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.
Quote from: Capt McQuiggColumba,
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.
Evangelization is not picking up swords. Remaining faithful requires obedience to the Great Commission. We should be doing this anyway, despite whether or not we have ambitions toward Rome.
I think that if evangelization brought about a massive exodus of faithful from the NO and a massive influx to Tradition, that would motivate heresiarchs to join the winning side or risk losing their Roman office.
With ceasefire declared among participating trad groups, newcomers would not be scared off by the demoralizing factionalism. At the very least, a traditionalist evangelization drive would result in the salvation of souls. It is what we are supposed to be doing anyway.
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: ColumbaQuote from: WessexThese opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.
ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.
Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? 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.
Archbishop Lefebvre was dancing on a tightrope with an end to the modernist piper's tune nowhere in sight. It was a frightful and fruitless effort as the carnal melody still resounds louder than ever in Rome, having never ceased the siren of Gehenna.
Traditionalists don't really know what heritage they claim if any. There is black and there is white. That is orthodoxy according to what the Church has always said, and according to what She has always taught, believed and practiced. And there is heterodoxy which exists in rebellion to the former in direct parallel of its dark author.
But most traditionalists in general are happy living in an in between no man's land believing that Catholics can exist with a bit of grey over here and a bit over there as long as they can stand in the white circle on Sunday.
Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are? Have you noticed that cliche, party line, 'position,' and default settings have forcefully asserted themselves in that craven realty that self-nominates "traditional Catholic," apparently entirely replacing prayer, meditation, objective consideration, deep study, and consequent militant Catholic action?
What comes out of the mouth comes forth from the heart.
Whenever anything refuses to prune itself, God will come in and do the pruning.
Quote from: hollingsworthAnyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!
In that case, it would be a case of mental illness and not malice nor ignorance.
I don't think anyone who posts on CathInfo thinks "Pope" Michael is actually the Vicar of Christ.
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
Quote from: Clemens MariaThere 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").
Quote from: Sigismund
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
I read that he recently got a Bishop to ordain him a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and follow him. I think it was a Thuc line bishop. So he does have a small following. :king:
Quote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: hollingsworthAnyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!
In that case, it would be a case of mental illness and not malice nor ignorance.
I don't think anyone who posts on CathInfo thinks "Pope" Michael is actually the Vicar of Christ.
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
Quote from: SigismundQuote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: hollingsworthAnyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!
In that case, it would be a case of mental illness and not malice nor ignorance.
I don't think anyone who posts on CathInfo thinks "Pope" Michael is actually the Vicar of Christ.
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
If I'm not mistaken his mother and father have both publicly expressed regret for their involvement in the affair.
I agree but at least he ("Michael") is a true bishop now, which is more than I can say (for sure) about Francis. And a billion people follow him.
Matto:QuoteI agree but at least he ("Michael") is a true bishop now, which is more than I can say (for sure) about Francis. And a billion people follow him.
Really!? A true bishop now!? I would be interested to learn from sedes on this forum how many of them, even, believe that this deluded man is a bishop. He is just another, in a long line of supposed Catholic clerics, bringing shame upon the ancient Faith.
:dancing-banana:
I wonder if "Pope" Michael knows he has two rivals for his throne, one in Tennessee, the other in Maine? And these are just the two I've encountered in person! Both are, um...a bit "off."
Quote from: MattoQuote from: Sigismund
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
I read that he recently got a Bishop to ordain him a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and follow him. I think it was a Thuc line bishop. So he does have a small following. :king:
The consecrator is Bishop Robert Biarnesen. Does anyone know anything about him?
Quote from: SoldierOfChristA guy who has no evidence of ever having been ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, claims to occupy the Seat of Peter, because his parents and relatives held a papal election. That same man, proceeds to celebrate or pretend to celebrate the Holy Mass, and then points the finger at ABL for never declaring the new rite of ordination to be invalid. Is "pope" Michael's ordination valid? Who performed it? How about his consecration? Furthermore, even as a layman, his argument against ABL is ludicrous, because how could ABL have made a declaration of something about which he was not certain? Is "pope" Michael suggesting the the archbishop should have lied??? And his reasoning for why ABL should have made the declaration is for political/pragmatic reasons. Does the Holy Church make theological declarations based on politics, pragmatics, and convenience??? So let me reiterate what others have said already, who cares what "pope" Michael thinks?
From official records David Bawden was ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop (photos of the event):
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.403269786369604.105467.205851636111421&type=3
Of course that doesn't make him a POPE!!!
Quote from: Capt McQuiggQuote from: hollingsworthAnyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!
In that case, it would be a case of mental illness and not malice nor ignorance.
I don't think anyone who posts on CathInfo thinks "Pope" Michael is actually the Vicar of Christ.
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
Quote from: Sigismund
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
I read that he recently got a Bishop to ordain him a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and follow him. I think it was a Thuc line bishop. So he does have a small following. :king:
Matto:QuoteI agree but at least he ("Michael") is a true bishop now, which is more than I can say (for sure) about Francis. And a billion people follow him.
Really!? A true bishop now!? I would be interested to learn from sedes on this forum how many of them, even, believe that this deluded man is a bishop. He is just another, in a long line of supposed Catholic clerics, bringing shame upon the ancient Faith.
.
A personal assistant in India?
That's either a very safe distance or else a very long commute. .
Quote from: SigismundQuote from: MattoQuote from: Sigismund
Does anyone but his mother think he is actually the Vicar of Christ?
I read that he recently got a Bishop to ordain him a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and follow him. I think it was a Thuc line bishop. So he does have a small following. :king:
The consecrator is Bishop Robert Biarnesen. Does anyone know anything about him?
A simple google search turns up the following link:
http://popemichael.vaticaninexile.com/Files/The%20Consecration%20of%20Pope%20Michael.pdf
Who Is Bishop Robert Biarnesen?
Bishop Biarnesen left the Novus Ordo in the mid 1980's. He had already begun to
work in prison ministry in Texas as a layman. A Traditionalist priest, Fr. Carl
Pulvermacher, recommended he go over to a Bishop in the Duarte-Costa line in order to be ordained a deacon. In 1986 he was indeed ordained deacon. In 2005 he moved to Arizona and began prison ministry there. At the recommendation of the officials he
sought ordination in the Duarte-Costa line so he could continue ministry as a priest. He
had made contact with the Vatican in Exile earlier on and continued to email on occasion, until 2010 when he offered to assist in obtaining ordination and consecration for Pope Michael. This was finally accomplished after much effort at the end of 2011 as reported above. Bishop Biarnesen is in full communion with the Catholic Church under HisHoliness Pope Michael.
Quote from: Neil Obstat.
A personal assistant in India?
That's either a very safe distance or else a very long commute. .
Obviously an unique papacy! I hear that the Indian guy is still with Pope Michael, so he definitely has three faithful at least. I wish Pope Linus II would also start a website so that we could see what he is up to. I believe he is based in England.
Hello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
Quote from: 62myerHello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
I don't think his election meets the requirements for being a true Bishop of Rome. He would need to be accepted by the clergy. I can't really define precisely what acceptance means but certainly it doesn't appear that there was much of an effort on the electors' part to represent the interests of the Roman Church nor the universal Church and that is reflected in a very miniscule acceptance of his claim. Furthermore, Michael himself has not really attempted to minister to the faithful in Rome. How can you be the Bishop of Rome when you live in Kansas and have zero care for or influence over the faithful in Rome?
That being said, I agree with Wessex and I am willing to re-evaluate my opinion if there is a major change in the circuмstances.
I have a question for you. Do you know if Michael has been consecrated yet? If so, can you give me details on his ordination to the diaconate and priesthood and on his consecration? i.e. who was the bishop in each case and when and where were they conferred?
Quote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: 62myerHello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
I don't think his election meets the requirements for being a true Bishop of Rome. He would need to be accepted by the clergy. I can't really define precisely what acceptance means but certainly it doesn't appear that there was much of an effort on the electors' part to represent the interests of the Roman Church nor the universal Church and that is reflected in a very miniscule acceptance of his claim. Furthermore, Michael himself has not really attempted to minister to the faithful in Rome. How can you be the Bishop of Rome when you live in Kansas and have zero care for or influence over the faithful in Rome?
That being said, I agree with Wessex and I am willing to re-evaluate my opinion if there is a major change in the circuмstances.
I have a question for you. Do you know if Michael has been consecrated yet? If so, can you give me details on his ordination to the diaconate and priesthood and on his consecration? i.e. who was the bishop in each case and when and where were they conferred?
Hello. It would help to watch Pope Michael's You Tube Videos. His Oldest ones. He sent out letters to all Sedevacantists and thought this election matter over for years before the election happened.
I know to most, Pope Michael seems like a joke. I am currently a seminarian of his. I am presently studying long-distance. I am a new one. I am not Phil Fridel from the docuмentary. This is a step that I have thought out and I also hope to be married; whether or not I become a married priest.
I have spent a week with Pope, Phil, and a few others who are in theological agreement with Pope Michael. The man has the Love of a child in his heart and soul. We know how children are violated, abused, and mistreated. Mr. David Bawden has been thrown away by people that will dismiss him as a lunatic, nut-case, retard, etc.
We are not living in the golden-age of the church. We are living in the Great Apostasy. Mr. David Bawden would gladly have been a good, saintly priest without having to go through the process of an election.
Pope Michael was consecrated. I do not know all the details. I would call or e-mail him for more information.
I am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
Thanks.
Quote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: 62myerHello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
I don't think his election meets the requirements for being a true Bishop of Rome. He would need to be accepted by the clergy. I can't really define precisely what acceptance means but certainly it doesn't appear that there was much of an effort on the electors' part to represent the interests of the Roman Church nor the universal Church and that is reflected in a very miniscule acceptance of his claim. Furthermore, Michael himself has not really attempted to minister to the faithful in Rome. How can you be the Bishop of Rome when you live in Kansas and have zero care for or influence over the faithful in Rome?
That being said, I agree with Wessex and I am willing to re-evaluate my opinion if there is a major change in the circuмstances.
I have a question for you. Do you know if Michael has been consecrated yet? If so, can you give me details on his ordination to the diaconate and priesthood and on his consecration? i.e. who was the bishop in each case and when and where were they conferred?
Hello. It would help to watch Pope Michael's You Tube Videos. His Oldest ones. He sent out letters to all Sedevacantists and thought this election matter over for years before the election happened.
I know to most, Pope Michael seems like a joke. I am currently a seminarian of his. I am presently studying long-distance. I am a new one. I am not Phil Fridel from the docuмentary. This is a step that I have thought out and I also hope to be married; whether or not I become a married priest.
I have spent a week with Pope, Phil, and a few others who are in theological agreement with Pope Michael. The man has the Love of a child in his heart and soul. We know how children are violated, abused, and mistreated. Mr. David Bawden has been thrown away by people that will dismiss him as a lunatic, nut-case, retard, etc.
We are not living in the golden-age of the church. We are living in the Great Apostasy. Mr. David Bawden would gladly have been a good, saintly priest without having to go through the process of an election.
Pope Michael was consecrated. I do not know all the details. I would call or e-mail him for more information.
I am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
Thanks.
Quote from: 62myerQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: 62myerHello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
I don't think his election meets the requirements for being a true Bishop of Rome. He would need to be accepted by the clergy. I can't really define precisely what acceptance means but certainly it doesn't appear that there was much of an effort on the electors' part to represent the interests of the Roman Church nor the universal Church and that is reflected in a very miniscule acceptance of his claim. Furthermore, Michael himself has not really attempted to minister to the faithful in Rome. How can you be the Bishop of Rome when you live in Kansas and have zero care for or influence over the faithful in Rome?
That being said, I agree with Wessex and I am willing to re-evaluate my opinion if there is a major change in the circuмstances.
I have a question for you. Do you know if Michael has been consecrated yet? If so, can you give me details on his ordination to the diaconate and priesthood and on his consecration? i.e. who was the bishop in each case and when and where were they conferred?
Hello. It would help to watch Pope Michael's You Tube Videos. His Oldest ones. He sent out letters to all Sedevacantists and thought this election matter over for years before the election happened.
I know to most, Pope Michael seems like a joke. I am currently a seminarian of his. I am presently studying long-distance. I am a new one. I am not Phil Fridel from the docuмentary. This is a step that I have thought out and I also hope to be married; whether or not I become a married priest.
I have spent a week with Pope, Phil, and a few others who are in theological agreement with Pope Michael. The man has the Love of a child in his heart and soul. We know how children are violated, abused, and mistreated. Mr. David Bawden has been thrown away by people that will dismiss him as a lunatic, nut-case, retard, etc.
We are not living in the golden-age of the church. We are living in the Great Apostasy. Mr. David Bawden would gladly have been a good, saintly priest without having to go through the process of an election.
Pope Michael was consecrated. I do not know all the details. I would call or e-mail him for more information.
I am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
Thanks.
Why do you accept his consecration even though it's not canonically valid?
I agree Mr. Bawden loves Mother Church and appears to have some virtues. However..........piety is not proof that a man is Pope just like lack of piety is not proof that a man isn't Pope.
Quote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: 62myerQuote from: Clemens MariaQuote from: 62myerHello.
I am a recent convert to Pope Michael from Sedevacantism.
He is a gentle and caring man who has really been trashed by those (almost all self-professed Christians) who lives revolve around there own Ideals.
I am Interested in what you think of Pope Michael ?
I know everyone is right and I am wrong, so I will not debate because I will always Lose.
Thanks.
I don't think his election meets the requirements for being a true Bishop of Rome. He would need to be accepted by the clergy. I can't really define precisely what acceptance means but certainly it doesn't gappear that there was much of an effort on the electors' part to represent the interests of the Roman Church nor the universal Church and that is reflected in a very miniscule acceptance of his claim. Furthermore, Michael himself has not really attempted to minister to the faithful in Rome. How can you be the Bishop of Rome when you live in Kansas and have zero care for or influence over the faithful in Rome?
That being said, I agree with Wessex and I am willing to re-evaluate my opinion if there is a major change in the circuмstances.
I have a question for you. Do you know if Michael has been consecrated yet? If so, can you give me details on his ordination to the diaconate and priesthood and on his consecration? i.e. who was the bishop in each case and when and where were they conferred?
Hello. It would help to watch Pope Michael's You Tube Videos. His Oldest ones. He sent out letters to all Sedevacantists and thought this election matter over for years before the election happened.
I know to most, Pope Michael seems like a joke. I am currently a seminarian of his. I am presently studying long-distance. I am a new one. I am not Phil Fridel from the docuмentary. This is a step that I have thought out and I also hope to be married; whether or not I become a married priest.
I have spent a week with Pope, Phil, and a few others who are in theological agreement with Pope Michael. The man has the Love of a child in his heart and soul. We know how children are violated, abused, and mistreated. Mr. David Bawden has been thrown away by people that will dismiss him as a lunatic, nut-case, retard, etc.
We are not living in the golden-age of the church. We are living in the Great Apostasy. Mr. David Bawden would gladly have been a good, saintly priest without having to go through the process of an election.
Pope Michael was consecrated. I do not know all the details. I would call or e-mail him for more information.
I am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
Thanks.
Don't you think it is more than a coincidence that the man who sent the invites was the very man who was "elected" to the papacy? Who, if any, were the other candidates considered?
Some would say coincidence, a few divine providence, most would say ridiculous !!
Any person who is a Catholic (non-heretic) would be viable for election.
Am I wrong ?
Thanks.
The electors are all known. Pope Michael does not hide it.
62,
Why hasn't Pope Michael consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart?
QuotePope Michael, our Bishop, and Phil have really helped me and are the three nicest men I have ever known. They are not arrogant and are not yet Saints -- And neither am I -- But in this Evil Age -- We are retaining the Faith of The Apostles.
Say what!!!???
Not that you would ever care -- but God has shown me many future events in my Life via prophetic dreams -- and the True God brought me to the Pope and Bishop people so commonly and assiduously mock and scorn !!
I am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
62myer, I've read all your comments. You are a humble soul. God bless you in your honest quest for His Truth.... you've repeated this theme a few times:QuoteI am open to comments, criticism, and/or suggestions.
There are very learned men on this forum, sede or not. Some may not have the best bedside manner, but do have good intent in defending the Faith. Keep seeking Truth, He will guide you.
Not that you would ever care -- but God has shown me many future events in my Life via prophetic dreams -- and the True God brought me to the Pope and Bishop people so commonly and assiduously mock and scorn !!
Myer 62:QuoteNot that you would ever care -- but God has shown me many future events in my Life via prophetic dreams -- and the True God brought me to the Pope and Bishop people so commonly and assiduously mock and scorn !!
I think what surprised me the most about this thread is that it has gotten over 8,000 hits. The "True God brought me to the Pope..."?!?! Oh my!
Who cares about all this nonsense and drama. There is nothing to look at here. Start preparing your own soul instead of worrying about trad soap operas.Not the reply I was hoping for but Thank You for taking your time to respond. God bless.
Someone was asking about him on cite.catholique.
I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."