|
| ||||
|
Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?
Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?The mystery of iniquity.
I fully recognise that when a doctrine has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops, it is infallible...
The mystery of iniquity.So to get this straight, you believe that a Pope who serves the devil and encourages apostasy can somehow not be an apostate himself?
Why do some souls choose to serve the world or the devil rather than God, Who is an infinitely better Master and Whose yoke is much sweeter?
Don't ask me! I don't understand it myself.
Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.
Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.To propose that every Pope since Vatican 2 has had the same extreme misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility that even a layman wouldn't have, is just preposterous. You don't spend decades in the Church, and even become Pope without having at least a basic grasp of what Papal Infallibility actually means. All these men spent decades in the Church, I think they were all well aware of what ex cathedra means.
To propose that every Pope since Vatican 2 has had the same extreme misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility that even a layman wouldn't have, is just preposterous. You don't spend decades in the Church, and even become Pope without having at least a basic grasp of what Papal Infallibility actually means. All these men spent decades in the Church, I think they were all well aware of what ex cathedra means.You're preaching to the choir. The fact remains that most NOers, including some trads, believe that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that the pope is always infallible - so who is to say that false belief is limited to the people, why shouldn't the pope himself actually believe it?
If Bergoglio believes he is infallible in everything he says, then it can't be out of a mistaken belief that that's what the Church teaches. No, anyone can do a 2 minute google search to inform themselves what Papal Infallibility applies to. So his belief in his own infallibility would be a formal heresy, a willing rejection of Church dogma.
You're preaching to the choir. The fact remains that most NOers, including some trads, believe that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that the pope is always infallible - so who is to say that false belief is limited to the people, why shouldn't the pope himself actually believe it?The quote only applies if they are actually in fact the successors of the Apostles. A formal heretic cannot be the Pope. And while yes it is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one, that Bergoglio is unaware of the limitations of Papal Infallibility, in such a case it'd still be our duty to correct him as St. Paul corrected St. Peter. Not to just sit idly by while he taught errors.
You say he should know better, I say (for the sake of argument) that he doesn't. I say he believes like most everyone else, that whatever he says or does is infallible, that all General Councils are infallible and that whatever all the bishops together teach is infallible - meaning, as Van Noort says, that we all have a "corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach" - not go around saying he should know better.
The quote only applies if they are actually in fact the successors of the Apostles. A formal heretic cannot be the Pope. And while yes it is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one, that Bergoglio is unaware of the limitations of Papal Infallibility, in such a case it'd still be our duty to correct him as St. Paul corrected St. Peter. Not to just sit idly by while he taught errors.No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.
No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.Ah yes, excuse me. I took it to mean that we ought to obey and not defy the Pope's teachings insofar as they do not contradict existing doctrine. I didn't take it to mean that everything the Pope says is infallible or is guaranteed to be correct and never revised.
The Church has explicitly and infallibly defined who is infallible and under what criteria, to say that we have a "duty to believe *whatever* the successors of the Apostles teach" is taken to mean that *whatever* they teach is infallible. This is wrong and, as has been going on for the last 60 years, leads people into a total rejection of what the Church actually does teach and leads people to the loss of faith.
No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site.
The Church has explicitly and infallibly defined who is infallible and under what criteria, to say that we have a "duty to believe *whatever* the successors of the Apostles teach" is taken to mean that *whatever* they teach is infallible. This is wrong and, as has been going on for the last 60 years, leads people into a total rejection of what the Church actually does teach and leads people to the loss of faith.
Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site.Because it's demonstrably better that the Vicars of Christ since 1958 have been teaching heresy?
No popes since 1958. Thank God only a few out of 1.2 billion who call themselves Catholic believe this.
Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.Progressivists do not believe in infallibility or dogmas, that is a fact. Anything they say is just an order, which can change with time.
Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site.Most of this number would have difficulty knowing what exactly they believe. They may vaguely incline to some supernatural element inherited from their parents but their 'religious' lives would largely consist of hedonistic practices with the support of extremely worldly priests and priestesses. They engage in an orgy of feeling good which psychologists would easily recognise as emotional relief from humrum lives. Their churches have prevented them from acquiring some real substance, hence the hunger for it elsewhwre.
No popes since 1958. Thank God only a few out of 1.2 billion who call themselves Catholic believe this.
Bp. W's persistent clinging to redundant Romans (which one, Ratzinger or Bergoglio?) is not inspiring for trads. I cannot see the next generation believing in such an absurd situation. R & R may have had a certain currency during the time of ABL but this was a feature of a unique personal relationship with his Roman contemporaries which few of us could share.This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
Wessex,Agreed. Lefevbre's caution was fitting the situation he lived in, and yet he clearly did not recognise the full authority of Pope John Paul II as he ignored his orders under the pain of excommunication, and he never recognised his excommunicated status.
This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
That time has long since departed as that is no longer the case.
The Lefevbre brand does not have the magic that it once had because its arguments have been long overtaken, in the practical sense, by the collapse of the Church.
HE can't really explain it... nor the fact that Paul VI, JP II and Benedict XVI were of Jєωιѕн extraction.^^^^^^^
We can simply trust that these are visible de facto popes, whose mission has been to execute some facet of destroying Holy Mother Church.
Christ has allowed it and in this sense, we must hold fast to the truth, while accepting these de facto, anti-Christ, destroyer popes.
In effect, "We" not Rome, are the resisting remnant of the Church militant here on earth.
Most of this number would have difficulty knowing what exactly they believe. They may vaguely incline to some supernatural element inherited from their parents but their 'religious' lives would largely consist of hedonistic practices with the support of extremely worldly priests and priestesses. They engage in an orgy of feeling good which psychologists would easily recognise as emotional relief from humrum lives. Their churches have prevented them from acquiring some real substance, hence the hunger for it elsewhwre.
Bp. W's persistent clinging to redundant Romans (which one, Ratzinger or Bergoglio?) is not inspiring for trads. I cannot see the next generation believing in such an absurd situation. R & R may have had a certain currency during the time of ABL but this was a feature of a unique personal relationship with his Roman contemporaries which few of us could share.
We "cling" to Rome because we are Catholic. It may be more comfortable for sedes in that they have washed themselves clean from Rome, and now their state of mind is supposedly clear and they can breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to be confused anymore. And they insist that all trads MUST become as they are. Sedes just want comfort. They are wimpy, IMO. They may talk tough, but they have given up and thrown in the towel. Losers.What crisis is there exactly, if there is a valid Pope in Rome?
There may not be an end to the Crisis for quite awhile. God may have to intervene, and it may get worse before it gets better. That doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church by its very nature requires a pope. Even an extremely faulty one. My faith isn't dependent on the faith of the Pope in Rome.
What crisis is there exactly, if there is a valid Pope in Rome?
And why do you persist to support SSPX if you believe a valid Pope demanded its dissolution before excommunicating its founder for illegally making Bishops. If you accept the V2 Popes you have to accept the fact that Lefebvre was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and yet you continue to support it despite that. You believe the V2 Popes are valid Popes, and yet you ignore and defy their authority(and yet you deny being sedeprivationists) So your position is entirely contradictory.
You ask questions to which you will not accept any answer that I would give. You are too far entrenched in your error. May God help you.Ad hominem attacks do not replace arguments. If you don't have any rebuttals, then just be honest and admit it. Otherwise, please explain to me why exactly you still support a society whose dissolution was demanded and whose leader was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and why you defy the authority of Popes you see as valid.
Ad hominem attacks do not replace arguments. If you don't have any rebuttals, then just be honest and admit it. Otherwise, please explain to me why exactly you still support a society whose dissolution was demanded and whose leader was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and why you defy the authority of Popes you see as valid.
It is not my belief that Archbishop Lefebvre is in Hell. That's your belief.No, I think he's either in Heaven or Purgatory. I'm almost certain he's not in Hell. But since you believe his excommunication was granted to him by a valid Pope, you must believe that he is in Hell. Because that's where you go if you die excommunicated.
No, I think he's either in Heaven or Purgatory. I'm almost certain he's not in Hell. But since you believe his excommunication was granted to him by a valid Pope, you must believe that he is in Hell. Because that's where you go if you die excommunicated.
Do you believe his excommunication was valid or not?
Glad to see that you do not believe that +ABL is in Hell.
No doubt you have had it explained to you before as to why Archbishop Lefebvre believed that it is lawful to resist conciliar popes.
Wessex,
This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
That time has long since departed as that is no longer the case.
The Lefevbre brand does not have the magic that it once had because its arguments have been long overtaken, in the practical sense, by the collapse of the Church.
Do you believe his excommunication was valid or not?
We "cling" to Rome because we are Catholic. It may be more comfortable for sedes in that they have washed themselves clean from Rome, and now their state of mind is supposedly clear and they can breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to be confused anymore. And they insist that all trads MUST become as they are. Sedes just want comfort. They are wimpy, IMO. They may talk tough, but they have given up and thrown in the towel. Losers.Geographical Rome is not the issue; Econe could have been another Avignon but courted great disappointment. Breathing the fresh air outside the walls of poluted 'Rome' can only be the way for healthy and logical Catholics. Hopefully, there will be a proper base to unite trads one day; the concept of a loose association was meant to stifle this goal and keep trads wondering the desert aimlessly.
There may not be an end to the Crisis for quite awhile. God may have to intervene, and it may get worse before it gets better. That doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church by its very nature requires a pope. Even an extremely faulty one. My faith isn't dependent on the faith of the Pope in Rome.
Did +ABL believe that the excommunication was valid?I don't know and it's hardly relevant. I'm asking what you believe. If you believe the V2 Popes are valid, then surely you believe their excommunications are valid. Do you?
I don't know and it's hardly relevant. I'm asking what you believe. If you believe the V2 Popes are valid, then surely you believe their excommunications are valid. Do you?
It is relevant. Do you really think it of no relevance what +ABL thought of the excommunication? Is it really all down to just personal opinion? I know for sedes, that's seems to be what's most important. Opinions.I am trying to argue that your beliefs are contradictory. So of course your beliefs are the matter of relevance. What +ABL believed about his excommunication has nothing got to do with it. I am asking you is, if you believe the V2 Popes to be valid, why do you ignore their excommunication of him and associate with his order which they tried to dissolve? Again you dodge the question and engage in ad hominem attacks.
I am trying to argue that your beliefs are contradictory. So of course your beliefs are the matter of relevance. What +ABL believed about his excommunication has nothing got to do with it. I am asking you is, if you believe the V2 Popes to be valid, why do you ignore their excommunication of him and associate with his order which they tried to dissolve? Again you dodge the question and engage in ad hominem attacks.
How do you know that I ignore the excommunication of +ABL? I didn't answer your question. If you already know what I think, why keep asking me? I do believe that the conciliar popes are valid. You know that.Just answer the question. Ad hominem and strawmen do not replace real arguments. If you're so afraid to even state your beliefs, it's a clear sign that you cannot defend them.
I know what you're trying to argue. It's what sedes have been arguing for awhile now. Nothing new with sedes. It's not like I'm required to debate according to flawed sede logic.
Breathing the fresh air outside the walls of poluted 'Rome' can only be the way for healthy and logical Catholics. Hopefully, there will be a proper base to unite trads one day; the concept of a loose association was meant to stifle this goal and keep trads wondering the desert aimlessly.This is an accurate observation. Such loose associations serve to keep the status quo in place and avoid responsibility. Where there is no leadership, there is no one who can be held accountable for the lack of confrontation with the demons of Rome, and the utter lack of progress in theological thought towards a solution to the collapse of the moral and spiritual influence of the Church in the world today.
the concept of a loose association was meant to stifle this goal and keep trads wondering the desert aimlessly.
Who is Mr. NM?
Number DLX (560)
April 7, 2018
Anti-”Lefebvrist” Argument – I
Archbishop Lefebvre was wise – his rule of thumb,
“Recognise, yet Resist” is not so dumb!
To attack the French Dominican priests of Avrillé for their “Lefebvrism,” i.e. for their refusal to accept that the Conciliar Popes since Paul VI have not been Popes at all, a French layman – Mr. N.M. – has just written an article accusing the Dominicans of rejecting three Catholic dogmas: that the Pope has primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church; that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible; that it is the Church’s living Magisterium which determines what Catholics must believe. Normally such questions of doctrine may be best left to the experts in doctrine, but ours are not normal times. Today Catholics can have to rely on their own Catholic good sense to decide such questions for themselves.
Let us look at all three questions in a simple and practical way. If I want to accept that the Popes have been true Popes since Paul VI, why should I have to deny firstly that the Pope is head of the Church, secondly that the Church’s normal teaching is infallible and thirdly that the living Pope tells me what I should believe? Let us look at N.M.’s arguments, one by one.
As to the first point, NM quotes the thoroughly anti-liberal Council of Vatican I (1870–1871) to the effect that the Pope is the direct and immediate head of every diocese, every priest and every Catholic. If then like all Lefebvrists, I refuse to obey him, I am implicitly denying that he is my head as a Catholic, so I am denying that the Pope is what Vatican I defined him to be. Answer: I am not at all denying that the Conciliar Popes have the authority to command me as a Catholic, I am only saying that their Catholic authority does not include the authority to make me turn myself into a Protestant, as I will do if I follow their commands in line with Vatican II.
Secondly, NM argues that Vatican I also stated that the everyday teaching of Pope and bishops is in fallible . Now if ever we had serious teaching of Pope and Bishops together, it was at Vatican II. If then I refuse that teaching, I am implicitly denying that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Answer, no, I am not. I fully recognise that when a doctrine has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops, it is infallible, but if it has been taught only
in modern times by the 20th century Popes and Bishops of Vatican II, then it is contrary to what was taught by Popes and Bishops at all other times of the Church, and I do not consider myself bound to accept it. As I accept the heavyweight UOM of all time, so I reject the lightweight UOM of today, contradicting it.
Thirdly, NM argues that the true Pope has the living authority to tell me as a Catholic what I must today believe. If then I refuse to believe what the Conciliar Popes have told me to believe, I am rejecting their liv ing authority as arbiters of the Faith. Answer: no, I am not. I am using my eyes to read, and my God-given brain to judge, that what the Conciliar Popes tell me contradicts what all previous Popes back to St Peter tell me, and I prefer to follow the heavy weight of 261 Popes telling me what to believe against the light weight of six Conciliar Popes. “But then you are rejecting the living authority of the living Pope as arbiter of the Faith!” Only because I am following, obeying and submitting to 261 Popes as arbiters of that Faith which my eyes and my brain tell me that the Conciliar Popes are not following. “But then you are backing your own eyes and brain against the Catholic Pope!” God gave me eyes and a brain which function, and when I come before Him to be judged, I shall answer for the use I made of them.
It is clear that NM’s own answer to the problem of Popes protestantising, modernising and Conciliar, is to deny that they ever were Popes. It should be equally clear that to that problem, which is very real, I am not obliged to adopt NM’s drastic solution. Nor, if I refuse to adopt it, am I obliged to deny three Church dogmas. Peace be to NM.
Kyrie eleison.