Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015  (Read 12978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Miseremini

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3753
  • Reputation: +2794/-238
  • Gender: Female
ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
« on: May 22, 2015, 09:08:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number CDX (410)
     
     May 23, 2015
     
     
    Conciliar Popes I
    The world has always known bad Popes, but never
    As in today’s world more corrupt than ever.

    Whenever the claim is put forward that the Conciliar Popes may be at least partly in good faith, there are usually Catholics that protest. They will say that the Popes are intelligent and educated churchmen, so it is impossible that they do not fully realize what they are doing. The “mentevacantist” theory, according to which these Popes have vacant minds, partly ignorant of the consequences of their own actions, is for these critics absurd. One can understand the protest, but let me quote a friend who understands “mentevacantism” as it needs to be understood:—

    “The idea that Popes can be mistaken in good faith because they hold that certain errors are not opposed to the Faith, gets little serious attention, because people have a concept of the papacy too detached from the world, whereas the whole history of the Popes is a history of men of their time being liable to share in all the good and bad habits and vices of their time. The difference lies in the power of the error, which has never been so mighty as it is today, mankind never having been, as one must not forget, so degenerate as today.

    “For indeed liberalism is now everywhere and it is overwhelming, no longer a mere thought, or way of thinking, but a very way of being that permeates every man alive, be he an absolute liberal in himself, or an agent of liberalism and its subversion, or merely one of its tools. Such is the case of the Conciliar Popes. They think they are drawing close to the world to heal it. They do not realize that it is the world which is drawing them to itself to infect and control them.

    “In such a situation as this, one can certainly speak of liberal Popes but not of non-Catholic Popes, insofar as there is lacking the prime requisite for such a condemnation, namely the personal will on their part to be liberals and not Catholics. All one can do is recognize the fact that in these Popes there is the personal will to be Catholics and not anti-Catholic liberals, since for them there is no contradiction between the two, far from it. According to their theologian and thinker, Joseph Ratzinger, liberalism is one of the good by-products of Catholicism, needing only to be cleansed of certain alien distortions imported into it. And so as for destroying the Church, it stands to reason that Popes believing in such a compromised Catholicism cannot help one of the consequences of their actions being the destruction of the Church.

    “Concerning Archbishop Lefebvre, given that he grew up in a Church quite different from today’s Church, I can only conclude that for him it was impossible for a Catholic acting as an instrument of subversion not to realize what he was doing. Still less could a Pope not realize. From reading between the lines of certain of the Archbishop’s writings, I do believe that while his vision of the world certainly included the process of degeneration reaching down to the end of time, it did not include that process involving in any clear manner the Church as well.”

    I can just hear readers objecting to this kind of analysis: “Oh, Excellency, please stop defending the Conciliar Popes. It’s black or white. If they’re black, I’ll be a happy sedevacantist. If they’re white, I’ll be a happy liberal. Your greys do nothing but confuse me!”

    Dear reader, black is black, white is white, but rarely in real life do we find pure white, and never pure black (whatever is, has the goodness of being). If you want to understand this relative excusing of the Conciliar Popes, the key is to grasp that the world has never been so deeply bad as it is today. From this unprecedented degeneracy it is obvious that Conciliar Popes are in this respect more excusable for going astray in the Faith than any of their predecessors.

    Kyrie eleison.
     
     VISIT OUR SITE
    ELEISON COMMENTS
    DONATE
    BOOKS & CONFERENCES
    INFORMATION
    EVENTS
     
    CONTACT US
    letters@eleisoncomments.com
    for comments to Bishop Williamson about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.

    admin@eleisoncomments.com
    for technical concerns with your subscription to the Eleison Comments email.

    editorial@marceleditions.com
    for issues relating to publication of Eleison Comments.
     
    DONATE
    While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by sending a contribution via PayPal to :
    donations@stmarcelinitiative.com.

    http://stmarcelinitiative.com/donate
    payment methods
     
     
     
    © 2011-2015 BRN Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

    A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

    Rights and permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@marceleditions.com.
     
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #1 on: May 23, 2015, 08:55:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    “The idea that Popes can be mistaken in good faith because they hold that certain errors are not opposed to the Faith, gets little serious attention, because people have a concept of the papacy too detached from the world, whereas the whole history of the Popes is a history of men of their time being liable to share in all the good and bad habits and vices of their time. The difference lies in the power of the error, which has never been so mighty as it is today, mankind never having been, as one must not forget, so degenerate as today.


    Come now! It gets a lot of attention in Menzingen, in this weekly column, and in various and sundry places from the Remnant, the Catholic family news, and the resistance so called.
    The times of which the Bishop speaks were all evil in one manner or another and yet few popes turned their back upon the Church as these have done.

    Quote

     because they hold that certain errors are not opposed to the Faith

    Yes, of course they do, and that is why they are heretics and scoundrels like any other errant soul who is outside of the Church.

    Quote
    I can just hear readers objecting to this kind of analysis: “Oh, Excellency, please stop defending the Conciliar Popes.


    To answer that , we have this:

    Quote
    From this unprecedented degeneracy it is obvious that Conciliar Popes are in this respect more excusable for going astray in the Faith than any of their predecessors.


    2000 years ago the world was deeply bad enough that it murdered the Saviour of Men, before that it was bad enough for God Almighty to wipe it clean by a flood.  In the time of Martin Luther the world was bad, and the Church plagued by corruption, perhaps it is more excusable under such a circuмstance that Luther went astray of the Faith? But then..........who am I to judge?

    Glory Be..............







    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11666
    • Reputation: +6994/-498
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #2 on: May 24, 2015, 12:30:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    From this unprecedented degeneracy it is obvious that Conciliar Popes are in this respect more excusable for going astray in the Faith than any of their predecessors.


    Does this sentence sounds to anybody else here like modernism?!

    Things were pretty bad from the start; after all the first popes were all martyred for their Faith.
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline McFiggly

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +4/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #3 on: May 24, 2015, 03:16:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #4 on: May 24, 2015, 06:11:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    Offline McFiggly

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +4/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 06:40:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.

    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #6 on: May 24, 2015, 09:40:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nadir

    Quote
    From this unprecedented degeneracy it is obvious that Conciliar Popes are in this respect more excusable for going astray in the Faith than any of their predecessors.


    Does this sentence sounds to anybody else here like modernism?!
    ...


    It is worse than sounding like modernism, it is Heresy pure and simple.
     
    It is a direct attack on and rejection of the doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church.

    Just saying.

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #7 on: May 24, 2015, 11:07:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.


    I agree that he has no business being the Pope,and offensive or not it is the truth,deal with it.


    Offline McFiggly

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +4/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #8 on: May 24, 2015, 11:14:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.


    I agree that he has no business being the Pope,and offensive or not it is the truth,deal with it.


    What's the truth, richard, that the Pope doesn't know the faith?
    How can that be? If the Pope doesn't know the faith then how can he lead the faithful?

    Offline richard

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 336
    • Reputation: +227/-27
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #9 on: May 24, 2015, 11:26:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.


    I agree that he has no business being the Pope,and offensive or not it is the truth,deal with it.


    What's the truth, richard, that the Pope doesn't know the faith?
    How can that be? If the Pope doesn't know the faith then how can he lead the faithful?


    Does he act like he knows the faith,seriously don't you pay attention to what he says and writes? He does not have the faith but yet he is the pope.

    Offline McFiggly

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 457
    • Reputation: +4/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #10 on: May 24, 2015, 12:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.


    I agree that he has no business being the Pope,and offensive or not it is the truth,deal with it.


    What's the truth, richard, that the Pope doesn't know the faith?
    How can that be? If the Pope doesn't know the faith then how can he lead the faithful?


    Does he act like he knows the faith,seriously don't you pay attention to what he says and writes? He does not have the faith but yet he is the pope.


    But how can you be the Pope and not have the faith? How can you even be CATHOLIC and not have the faith?


    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #11 on: May 24, 2015, 03:19:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: +richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: +richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    Quote from: +richard
    Quote from: McFiggly
    You wouldn't accept this excuse from a doctor. If you sent your daughter to a doctor and he killed her because he had a faulty formation, wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to even call himself a doctor in the first place and call patients to himself?

    Similarly, wouldn't you be outraged if you sent your daughter to be taught by Francis and he killed her soul because of his faulty formation? Wouldn't you be outraged that he had the audacity to call himself the supreme shepherd in the first place and call souls to himself?

    The Popes have a DUTY to teach the faith in its entirety. What can you call a Pope that doesn't teach the faith, and who even teaches a doctrine contrary to the faith? It's like a doctor that not only fails to heal his patients, but even makes them sick. If a Pope can be Pope without teaching the faith then the papacy is a purely legal office with no real purpose.



    What if the Pope himself was not taught the Faith,then how can he teach what he doesn't have?


    In that case he has no business being pope. You can't be a doctor without knowing about medicine. You can't be a lawyer without knowing about the law. The idea that the supreme pontiff doesn't know the Catholic faith is offensive.


    I agree that he has no business being the Pope,and offensive or not it is the truth,deal with it.


    What's the truth, richard, that the Pope doesn't know the faith?
    How can that be? If the Pope doesn't know the faith then how can he lead the faithful?


    Does he act like he knows the faith,seriously don't you pay attention to what he says and writes? He does not have the faith but yet he is the pope.


    But how can you be the Pope and not have the faith? How can you even be CATHOLIC and not have the faith?


    You are right McFiggly, you can't be Christ's Vicar and not be Catholic.

    Just Saying,

    Offline saintalice

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 88
    • Reputation: +51/-1
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #12 on: May 24, 2015, 03:42:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Call me an "Old Catholic" but the Roman Church shot themselves in the foot at the First Vatican Council when they pronounced Papal Infallibility as a Dogma.  Had they left the disposals of heretical bishops to that of a Council (as was the case for the first 1000 years of the Church), the Roman Church could dispose of Jorge today.  Of course that would presuppose that the Council would be convened by orthodox bishops, of which there are none today, not in the Roman Church (most bishops in the West are cut from the same cloth as Jorge Bergoglio).  Truly this is a paralyzing situation for the Western Church.  

    Offline Adolphus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 467
    • Reputation: +467/-6
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #13 on: May 24, 2015, 11:13:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: saintalice
    Call me an "Old Catholic" but the Roman Church shot themselves in the foot at the First Vatican Council when they pronounced Papal Infallibility as a Dogma.  Had they left the disposals of heretical bishops to that of a Council (as was the case for the first 1000 years of the Church), the Roman Church could dispose of Jorge today.  Of course that would presuppose that the Council would be convened by orthodox bishops, of which there are none today, not in the Roman Church (most bishops in the West are cut from the same cloth as Jorge Bergoglio).  Truly this is a paralyzing situation for the Western Church.  


    Nope.  The Roman Church did not shot Herself at the Vatican Council. If Francis (or BXVI or JPII ...) were antipopes, that does not affect the Papal Infallibility.  The Papal Infallibility is a dogma.

    The "official" church (the conciliar church) is not the Catholic Church.  That is a fact that many seem to forget.

    Offline Adolphus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 467
    • Reputation: +467/-6
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS NUMBER CDX (410) May 23 AD 2015
    « Reply #14 on: May 25, 2015, 07:32:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ferdinand
    You are right McFiggly, you can't be Christ's Vicar and not be Catholic.

    Just Saying,

    Exactly!