Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on April 02, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
-
We already know about the building mountains of evidence which suggests that Bergoglio is not a valid pope and never was, but whatabout those of you who accept Francis as the legitimate pontiff? What are you reasons? Why do you believe Bergoglio is the pope?
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
Very well put, SG. A solidly Catholic answer.
My reasons are the same.
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
1. Generally, the R&R folks refuse communion with sedevacantist Catholics. So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy you are certain to not be in communion with at least some faithful Catholics.
2. It is true that you must accept a true Pope but it is also true that you must reject false popes. But if with a clear conscience you are mistaken one way or the other you will not be damned for that alone.
3. Canon 188.4: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
-
@Clemens Maria
I am convinced that Pope Francis will be remembered as an antipope, but until the judgement of a future truly Catholic pope declares him to be such, all I can do is go with the flow. I made up my mind to just say that Francis was the pope whenever asked because I started going to the SSPX and I wanted to fit in with the other Catholics there. The alternative was to stay at home or go anyway but not talk about the papacy and pretend to be in communion with the priest who prays for Francis.
-
@Clemens Maria
I am convinced that Pope Francis will be remembered as an antipope, but until the judgement of a future truly Catholic pope declares him to be such, all I can do is go with the flow. I made up my mind to just say that Francis was the pope whenever asked because I started going to the SSPX and I wanted to fit in with the other Catholics there. The alternative was to stay at home or go anyway but not talk about the papacy and pretend to be in communion with the priest who prays for Francis.
What will you do when the SSPX invites a Novus Ordo "bishop" (doubtfully ordained and doubtfully consecrated) to offer Mass and administer confirmation? That is the direction that the current SSPX is heading in. They accept the validity of the NO sacraments. It is dangerous. By the time this type of thing happens your guard will likely be down and you will be swept along.
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
1. Generally, the R&R folks refuse communion with sedevacantist Catholics. So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy you are certain to not be in communion with at least some faithful Catholics.
2. It is true that you must accept a true Pope but it is also true that you must reject false popes. But if with a clear conscience you are mistaken one way or the other you will not be damned for that alone.
3. Canon 188.4: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
I've never had a R&R person refuse to pray with me , nor have I ever been denied communion, or even threatened with it by any priest.
I've only met a handful of people who consider sedevacantists non-Catholics and a small number of sede vacantists who believe non-sedes should be denied communion. Usually those people are caught up in an over-zealous interpretation of a statement made by traditional clergy.
Overall, I think the number of people and clergy who actually hold and put into practice such ideas is relatively small and confined.
-
@Clemens Maria
I am convinced that Pope Francis will be remembered as an antipope, but until the judgement of a future truly Catholic pope declares him to be such, all I can do is go with the flow.
Then all "traditionalists" must "go with the flow" and accept the NOM, 1983 Code of Canon Law, and "canonizations" as valid. If you don't have access to a True Mass, get your rear down to your local NO hootenanny and blow up some balloons. After all, the man you recognize as Pope enforces them all, and there's been no declaration that they're invalid.
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
1. Generally, the R&R folks refuse communion with sedevacantist Catholics. So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy you are certain to not be in communion with at least some faithful Catholics.
2. It is true that you must accept a true Pope but it is also true that you must reject false popes. But if with a clear conscience you are mistaken one way or the other you will not be damned for that alone.
3. Canon 188.4: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
I've never had a R&R person refuse to pray with me , nor have I ever been denied communion, or even threatened with it by any priest.
I've only met a handful of people who consider sedevacantists non-Catholics and a small number of sede vacantists who believe non-sedes should be denied communion. Usually those people are caught up in an over-zealous interpretation of a statement made by traditional clergy.
Overall, I think the number of people and clergy who actually hold and put into practice such ideas is relatively small and confined.
Maybe I didn't speak as precisely as I ought to have. I meant it in the sense that R&R priests and often the laymen as well refuse to work with sedevacantists. And by that I mean that an R&R priest would not call a SV priest to cover for him in the event that the R&R priest cannot make it to a Mass or a sick call or whatever. I think it is also true in the other direction as well. You are right though. I have not heard any reasonable traditional Catholic accuse another reasonable Catholic of not being Catholic based on his position with respect to the validity of the Conciliar popes. But I have heard concerns that one could be in danger of losing the Faith and/or schism if one holds to one position or the other.
-
1 To have communion with other Catholics outside the sedevacantists
2 To fulfill a necessary condition for my own salvation
3 Because the church has not officially condemned him yet
4 Because I dont have the authority to decide who is pope and who is not
1. Generally, the R&R folks refuse communion with sedevacantist Catholics. So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy you are certain to not be in communion with at least some faithful Catholics.
2. It is true that you must accept a true Pope but it is also true that you must reject false popes. But if with a clear conscience you are mistaken one way or the other you will not be damned for that alone.
3. Canon 188.4: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
I've never had a R&R person refuse to pray with me , nor have I ever been denied communion, or even threatened with it by any priest.
I've only met a handful of people who consider sedevacantists non-Catholics and a small number of sede vacantists who believe non-sedes should be denied communion. Usually those people are caught up in an over-zealous interpretation of a statement made by traditional clergy.
Overall, I think the number of people and clergy who actually hold and put into practice such ideas is relatively small and confined.
Maybe I didn't speak as precisely as I ought to have. I meant it in the sense that R&R priests and often the laymen as well refuse to work with sedevacantists. And by that I mean that an R&R priest would not call a SV priest to cover for him in the event that the R&R priest cannot make it to a Mass or a sick call or whatever. I think it is also true in the other direction as well. You are right though. I have not heard any reasonable traditional Catholic accuse another reasonable Catholic of not being Catholic based on his position with respect to the validity of the Conciliar popes. But I have heard concerns that one could be in danger of losing the Faith and/or schism if one holds to one position or the other.
This is true. I've met more than a few R&R people who have left the SSPX but won't go to the non-hostile sede chapel in the same area, so they just stay home.
I also know that the sede clergy do not generally get coverage outside of their own circles, either. Personally, I'd like to see an effort to bridge that gap through a general rosary crusade for a restoration open to all Catholics, but I know that no one will participate. The only thing I can do is to not be a part of the problem, and I try hard to do that.
-
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
Are there really thousands of priests who have publicly declared that Francis is an antipope. That seems to me like something you just said with no evidence that isn't true. If it were true there would be thousands of sedevacantist priests. Are there really that many?
-
4. Dozens of Catholic bishops and hundreds and maybe thousands of priests have already publicly declared that Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy is invalid.
Are there really thousands of priests who have publicly declared that Francis is an antipope. That seems to me like something you just said with no evidence that isn't true. If it were true there would be thousands of sedevacantist priests. Are there really that many?
There are at least 40 Catholic bishops who have publicly declared that the Conciliar popes are antipopes. Here is a list:
Bishop Robert McKenna, OP
Bishop Franco Munari
Bishop Philippe Miguet
Bishop M. Main
Bishop Richard Bedingfeld
Bishop Oliver Oravec
Bishop Joseph Corona Santiago Gomez
Bishop Peter Hillebrand
Bishop John E. Hesson, OSB
Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Bishop Javier Miranda Chairez
Bishop Daniel Dolan
Bishop Clarence Kelly
Bishop Edward Peterson
Bishop J. G. Roux
Bishop Michael French
Bishop Camille Nziboe Mebale
Bishop Xavier Alain André du Rosaire
Bishop Raphaël Cloquell
Bishop Francis Slupski, CSSR
Bishop Martin Davila Gandara
Bishop Geert Jan Stuyver, IMBC
Bishop Donald J. Sanborn
Bishop Robert L. Neville
Bishop Giles Butler
Bishop Andres Morello
Bishop Joseph J. Santay, C.S.P.V
Bishop J. Rodriguez
Bishop Luis Alberto Madrigal
Bishop Paul Petko
Bishop Robert Dymek
Bishop W. Greene
Bishop Bonaventure Strandt
Bishop Emmanuel Korab
Bishop Thomas Fouhy
Bishop José Ramon López-Gastón
Bishop Terence Fulham
Bishop John Simmons
Bishop Markus Ramolla
Bishop Neil/Dominic? Webster
There might be more.
As for the number of priests, I do not know but you would be sadly mistaken if you tried to claim that there are less than 200 sedevacantist priests in the world.
-
Thank you for posting the list of bishops. I believe many here including myself will find it interesting.
I actually have no idea how many sedevacantist priests there are, but I would be surprised if there were more than a thousand.
-
Thank you for posting the list of bishops. I believe many here including myself will find it interesting.
I actually have no idea how many sedevacantist priests there are, but I would be surprised if there were more than a thousand.
I don't know the actual numbers either but Wikipedia said:
The number of sedevacantists is largely unknown, with estimates given in tens to hundreds of thousands.
If there are as many as 100,000's of SV's then I'm not so sure over 1,000 priests is that far-fetched. That's only 1%.
-
Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..." Jorge came to the window and was introduced as the new pope. He says his new name is Francis. Everyone recognizes him as the pope. The news media recognizes him as the pope. Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims etc. all recognize him as the pope (they say that they disagree with him but they recognize him as the pope.) The Catholic Church recognizes him as the pope. His enemies recognize him as the pope. The press recognizes him as the pope. If all these people recognize that Francis is the pope then that is good enough for me. Francis I is the pope of the Catholic Church.
-
To Poche.
I'm afraid that your sound and simple reasoning is not complex enough for most these days!
St. Francis of Paola (1416-1507)
“During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. The Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will not remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications and delamination by man."
Most fail to make a distinction between the authority of the Seat of Peter and the character of the possessor.
But then that would diminish the fleshly pleasure in finding fault with others; especially those in authority.
2 Corinthians 11:3
"But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ."
God bless you!
-
I believe frank is the pope I believe frank is a heretic
it may have something to do with separating the weeds from the wheat Our Lord always focused on the quality over the quantity. Being pope is not an automatic ticket to heaven as the Lord said many are called but few are chosen
-
Clemens Maria said:
"So I think no matter what you decide on the status of Jorge Bergoglio's claim to the papacy."
That basically says it all; everyone to the races; but be sure to call him every Monday to see if he has changed his views!
We have no authority to declare any Pope invalid/heretical and neither can we depart from submission to his supreme prerogative as holder of the Keys.
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).
The only exceptions are:
1) We are certain of uncanonical election
2) He declares from the Seat of Peter an uncatholic teaching.
Canon law does not provide for deposition.
And when the time of the Pope prophesied by St Francis of Assisi comes, we can be sure God's providence will trumpet this fact to all God wishes to know of it.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. - St Francis of Assisi
But until such a time, Francis is the Pope!!
-
Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..." Jorge came to the window and was introduced as the new pope. He says his new name is Francis. Everyone recognizes him as the pope. The news media recognizes him as the pope. Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims etc. all recognize him as the pope (they say that they disagree with him but they recognize him as the pope.) The Catholic Church recognizes him as the pope. His enemies recognize him as the pope. The press recognizes him as the pope. If all these people recognize that Francis is the pope then that is good enough for me. Francis I is the pope of the Catholic Church.
[I'm not actually responding to Poche, but to his argument]
This is a really goofy argument. It only makes sense if you don't actually think about it. What Poche is saying, or trying to say, is that since Francis is universally adhered to or "recognized" as pope, this is an infallible sign that he is pope.
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
-
To Mithrandylan,
You should read the statement of St Francis de Paola again!
The requirements for his valid election are in Poche's statement:
"Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..."
And his peaceful acceptance is not proof of the validity of election, rather the adherence to canonical rules.
The second part of the Poche's post is bells and whistles.
But such technical inexactitude is not so common these days, because it presents a chance for another to show their erudition/superiority and belittle the writer.
Thus, one would fear to go for breakfast with some on CI, because if you ordered sausage, bacon and eggs, you might to shown to have made a category error.
-
Clemens Maria said:
The only exceptions are:
1) We are certain of uncanonical election
2) He declares from the Seat of Peter an uncatholic teaching.
But until such a time, Francis is the Pope!!
Is elevating a man or woman to the sainthood an infallible act? Most I have read said it is.
If Pope Francis elevates Pope John XXXIII and Pope John Paul II to sainthood on 28th April next, and there is plenty of evidence to show neither could possibly be true saints of the Catholic Church, would that eliminate him as a true pope according to no 2 above?
-
To Cassini:
Please see the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
God bless!
-
To Cassini:Please see the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
God bless!
From the New Advent articled referenced above:
" St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error."
Marsha
-
Hi Cassini,
Hopefully we will get some clarity on the Catholic Saints.
The V2 (don't remember what the clerics who make such decisions are called) un-cannonised St. Christopher, St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Philomena and I believe others. They also changed the feast days of too many saints to keep track of.
So, how can any body know if the saints are any more infallible?
JP2 "made" more saints than anybody ever had dreamed of, after a radical overhaul of the necessary requirements making it very, very, very easy to be called a saint.
So, people like me are liable to understand this as new saints for a new church.
I read Making Saints too many years ago the remember the details of the huge range of changes in making saints.
-
Several saints were removed from the Universal Calendar of the Church,which was published about four years after the Council. in 1969. Christopher is one of them. What is overlooked, is several were added - such as Columban. In neither case is the status of the individual as a saint affected - the change is that some liturgical cultus which were formerly universal are now confined to particular parts of the Church such as dioceses, countries, or religious orders
The purpose of the change was this: to reform the calendar so that the principal feasts of the Christian liturgical year could be seen more clearly, and feasts and seasons, such as Advent or Lent, not be obscured by coinciding with, or being full of, feasts of saints. That is why there are fewer saints' days, and why so many are optional memoriae. Trent cleared the calendar in a similar way.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=98952
-
To Mithrandylan,
You should read the statement of St Francis de Paola again!
The requirements for his valid election are in Poche's statement:
"Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..."
And his peaceful acceptance is not proof of the validity of election, rather the adherence to canonical rules.
The second part of the Poche's post is bells and whistles.
But such technical inexactitude is not so common these days, because it presents a chance for another to show their erudition/superiority and belittle the writer.
Thus, one would fear to go for breakfast with some on CI, because if you ordered sausage, bacon and eggs, you might to shown to have made a category error.
AndySloan,
This reaches further than a valid or invalid election. But without getting ahead of myself, I was/am merely pointing out that the argument Poche has posited, which is the argument of universal peaceful acceptance, does not work to prove that the post-conciliar popes are, in fact, popes. There has been no universal peaceful acceptance of them, so if you want to prove they're popes you'll have to use some other criteria (though what that would be, I don't know-- you certainly can't argue that they're Catholic!).
Also, if you wish to be involved in a discussion, you do better than to appeal to ignorance. If the subject of discussion or implications thereof are "above your head" then quietly and humbly withdraw; don't continue to make quick and weak arguments and then scurry away under the guise of being a simple soul who can't understand whatever nuances and "technicalities" involved in the discourse.
I would add that I think these concepts aren't as difficult to understand as many claim they are, and as with all things, God will enlighten our minds if we ask Him to, and truly desire that effect. But in any event, if they are too "lofty" then it is better to withdraw and protect your faith (if it is threatened) or withdraw to gain a better understanding.
-
To Mithrandylan,
It has already been defined that they are licit popes because they were elected in accord with canonical law.
In addition, it has been defined that irrespective of personal character or defect, if they are licit Pontiffs, they are guaranteed by Christ to be infallible when promulgating from the Seat of Peter.
What you appear to be seeking for is some criteria by which we know them to be "catholic popes" as measured by their "catholicity" and you state no one can argue they are catholic popes. On the contrary:
"Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church."
Pope John XXIII
"For all of us, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in Heaven; to enter into it, we need the keys."
Pope John XXIII
"The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"
Pope Paul VI
"As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside Whom there is no salvation."
Pope John Paul II
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ."
Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981.
Q. Is it true that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?
A. Yes.
Benedict XV1 - interview with journalist Peter Seewald (Book - Light of the World)
“It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”,
Pope Francis 1 (May 2013 - address to plenary assembly of the International Union of Superiors General.)
Incredible at first sight, I would suggest you research the idea that the V2 popes may have had very limited latitude to repair the post V2 damage:
‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!’ ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ - St Pio to Fr Luigi Villa 1963
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576777/pg1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
During an audience with Pope Benedict XV1, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)
Don't believe the common opinion - research it yourself!
God bless!
-
@Clemens Maria
I am convinced that Pope Francis will be remembered as an antipope, but until the judgement of a future truly Catholic pope declares him to be such, all I can do is go with the flow. I made up my mind to just say that Francis was the pope whenever asked because I started going to the SSPX and I wanted to fit in with the other Catholics there. The alternative was to stay at home or go anyway but not talk about the papacy and pretend to be in communion with the priest who prays for Francis.
why can't you do what I do, just let it be known to the priest you don't consider him to be pope and leave it at that
-
To Cassini:
Please see the following:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
God bless!
Thanks Andy. Having read it though I am further convinced that Catholic theology is as complicated as a living cell. It is as though there is a way out of everything, if things go wrong or if someone is looking for a way out. It seems what one believes in one's heart as a traditional Catholic is never quite true. It seems Catholics are required always to give popes the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.
The article above, while fascinating as to the history of the different kinds of saints, suggests to me that Catholics are not bound to treat canonisations like a dogma in that it is not a heresy if - for example - we continue to have no interest in the soon to be St John XXIII or St John Paul II after St-to-be Francis canonises them.
Can you imagine if one's soul depended on accepting these men as saints.
Just for the record, all these to be saints-to-be (bar Francis as I understand) were responsible for passing one of Vatican II worst crimes, a crime that calls to heaven for vengence, not to be made saints. I refer to the rejection of the Kinship of Christ in the world, even to the extent that orders came from Rome to certain countries asking them to remove such a Kingship from their constitutions. I recall Christ being thrown out of the Irish constution for example, by way of referendum by 90+% Catholics, all following orders from their Pope in Rome.
How in God's name could anyone associated with this betrayal be canonised?
-
To Mithrandylan,
It has already been defined that they are licit popes because they were elected in accord with canonical law.
In addition, it has been defined that irrespective of personal character or defect, if they are licit Pontiffs, they are guaranteed by Christ to be infallible when promulgating from the Seat of Peter.
What you appear to be seeking for is some criteria by which we know them to be "catholic popes" as measured by their "catholicity" and you state no one can argue they are catholic popes. On the contrary:
"Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church."
Pope John XXIII
"For all of us, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is in Heaven; to enter into it, we need the keys."
Pope John XXIII
"The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"
Pope Paul VI
"As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside Whom there is no salvation."
Pope John Paul II
"The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church...and from this genuine and single source, like 'humble, useful, precious and chaste' water, it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth, consecrated by tradition: 'There is no salvation outside the Church.' From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ."
Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Franciscan Vigil in St. Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981.
Q. Is it true that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?
A. Yes.
Benedict XV1 - interview with journalist Peter Seewald (Book - Light of the World)
“It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”,
Pope Francis 1 (May 2013 - address to plenary assembly of the International Union of Superiors General.)
Incredible at first sight, I would suggest you research the idea that the V2 popes may have had very limited latitude to repair the post V2 damage:
‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ!’ ‘Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ - St Pio to Fr Luigi Villa 1963
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576777/pg1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i5otFwkhF0
During an audience with Pope Benedict XV1, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)
Don't believe the common opinion - research it yourself!
God bless!
Oh, Andy...
Lawful electors are required for a lawful election. But again, the issue isn't whether or not the proper legal formulas were used to elect the post-conciliar popes; it's interesting to think about but even if the proper legal formula was used, that is not enough to posses, maintain and retain the papacy.
Only baptized Catholic males can be elected to the papacy.
Your quotes mean nothing when they can be matched by heretical quotes. Which they can. I can pull quotes from anyone (I mean that-- give me a name) that can be agreeable with the Catholic faith. Incidentally believing something within the deposit of faith does not a Catholic make; Catholics must be docile to the entire deposit of faith, and you cannot contend that about the Conciliar popes.
The common opinion is that these heretics are vicars of Christ. You're the one who believes the common opinion.
-
To Mithrandylan
You said:
The common opinion is that these heretics are vicars of Christ. You're the one who believes the common opinion. [/b]
ie:
Luke 18:11
"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men"
Fr Hesse on Papal election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw7CL5sLoTU
If there were not so much pharasaism in present Tradtion, there would be much more understanding conferred by God.
-
Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..." Jorge came to the window and was introduced as the new pope. He says his new name is Francis. Everyone recognizes him as the pope. The news media recognizes him as the pope. Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims etc. all recognize him as the pope (they say that they disagree with him but they recognize him as the pope.) The Catholic Church recognizes him as the pope. His enemies recognize him as the pope. The press recognizes him as the pope. If all these people recognize that Francis is the pope then that is good enough for me. Francis I is the pope of the Catholic Church.
[I'm not actually responding to Poche, but to his argument]
This is a really goofy argument. It only makes sense if you don't actually think about it. What Poche is saying, or trying to say, is that since Francis is universally adhered to or "recognized" as pope, this is an infallible sign that he is pope.
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
What is goofy about objective truth?
-
To Poche.
I'm afraid that your sound and simple reasoning is not complex enough for most these days!
St. Francis of Paola (1416-1507)
“During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. The Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will not remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications and delamination by man."
Most fail to make a distinction between the authority of the Seat of Peter and the character of the possessor.
But then that would diminish the fleshly pleasure in finding fault with others; especially those in authority.
2 Corinthians 11:3
"But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ."
God bless you!
Objective truth doesn't have to be complex.
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
His conclusion that Francis I is not the pope.
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
His conclusion that Francis I is not the pope.
You don't agree with his conclusion, but what is objectively untruthful in his statement? Intellectual honesty, please.
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
His conclusion that Francis I is not the pope.
You don't agree with his conclusion, but what is objectively untruthful in his statement? Intellectual honesty, please.
I just don't agree with his conclusion that Pope Francis is not accepted and adhered to as the pope.
-
C'mon Poche! If it's not intellectual, then there is no way your view can be true!
Don't you know the Holy Ghost bestows knowledge and understanding according to intellect and not humility?
Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena
The Eternal Father
"Wherefore, I say to you, that it is much better to go for counsel for the salvation of the soul, to a holy and upright conscience, than to a proud lettered man, learned in much science, because such a one can only offer what he has himself, and, because of his darkness, it may appear to you, that, from what he says, the Scriptures offer darkness.
"The contrary will you find with My servants, because they offer the light that is in them, with hunger and desire for the soul's salvation. This I have told you, my sweetest daughter, that you might know the perfection of this unitive state, when the eye of the intellect is ravished by the fire of My charity, in which charity it receives the supernatural light. With this light the souls in the unitive state love Me, because love follows the intellect, and the more it knows the more can it love. Thus the one feeds the other, and, with this light, they both arrive at the Eternal Vision of Me, where they see and taste Me, in Truth, the soul being separated from the body, as I told you when I spoke to you of the blissfulness that the soul received in Me."
Therefore, no more unintellectual statements please! The clever people, the sedevacantists, those who condemn the "apostate" conciliar popes, they know best!
So, know your place please Poche! Serve the "greats" and speak only when spoken to!
-
I've had massive arguments with scientists and 'peer reviewing' - calling it a "con-veyor belt of peer-reviewed lies" on other websites!
- because each time a new discovery is authenticated in their pompous minds by peer review - it gets superceded by someone else who makes the next discovery!
"Wherefore, I say to you, that it is much better to go for counsel for the salvation of the soul, to a holy and upright conscience, than to a proud lettered man, learned in much science, because such a one can only offer what he has himself, and, because of his darkness, it may appear to you, that, from what he says, the Scriptures offer darkness."
Sums up perfectly - Climate Change bull-shit and the bent Scientists who support it, mislead and con the World.
The chief Indian Global "Climate Change" authority, used to be a Railway engineer
LUCI_FER (Chemin-de-fer) the iron foundations again!
(Parallel tracks of iron run all over the Globe sitting on the "Sleepers")
-
I am getting so that news stories or articles expanding on some recent public statement by Pope Francis actually bores me and I don't really want to bother reading it. Everything the man says is designed to lead the Church in a new and banal direction and there is nothing uplifting to the guy.
Having said that, I can't imagine responding the same way if St Francis de Sales sent me an email. I would risk damaging my keyboard I would open it with such enthusiasm.
Could these post-conciliar popes be punishment to us from Our Lord? If so, then those who are lead by Our Lord to stay in the Traditions of the Catholic faith are blessed because the followers of concilliarism could be damned because they will go into the flames of perdition with those leaders that they follow. Concilliarism masks itself, as we all know, but it includes beliefs that are opposite of what Our Lord said. Faithful conciliarists smile at the world and think about how there is room in Heaven for all us with our different "gods" but Our Lord did not teach that.
In the Old a Dispensation, God did force Pharoah to punish the Israelites. While Moses was making his case to Pharoah, as a man, Pharoah agreed but the sacred scripture makes clear that God Himself hardened Pharoah's heart so the punishments could be delivered to the Egyptians and God's power would be made known. The Egyptians were merely subjects of a rotten king. The moral to the story for us? Don't follow this rotten "pope" or the new church. They mix small dosages of the holy with the ugly and talk of it all being a new springtime when anyone with eyes can see it is a disaster.
If the Old Dispensation is old hat to you, and now that we have Our Lord and His Church, well, Our Lord warned about following blind people because they will both fall into a ditch.
To follow concilliar teaching? Our Lord said He was the way, the truth and the light and that no ones goes to the Father except thru Him. Yet, a concilliar priest put his fist on the table and said that all three "Abrahamic" faiths are from God. A concilliar cardinal said that the Jєωs do not need Our Lord because they have their law and Pope Francis gives the impression that atheists are on the right path if they do good in their own eyes although he masked it by saying "they are following their consciences".
-
To Capt McQuigg
What you need to understand is that everything is not "black and white", "us and them".
And I speak as a member of the SSPX resistance.
Pope John Paul 2 had high wisdom. He knew that he could not restore the Latin Mass because there was insufficient grace in hearts across the church (lukewarmness) to accept to its light.
Luke 23:31
"For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?"
He sagely recognised that if he tried to do so (even if the impediment of the superforce in the Vatican permitted this) he would schism the whole church and make the situation even worse.
Thus he had to wait for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart when tremendous graces will be released to the world and the restoration can take place.
He had to content himself with largely going on the road and preaching the Gospel.
The following analysis of Fr Malachi Martin (even if you think him a charlatan) is sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2lus_qQvV4
(Listen 6 - 8 minutes in)
Moreover, given the parlous state of the church, he knew neither would he get sufficient co-operation from rebellious Bishops to make the consecration of Russia. So he did a consecration of the world to yield some graces for the world and indeed when asked in 1982 in Fatima why he had not consecrated Russia he said he had:
"tried to do everything possible in the concrete circuмstances."
The pharasaical manner of certain traditionalists in which they condemn everything about the conciliar church, as if anyone associated is unwashed is repugnant and ignorant. I know from personal experience that there are some in the Novus Ordo far more devout and holy than in the traditional movement. And our approach should be that while thanking God for the grace of being members of tradition, we be most assiduous in praying for all our brothers and sisters in the church. Tradition should not be confused with salvation and neither Novus Ordo with perdition!
Contrary to the blind condemnation of some, Pope John Paul 2 was a slave of Mary according to the devotion taught by St Louis Marie and a suffering victim. That is why providence is having him canonized.
We have testimony on his last words.
"Let me go to the Father's house."
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=39699
He went largely in the imitation of Christ - suffering, misunderstood, rejected, insulted and despised.
-
C'mon Poche! If it's not intellectual, then there is no way your view can be true!
Don't you know the Holy Ghost bestows knowledge and understanding according to intellect and not humility?
Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena
The Eternal Father
"Wherefore, I say to you, that it is much better to go for counsel for the salvation of the soul, to a holy and upright conscience, than to a proud lettered man, learned in much science, because such a one can only offer what he has himself, and, because of his darkness, it may appear to you, that, from what he says, the Scriptures offer darkness.
"The contrary will you find with My servants, because they offer the light that is in them, with hunger and desire for the soul's salvation. This I have told you, my sweetest daughter, that you might know the perfection of this unitive state, when the eye of the intellect is ravished by the fire of My charity, in which charity it receives the supernatural light. With this light the souls in the unitive state love Me, because love follows the intellect, and the more it knows the more can it love. Thus the one feeds the other, and, with this light, they both arrive at the Eternal Vision of Me, where they see and taste Me, in Truth, the soul being separated from the body, as I told you when I spoke to you of the blissfulness that the soul received in Me."
Therefore, no more unintellectual statements please! The clever people, the sedevacantists, those who condemn the "apostate" conciliar popes, they know best!
So, know your place please Poche! Serve the "greats" and speak only when spoken to!
Matthew says, "Christ founded a visible Church with a priesthood, with a hierarchy and Pope at the head."
Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail. This was a promise made by Jesus. You may be smarter than me. You may disagree with the pope. But he (Francis I) is still the pope.
-
Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail. This was a promise made by Jesus. You may be smarter than me. You may disagree with the pope. But he (Francis I) is still the pope.
...he may be the pope but he is also a heretic and being the pope is not an automatic ticket to paradise.
-
Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail. This was a promise made by Jesus. You may be smarter than me. You may disagree with the pope. But he (Francis I) is still the pope.
...he may be the pope but he is also a heretic and being the pope is not an automatic ticket to paradise.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Anathema (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm)
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
His conclusion that Francis I is not the pope.
Funny, because I didn't actually *say* that in that post. In fact, it doesn't even follow logically from my post, which was merely an argument against your proof.
PerEvangelicaDicta's question stands, pocket.
-
Shortly after Pope Benedict resigned, the cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel and closed the doors. Shortly thereafter, white smoke cane out through the chimney. One of the cardinals came to the window and said, "Habemus Papum..." Jorge came to the window and was introduced as the new pope. He says his new name is Francis. Everyone recognizes him as the pope. The news media recognizes him as the pope. Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims etc. all recognize him as the pope (they say that they disagree with him but they recognize him as the pope.) The Catholic Church recognizes him as the pope. His enemies recognize him as the pope. The press recognizes him as the pope. If all these people infidels and heretics recognize that Francis is the pope then that is good enough for me. Francis I is the pope of the Catholic Church.
I straightened out your commentary a bit there Poche, so your viewpoint can be better understood.
-
In truth, it is an infallible sign that a man is pope if all the Catholic bishops along with the laity peacefully accept him.
So what the news media and the Jєωs and the Muslims and the Lutherans think has absolutely zero impact on this doctrine.
So, does the Catholic world peacefully accept and adhere to this man as pope? NOPE. Most Novus Ordites don't go to Church, don't tithe, don't follow the teachings of their pope, eat birth control, live together before marriage, etc.
And the traditionalists, even those who vainly say they "recognize" him don't. They don't submit to his liturgy, his canon law, his catechism, his calendar... there is no adherence at all, much less peaceful acceptance.
One cannot say that these men were peacefully accepted and adhered to, ergo they are popes.
And what is objectively untruthful in Mithandylan's statement?
His conclusion that Francis I is not the pope.
Funny, because I didn't actually *say* that in that post. In fact, it doesn't even follow logically from my post, which was merely an argument against your proof.
PerEvangelicaDicta's question stands, pocket.
bump.
I'm honestly interested in what portions are not objective statements, Poche.
-
How can a living, breathing antichrist be Pope? What does Christ have in common with Belial?
If Francis is the Pope then the Catholic Church is a kingdom divided against itself, with Francis and his faithful being divided against Christ the King and his faithful. How is a kingdom divided against itself going to stand? If Francis is Catholic then the Catholic Church is no more, which we know to be impossible.
What I really don't understand about this situation is the lukewarmness. Even the sedevacantist priests don't seem to get how apocalyptic the situation is. JPII's Assisi gathering might just be the greatest abomination committed in history. I'm surprised the world didn't just end there and then. How is JPII going to explain to Christ why he presented Christ, the second person of the eternal and divine trinity, to the entire world as being on the same level as demons and idols? How is Benedict XVI going to respond when Christ holds up the "oath against modernism" (which Benedict took) to his face?
Has anybody heard of the phrase, "Athansisus against the world"? It refers to the Arian crisis where "the world woke up one day to find itself Arian". Athanasius didn't play around in denouncing the Arians, he said that they were heretics and were damned. Now all the Arians did was deny the divinity of Christ; that's all, just a single Catholic dogma. The Vatican II Popes, however, have implicitly denied every single dogma of the Catholic faith through their Modernist heresy which Pope St. Pius X rightly called "the synthesis of all heresies". Have you heard about the Pope whose only fault was that he didn't combat the heresies of his day "hard enough", and for that transgression the Bishops exhumed his corpse, dressed him in his papal vestments, declared him a heretic, excommunicated him and divested him of his papal garments, and threw him into the river Tiber? Just for not combatting heresies hard enough. Now not only do the Vatican II Popes utterly and completely fail to adequately denounce the staggering multitude of heresies that plague our time, they actively go about promoting them. This is so antichrist that I can't get it into my head. I admit that I don't fully understand it and I think that it is a very great mystery (perhaps what St. Paul called the mystery of iniquity), and I presume that it takes a grace of God to comprehend it at all.
This is the main problem of "traditional Catholicism", it puts too much emphasis on getting back to the good old sacraments (and please don't think I'm underappreciating the importance of the blessed sacraments, because God forbid I do that), and not enough emphasis on the CATACLYSMIC APOSTASY that is taking place. I mean a Book of Apocalypse "Babylon the Great is fallen, fallen" level of apostasy. Didn't the great preacher St. Vincent Ferrer call himself the angel of the Last Judgement because he went about preaching the end times and the need for conversion? And that was before the Protestant Reformation, I believe, back in a time that many consider to be a great period of the Catholic Church. If St. Vincent Ferrer was preaching an apocalyptic message then, can you imagine how he would preach today? He must be looking down on us all from heaven in disbelief at our own disbelief.
The consequences of admitting that Francis is a heretic and that that enormous organization recognized by the world as being the Catholic Church is not recognized as such by Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints, are unspeakably great. It seems to throw everything into doubt. How can you explain it other than as a tremendous punishment for sin? It's as though God has become sick with people taking "being Catholic" for granted and so he has let those lukewarm Catholics fall unknowingly into apostasy. I'm comforted by that message given to us by one of the recent Marian apparitions, I think it may have been Fatima, where Mary said that it would seem as though everything were lost before she would triumph. It does seem as though everything is lost. How many people today would ever think that the world is about to undergo a serious chastisement and that it's the Catholic Church that will be glorified thereafter? Many people don't think we need religion at all, so the idea that one Church (that same notorious Church that "opposed scientific progress", that "kept us in the Dark Ages", that is riddled with paedophiles, etc.) would be glorified the world over would be beyond ridiculous to them. Yet how beyond ridiculous was it to the Emperors setting the men and women on fire who "refused to worship the Emperor and instead worshipped a Galilaen carpenter" that one day those same wretched, despised people and their carpenter God would one day own Rome ad establish an Empire greater than any Roman had ever dreamed of? That's the situation that the early Saints and Martyrs were in - they believed that one day the whole world would bow before Christ, even though in their day Christians were seen as an insignificant sect. That's how strong God must want our faith to be today - it seems to the world that Christianity is a superstition belonging to a "Dark Age", but we have to believe that one day every single man and woman will bow before Christ.
I think traditional Catholicism may be a kind of temptation for many (I don't say for all, and would dread to say that). It might be a way of putting yourself to sleep with the comforts of feeling yourself to be "traditional" and "a true Catholic". I almost feel that it might be every Catholics duty today to become a preacher of sorts. I mean, I'm certain that it's every Catholics duty to process belief in Christ and the Catholic Church, to denounce heresies, not to mix with heretics or unbelievers, etc. I think it's shameful that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are generally more zealous in preaching their heresies and blasphemies than I am at preaching the one true faith. I think that because these heretics are relatively small in number it gives them the tenacity of the underdog. However, the Catholic Church is (or has been) so big that people are tempted to cuddle up to Mother Church and let her do all the unpleasant work. That might have been sort-of viable when we had faithful religious orders with committed preachers, but now we're back to the catacombs and we all have to be as zealous as those young virgin martyrs or as St. Paul who suffered all for Christ.
People put a lot of emphasis on the Book of Apocalypse today, but the problem with this is that the Book is so mysterious. I think we need to put more focus on Ezekiel in the Old Testament. In that book everybody who "sighs at the abominations" taking place is marked with a cross on their forehead, and everybody else is slain. That's where we are at today, I think. Whoever does not sigh at the abominations is damned first of all. Then in the Book it says that if God finds a Noe, a Daniel or a Job in the midst he will spare that man but not his sons or his daughters - that man's justice will only be enough to merit saving his own life. That, again, is where I think we are at today. I think you may well have to be another Noe, Daniel or Job in terms of righteousness and good conduct in life in order to be spared.
-
Francis is the Pope. We've had bad Popes before. Ya'll be trippin.
-
We've had bad Popes before. Ya'll be trippin.
Not this bad. History's favorite dead horse, Alexander VI, was absolutely saintly compared to recent incuмbents.
Alexander VI actually did his job!
-
If Francis is Catholic then the Catholic Church is no more, which we know to be impossible.
McFiggly, since finding tradition a dozen years ago, I fear I've been a "lukewarm", well, more like complacent, trad - so grateful to have found the real Church buried beneath the abomination that presents itself as the same, thinking that was enough.
Recently I've been jolted out of this complacency and straddling the sede fence. Many on this forum, on both sides of the argument, have been helpful in understanding the debate, as best as it can be understood by my limited intelligence.
You've well stated the conclusion I've come to, and more importantly, pricked my conscience. We must do more than avail ourselves of the sacraments - we must do battle via MORE prayer and fasting, and action. Each of us must determine, through the grace of God, what that action may entail. For me, it would start with a return to appealing to my many siblings. We all know how discouraging this effort can be.
I think you may well have to be another Noe, Daniel or Job in terms of righteousness and good conduct in life in order to be spared.
I offer thanksgiving for you and many other Cathinfo members (esp Matthew and Mater D who provide this venue for the remnant to gather). Salvation is serious business!
-
Francis is the Pope. We've had bad Popes before. Ya'll be trippin.
Have you taken the time to read the good debates in this and other threads? If so, you'd not have made a flippant remark, but provided some intelligent commentary.
This is such a critical issue and requires thoughtful presentation. Many of us are struggling mightily with this topic.
Oh, and please use the language of educated men, not slang. Thank you.
(I like your auto sig very much - sums up my primary prayer intentions)
-
You be trippin PerE. Thanks about the sig and nothing personal at all dude.
That's a good point ultrarigorist. I have seen the debate about having an "immoral" Pope as opposed to a "heretic"...there are many other bad popes aside from Alexander.
I'll stand with St. Bridget and St. Catherine etc etc etc on this issue and be critical of the Pope while not denying that he is the Pope.
-
Sorry for that hint of trolling PerE and all. Can't edit that last comment.
-
John, see below -
PerE...a light-hearted and plainly stated opinion without dogmatic vocabulary may upset some people...whatever. I have struggled with this topic too, however, if I want to say "Yall be trippin" I'll say it. You be trippin PerE. Thanks about the sig and nothing personal at all dude.
I don't take it personally at all dude :dancing-banana:
I'm certain you are a good man, trying to be a good Catholic. I infer this merely by your auto sig.
That said, I corrected your slang b/c Catholics do not speak this way. It's meant to be charitable. Not to sound holier than thou, but your answer was rather prideful
"Ill say what I want, nyah", if you know what I mean.
Our priest just 2 Sundays ago spoke about this issue. He said that slang is used by people who have been dumbed down and have succuмbed to modernist culture, and that it's a necessary language for those who cannot think deeply. You seem too intelligent to speak with slang. While I rarely use it when writing (esp re: critical topics), I do occasionally use it in conversation. I'm more conscious of that now. I merely pass on the instruction.
That's a good point ultrarigorist. I have seen the debate about having an "immoral" Pope as opposed to a "heretic"...there are many other bad popes aside from Alexander.
I'll stand with St. Bridget and St. Catherine etc etc etc on this issue and be critical of the Pope while not denying that he is the Pope.
I am very devoted to, and knowlegeable in the writings of St. Catherine. She has been my guiding light on this topic.
However, the popes of their times are not the conciliar popes and their masonic fraternity who have hijacked the Faith and created a cult.
McFiggly's comment is very well stated in this regard.
-
Sorry for that hint of trolling PerE and all. Can't edit that last comment.
no problem.
We be friends dude.
(couldn't resist)
-
Alexander VI actually did his job
Pope Alexander VI was also accused of heresy.
For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety
To understand why the accusation was false is to understand why modern sedevacantism is false. Cardinal Billot treats this example in detail.
-
Alexander VI actually did his job
Pope Alexander VI was also accused of heresy.
For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety
To understand why the accusation was false is to understand why modern sedevacantism is false. Cardinal Billot treats this example in detail.
Excellent quote, Nishant. However, I think the cases are too different to compare. No one post-Vatican II is accusing the post-Vatican II popes of buying their way into the papacy. The post-Vatican II popes merely changed the entire religion into something it never was. I also sometimes suspect the post-Vatican II popes of actually being atheists, power hungry? Yes. Devout and pious? I guess it depends on the definition. Marxists hate Our Lord but love power and have whole paragraphs of Marx and Hegel committed to memory so they are devout in the deviance.
I am interested in what Cardinal Billot had to say - can you post it?
-
Alexander VI actually did his job
Pope Alexander VI was also accused of heresy.
For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety
To understand why the accusation was false is to understand why modern sedevacantism is false. Cardinal Billot treats this example in detail.
The thing speaks for itself...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dDt4uLDnxRU/UzROB6p0hXI/AAAAAAAAAz8/_o7W-9T8lDE/s1600/pope1-870x1024.jpg)
-
Yes, someone please explain the hundreds of pictures of the conciliar popes in league with evil men? That is, blatantly exchanging masonic handshakes or signals or symbols on the papal vestments (Benedict XVI), or like this one... holding hands.
Too many to list.
-
Alexander VI actually did his job
Pope Alexander VI was also accused of heresy.
For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety
To understand why the accusation was false is to understand why modern sedevacantism is false. Cardinal Billot treats this example in detail.
But of course you won't tell us what the argument was.
God cannot…permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
Can I assume that this is what you are referring to?
But does the whole Church accept Francis as Pontiff? I count over 40 Catholic bishops and hundreds of Catholic priests who do not. I also see that there is much doubt in the minds of many who still "recognize" Francis as the pope. I have heard many times from them that if a future pope declares the V2 popes to be antipopes they will accept the decision. So one can hardly claim that the whole Church accepts Francis as the Pontiff. In fact, an argument can be made that what the entire Conciliar Sect thinks about Francis' claim to the papacy is completely irrelevent because they are not even members of the Church. So really the disagreement is only between those Catholics who adhere to the Recognize and Resist position and those Catholics who adhere to the sedevacantist position. If you go by that standard, the R&R group has a majority but certainly it cannot reasonably be claimed that the whole Church accepts Francis.
That being said, I agree with Cardinal Billot's assessment of Pope Alexander VI. But if Savonarola had been successful in convening a council and proving his accusations and causing the council to condemn Alexander then it would have been a different story altogether.
To see or to know something is not to judge. -St. Francis de Sales.
Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
There is no Catholic God.
-
Yes, someone please explain the hundreds of pictures of the conciliar popes in league with evil men? That is, blatantly exchanging masonic handshakes or signals or symbols on the papal vestments (Benedict XVI), or like this one... holding hands.
Too many to list.
In order to evangelize you have to go where the need is.
-
Yes, someone please explain the hundreds of pictures of the conciliar popes in league with evil men? That is, blatantly exchanging masonic handshakes or signals or symbols on the papal vestments (Benedict XVI), or like this one... holding hands.
Too many to list.
In order to evangelize you have to go where the need is.
And blatantly exchange not so secret satanic hand signals with them? Wear their symbolism on papal vestments? No, you do not understand in the least. But thank you for your attempt to assuage my fears. It literally makes my stomach sick.
Anyone else? Or shall we all stop pretending and/or making excuses? IT"s RIGHT THERE IN HUNDREDS OF PICTURES many of which have been posted here.
-
Oh, and I did not down thumb your comment Poche. I believe you believe that.
But I sure don't.
-
In fact, an argument can be made that what the entire Conciliar Sect thinks about Francis' claim to the papacy is completely irrelevent because they are not even members of the Church.
I've been saying this for years. The Conciliarists dredge up this tired old argument all the time. "Well, the whole world recognizes them as Popes; therefore, they're legitimate." What they fail to mention - conveniently for them - is that most of the "whole world" either lost the Faith or never possessed it. "For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." --2 St. Timothy 4:3
-
Yes, someone please explain the hundreds of pictures of the conciliar popes in league with evil men? That is, blatantly exchanging masonic handshakes or signals or symbols on the papal vestments (Benedict XVI), or like this one... holding hands.
Too many to list.
In order to evangelize you have to go where the need is.
And blatantly exchange not so secret satanic hand signals with them? Wear their symbolism on papal vestments? No, you do not understand in the least. But thank you for your attempt to assuage my fears. It literally makes my stomach sick.
Anyone else? Or shall we all stop pretending and/or making excuses? IT"s RIGHT THERE IN HUNDREDS OF PICTURES many of which have been posted here.
We are all brothers and sisters. This is why Jesus said, "Go out to all the world and preach the Gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
-
Can I assume that this is what you are referring to?
Yes, but based on the rest of your post, I assume you did not read the entire text in context, only a snippet of it from the internet. That's because Cardinal Billot contradicts what you later said.
Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff.
For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
So the very verified fact that Pope Alexander VI had universal acceptance at the moment when he was alleged to be a heretic suffices to show, from the faith, that the accusation was false. It is not even necessary, says Cardinal Billot, to examine very closely the specific facts. Which shows how far modern sedevacantists are from the mind of the Church.
But does the whole Church accept Francis as Pontiff?
You're finally asking the right questions. According to all theologians, this is the only question that matters. Because so long as a Pope has universal acceptance, it is impossible absolutely that he be a true heretic.
So whose recognition counts as a true recognition? And if a Pope becomes a heretic in fact, who will immediately cease to recognize him? First and foremost, the bishops/ordinaries, secondly the Roman clergy.
This is well known and standard doctrine, (frequently mentioned by the Society) although almost no modern sedevacantist (with few exceptions) takes it into account. Consequently sedevacantists end up worse than Savonarola, who at least knew he had to agitate for a Council of the world's bishops, whereas they think they need not even do such a thing.
Dogmatic Facts.— But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallible certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts ...
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not he exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.
This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church ... from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
-
Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff.
For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
So the very verified fact that Pope Alexander VI had universal acceptance at the moment when he was alleged to be a heretic suffices to show, from the faith, that the accusation was false. It is not even necessary, says Cardinal Billot, to examine very closely the specific facts. Which shows how far modern sedevacantists are from the mind of the Church.
It appears to me that Cardinal Billot's point is that we can't second guess the Church from a historical perspective. We can't convict Pope Alexander VI of public heresy a few centuries later after the fact. Even if we found Savonarola's evidence of heresy and we considered it credible, as long as the Church at the time did not find him guilty of heresy we can confidently assume that he remained the Pope.
I don't see how that argument applies to the present situation. Cardinal Billot was certainly not arguing (as you seem to be) that because a reigning Pope is accepted by the Church, he cannot be found to be a heretic. That would be a patently absurd argument.
If you are arguing only that Pope John XXIII cannot now be found to be a heretic, you may have a point. In that case, because no one at the time accused him of being a heretic (that I am aware of), then we cannot now revise our acceptance of his claim. That sounds like a good argument to me. But I am open to counter-arguments.
However, I definitely would not agree with you if you were claiming that because Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal O'Malley, Cardinal Mahoney, et al accept Pope Francis as the true Pope, we must all accept him. That's a ridiculous idea. If you believe that you already have one foot in the door of the Conciliar Sect.
But does the whole Church accept Francis as Pontiff?
You're finally asking the right questions. According to all theologians, this is the only question that matters. Because so long as a Pope has universal acceptance, it is impossible absolutely that he be a true heretic.
So whose recognition counts as a true recognition? And if a Pope becomes a heretic in fact, who will immediately cease to recognize him? First and foremost, the bishops/ordinaries, secondly the Roman clergy.
I believe that last paragraph is contrived. Please provide a source. Even if you can docuмent such a claim, there were at least two ordinaries who thought Paul VI was a public heretic - namely, Archbishop Thuc and Bishop Castro de Mayer.
This is well known and standard doctrine, (frequently mentioned by the Society) although almost no modern sedevacantist (with few exceptions) takes it into account.
What is "well known and standard doctrine"? Are you talking about the idea that a reigning Pope cannot possibly be found to be a heretic? Or are you talking about the idea that only ordinaries and Roman clergy are permitted to judge a claim to the papacy?
To see or to know something is not to judge. -St. Francis de Sales.
Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
There is no Catholic God.
-
I shouldn't leave out Archbishop Lefebvre either. Although he did say that he "recognized" Paul VI and JPII, nevertheless he accused them of public heresy. And it is arguable that he retained ordinary jurisdiction because he was still an ordinary in 1965 when Paul VI promulgated Lumen Gentium.