Author Topic: How to behave in uncertainty (Read 8788 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2025, 07:53:46 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 07:43:46 AM

If Montini was pope you better obey as he said above, as this is no private judegement. He envoked authority from God almighty here. This is the so called "pope" binding you to obey, as true pope has every right to impose new liturgy (as pope Pius XII) has confirmed.

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.[Galatians 1:8]

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2025, 08:35:14 AM »

Sure, and that same quote is quoted by thousands of protestant sects to "disprove catholics". What does your quote prove? That you will take Wathens, Fellays of the world over the declaration of true pope. That is one irrational stand. As father Cekada used to say- pope speaks, you decide.

You flat our deny Vatican I whether you know that or not- "Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Also, catholic theology obliges us to avoid doubtful rites. If they are not doubtful, all the conditional ordinations are grave matters and mortal sins. If they are doubtful (doubtful is same as invalid), which indeed they are, what gives you the right to legitimaze these? You got your theology all twisted my frined.

Are you say that I as catholic can follow pope's teachings to hell? Unbelievable.

Stubborn · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2025, 08:51:58 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 08:35:14 AM

Sure, and that same quote is quoted by thousands of protestant sects to "disprove catholics". What does your quote prove? That you will take Wathens, Fellays of the world over the declaration of true pope. That is one irrational stand. As father Cekada used to say- pope speaks, you decide.

Protestants are anathema, because they "preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you."

Note St. Paul starts with cautioning us against himself and the Apostles when we says "But though we." He is telling us to listen to what they say, to compare it to what they've always said - and if it's different from what they've always said, then don't listen! - this is R&R.

He is not saying to first judge whether or not they are actually true Apostles, then decide if you will listen to them or not.

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2025, 09:21:20 AM »

Of course, he is one of the bishops. There has been terrible bishops preaching heresies through history. It is impossible for the See of Peter to be blemished with error. That is the teaching of Vatican I which you my friend flat out deny.

And you also deny catholic principles on doubful rites.

St Bellarmine: "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30

Forgive me, but only a prideful person could rely on scripture quote and base his whole position on his "own interpretation."

Stubborn · « **Reply #19 on:** March 18, 2025, 09:50:51 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 09:21:20 AM

Of course, he is one of the bishops. There has been terrible bishops preaching heresies through history. It is impossible for the See of Peter to be blemished with error. That is the teaching of Vatican I which you my friend flat out deny.

No, I do not deny it. Rather ignorant of you to say so. The See of Peter which V1 defined will forever remain without the possibility of error. You might better understand this if you were ever to read beyond the words "this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error..."

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 09:21:20 AM

And you also deny catholic principles on doubful rites.

No, I do not deny it. Rather ignorant of you to say so.

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 09:21:20 AM

St Bellarmine: "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30

As soon as the Church judges and punishes him then I will - as we must all - submit to her judgement.

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 09:21:20 AM

Forgive me, but only a prideful person could rely on scripture quote and base his whole position on his "own interpretation."

I do not base my whole position on my own interpretation of Scripture, it's rather ignorant of you to say so. I do adhere to that principle which you apparently go out of your way to deny, the highest principle in the Church. (See my sig.)

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 18, 2025, 10:09:12 AM »

So is Fr Hesse is the ultimate authority then? Archbishop Lefebvre? Bishop Fellay? Ultimately, that's your highest authority over what councils and popes have taught, because God speaks through popes through ordinary magisterium too. Maybe you didn't know.

"Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." - Pope Leo XIII, SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE (24).

Hate to break it to you, but this privilege has not been give to you, or me..Or Menzingen, no matter how well their intentions are.

Here, while you are throwing pope Pius XII under the bus who said that sacraments are spotless (see council of trent anathema on that too), you pretty much say to pope Leo XIII, yes, yes your Holiness. I will follow if I determine that you are giving us orthodoxy. If I am told by Menzingen that you are not, I can just ignore you. After all, sure you can think you are the interpreter of orthodoxy. But you are wrong too. Off with your teachings too..

Once the true pope finally comes, you will first look to Menzingen (aka the highest authority on earth) to "green light him", right?

How much catholic doctrine do you have to stomp on to justify your position. My, o, my....

Stubborn · « **Reply #21 on:** March 18, 2025, 10:50:41 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 10:09:12 AM

So is Fr Hesse is the ultimate authority then? Archbishop Lefebvre? Bishop Fellay? ....

You are very far off base.

To maintain a vacant chair, all you can do is what you're doing, namely, derailing. Every point I've mentioned in this discussion as well as my sig is wholly Catholic and does away with any need to judge popes, which is presumably why you can only attempt to derail rather than actually address the actual quotes.

Here the pope is teaching R&R. This is R&R.

According to sedes, this is infallible because it's "part of his magisterium." As such, he gives us infallibly crystal clear direction on what to do about a heretical pope, (sedes insist such a pope is in and of itself an absolute impossibility, but pope Paul IV infallibly taught otherwise).

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted. - Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio 1559

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2025, 03:06:37 PM »

Oh, really? And what might the pope be teaching here (from the very same docuмent):

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 18, 2025, 03:12:43 PM »

Did pope Paul IV infallibly teach the above as well?

"For, otherwise, there would be n̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶e̶r̶ (until the substitute Swiss magisterium appears) of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." There, fixed the pope Leo XIII quote for you.

Stubborn · « **Reply #24 on:** March 19, 2025, 06:23:13 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 03:06:37 PM

Oh, really? And what might the pope be teaching here (from the very same docuмent):

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless

It is clear what the pope is teaching you here is that your knowledge of their heresies grants you the authority to either deprive them of their offices, or declare that each and every sede bishop, probably most non-sede trad bishops, all NO bishops, cardinals and even popes, are not bishops, cardinals or popes at all. That's what he is teaching you.

To everyone else, PPIV first and foremost instructed us that the extent of our authority in the matter is limited to our own selves, to us contradicting heretical popes and hierarchy.

You know, I do not fully understand what drives sedes to obsess about the status of popes, so much so that it often consumes them to the point of being the cause of disunity among trads. It consumes them so much that that they feel that their judgement, their "opinion-tured-de fide-doctrine" is wholly necessary to the Catholic faith, to the point that they must separate themselves from non-sede trads, have their own sede chapels, priests, bishops, schools, seminaries and convents, all the while they try to bind us to their judgement, just as if we are bound to accept their opinion as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position, when in reality the whole idea is altogether unnecessary at best, and even risks damnation if wrong. The price is just too high.

NIFH · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2025, 06:41:34 AM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on March 17, 2025, 03:56:19 PM

The question is open. I don't think we can condemn anyone on either side. We can condemn those who excommunicate people who don't agree with them on the una cuм issue. They are the dangerous ones.

Leaving the una cuм in the Mass does not mean the pope is definitely pope.

Taking it upon yourself to remove the una cuм is condemning those who say the question is open.

After creating the division, some say, "but we don't condemn etc," which has no acceptable explanation.

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #26 on:** March 19, 2025, 06:51:13 AM »

Stubborn, I am not bothered about trads in the great confusion end time apostasy stomping on Vatican I in ignorance, and stomping on all writings of popes, fathers, ordinary magisterium etc.. As layman I have no authority to condemn them or to do anything about it apart from instructing them if they are willing. Few accept it, most think the road is too difficult to take.

But you see what gives me the great aggravation is when R&R crew forces conciliar sacraments to the faithful who ran away from them in the first place. As you know, the most famous papal substitute magisterium is not bothered whether the faithful are getting true sacraments or doubtful ones. And this is where we cross into the non negotiables.

This is how archbishop Lefebvre spoke (bolded and underline emphasis is mine):

Very dear Mr. Wilson,

Thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionally these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.

All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtful now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are not more Catholic.

We are in the time of the great apostasy.

We need more and more bishops and priests very Catholic. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!

We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.

I pray for you and your lovely family.

Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre

When you take that in the account and if you understand the gravity of the consequences, you will realise that the ones gambling with eternity are the ones who don't really care anymore (or ever cared before) if their sacraments were valid or not.

Stubborn · « **Reply #27 on:** March 19, 2025, 07:10:28 AM »

It was pre- +ABL and only a few months after V2 that we avoided NO priests because we (my parents) didn't know if they were priests or not, because they preached a new religion and most of them acted like queers. The exceptions were older priests ordained a long time before V2, we did go to some of those priests for confession. So what +ABL is saying is pretty much the way it has been since V2 for most of us.

But that does not change the inherent risk with sedeism. Do you realize that according to cuм ex, even +Sanborn is not a bishop because pre-SSPX he was NO, started his priestly studies at a NO university and was even awarded certain awards for his efforts there? All his consecrations, ordinations etc. were null and void....according to cuм ex.

The same goes for +Williamson who converted from Anglicanism, the same for the rest of "The Nine" who converted. The same goes for a majority of trad priests and bishops. According to cuм ex, none of them are valid because at one time or another most of them were NO. Somehow this is missed by sedes who trumpet cuм ex as proof of the invalidity of the conciliar popes.

All this demonstrates is that either most trad clergy are invalid, or something is amiss with the understanding of cuм ex, which may be why PPX abrogated it.

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #28 on:** March 19, 2025, 07:43:08 AM »

I think you are getting several distinctions confused here. I am not taking about licitness, I am taking about validity. As long as the true bishop consecrates VALIDLY (using proper form and matter) then the consecration is VALID. Same goes for ordinations. That is the part I am referring to.

You are taking cuм ex and inflating it to something it never pertained to be. There is no priest, bishop or theologian that gives that interpretation from the time of the bull onwards. I’m sorry my friend, but this is your theological invention.  If your theory was correct, all the non catholic converts could never hold any position in the Catholic Church after the promulgation of cuм ex, that would be just simply nonsense. Should we then stop referring to cardinal Manning as cardinal? Of course not.    

cuм ex is preventing bishops, cardinals or even popes to hold their OFFICE if they deviated from the catholic faith. If they are catholic, of course they are not bound by the restriction. I know where you are getting this. From modernist novel explanations from late Fr Hesse (God rest his soul for the good he has done).   

Papacy is not a sacrament, don’t think that needs to be explained. If you lose it or never had it, that’s that.  If you become catholic bishop and became heretic, you lose the office, but you are STILL a bishop. You are bishop forever.  Now, we are getting in the territory of supplied jurisdiction. No sede or trad bishop I am aware of claims they posses ordinary jurisdiction. The problem is Church supplies jurisdiction when there is no ordinary one (as in the case of current time without valid head), and Swiss magisterium plays the “supplied jurisdiction card” while at the same time claiming the ordinary bishop is there.

Now, back to the point of the matter. Novus ordo ordinations and more so consecrations are doubtful at least (and doubtful means invalid when it comes to conferring sacraments).  Therefore, trads should at the very least expect valid sacraments (if they cannot agree on other points) as a NON-negotiable.  And that’s where substitute Swiss magisterium and good amount of their trad faithful simply don’t care anymore, despite archbishop’s letter as above.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** March 19, 2025, 08:12:27 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 19, 2025, 07:43:08 AM

I think you are getting several distinctions confused here. I am not taking about licitness, I am taking about validity. As long as the true bishop consecrates VALIDLY (using proper form and matter) then the consecration is VALID. Same goes for ordinations. That is the part I am referring to.

Sorry but you're wrong. You should re-read cuм ex as you missed a lot.

According to cuм ex, what you read as only pertaining to popes not being popes, also includes all bishops not being bishops. So who ordained priests and consecrated other bishops when the bishops are not bishops?

As such, +Sanborn and every other cleric that has ever had anything whatsoever to do with the NO or any other religion are ALL suspect of heresy and/or have all deviated from the faith prior to finding tradition. As such....

"...They shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated......they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction."

I mean, YOU posted this:

Quote

Oh, really? And what might the pope be teaching here (from the very same docuмent):

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless

All the trad bishops I mentioned are "null, void and worthless."

Author Topic: How to behave in uncertainty (Read 8788 times)

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

NIFH

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty