Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 37586 times)

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #285 on:** January 26, 2023, 07:44:14 PM »

Quote from: Meg on January 26, 2023, 07:40:46 PM

No I don't have an explanation. Why do you need an explanation? Is it only so that you can try to prove that +ABL was really a sedevacantist?

No.

I'm just asking for an explanation because the concept doesn't make sense.

How can an antichrist not be a heretic?

Meg · « **Reply #286 on:** January 26, 2023, 07:48:14 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 26, 2023, 07:44:14 PM

No.

I'm just asking for an explanation because the concept doesn't make sense.

How can an antichrist not be a heretic?

I have no idea. But I'm not concerned about it, because I don't think as a sedevacantist does.

I understand that everything has to make perfect sense to a sedevacantist, but as +ABL said many times, there is a certain mystery to the Crisis that we cannot understand. "It's a mystery!" he used to say. He was right, IMO.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #287 on:** January 26, 2023, 07:55:24 PM »

Quote from: Meg on January 26, 2023, 07:48:14 PM

I have no idea. But I'm not concerned about it, because I don't think as a sedevacantist does.

I understand that everything has to make perfect sense to a sedevacantist, but as +ABL said many times, there is a certain mystery to the Crisis that we cannot understand. "It's a mystery!" he used to say. He was right, IMO.

Well, if you could explain it to me perhaps I would stop being a sedevacantist and join you.

I only care about the truth and not "what side" I'm on.

Once we "take sides" we only look for information that fits our confirmation bias.

Perhaps I am wrong about sedevacantism.

Perhaps ABL is correct and these popes were antichrists but they were not heretics because if they were heretics it would mean their elections were invalid and apparently that simply cannot be.

Maybe somebody else here has the answer.

Is it truly possible to be an antichrist and not a heretic?

Meg · « **Reply #288 on:** January 26, 2023, 08:01:54 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 26, 2023, 07:55:24 PM

Well, if you could explain it to me perhaps I would stop being a sedevacantist and join you.

I only care about the truth and not "what side" I'm on.

Once we "take sides" we only look for information that fits our confirmation bias.

Perhaps I am wrong about sedevacantism.

Perhaps ABL is correct and these popes were antichrists but they were not heretics because if they were heretics it would mean their elections were invalid and apparently that simply cannot be.

Maybe somebody else here has the answer.

Is it truly possible to be an antichrist and not a heretic?

I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.

Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #289 on:** January 26, 2023, 08:36:07 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 26, 2023, 07:34:38 PM

I understand. It's important to go by docuмented statements.

How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?

Do you have any quotes for that?

How do you explain that an anti-Christ must be a heretic, MP?

Is a satanist necessarily a heretic? But he is anti-Christ, right?

Let us take a quote from St Robert Bellarmine on the Pope: On The Church, Vol I, Bk II, On The Authority of Councils, Ch XIX, The Responses of Our Adversaries are Refuted:

"But they will say, therefore, only the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist.

"I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its king. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that He would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that he would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required. See more on this with Juan Torquemada, lib. 2 cap. 106."

Archbishop Lefebvre would call such a Pope an anti-Christ.

Would you not agree, MP?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #290 on:** January 26, 2023, 08:57:10 PM »

Quote from: Meg on January 26, 2023, 08:01:54 PM

I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.

Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?

Well, when my salvation is on the line, it's pretty important though.

I need to stop being a sedevacantist if ABL is correct.

I need to join my prayers in union with these popes (now Francis) who are legit because even though they are antichrists they are not heretics.

So that's why I want to understand how an antichrist can also not be a heretic.

I just don't see how I can offer my prayers, and specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in union with antichrists.

That hurts to even think about. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.

I don't understand how "in union with" actually means "for".

See, when I join my prayers "in union with" somebody, to me that means I'm praying to God in union with them. It doesn't mean I'm praying "for" that person.

Perhaps somebody can explain how "in union with" actually means "for"??

And since Francis (and these other guys) all pray to different gods, I'm just not comfortable joining my prayers "in union with" theirs. They aren't praying to the same God as me.

Anyway,

I also don't see how an antichrist (according to ABL) can be valid matter for consecration of the papal office.

The ramifications of these questions can be very hard to face though.

It's tempting for people to want to try and "square a circle" or find some loophole because they could mean the loss of friends, family, the respect of my priest and chapel community. It could mean moving somewhere else. A lot of very hard things to face.

Yet, like the rich man who was sent away sad or like Abraham with his son Isaac, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to serve God in good conscience.

So if I'm wrong I need to know and I need to make some changes no matter what it might cost me.

These seem like pretty simple questions to answer:

1. How can an antichrist not be a heretic?
2. How can an antichrist be consecrated pope when he's invalid matter?
3. How can "in union with" actually mean "for"?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #291 on:** January 26, 2023, 10:47:22 PM »

Quote from: Meg on January 26, 2023, 08:01:54 PM

I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.

Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?

I wish people's brains wouldn't be so muddled. Nobody said that +Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. But it's very clear that he was open to it as a possible explanation for the crisis.

What's at issue is that +Lefebvre, unlike some R&R here, affirmed Catholic teaching that the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Spirit in his governance of the Church, that it's not possible for a legitimate Pope in exercising his authority freely to corrupt the Magisterium and to institute Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls.

Apart from that, I could hardly care less about what opinion one has in terms of how this came about. If you wanted to believe that they were blackmailed, or replaced by doubles, more power to you.

Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic. So was that of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said to the sedevacantists, that "I agree with you" where it comes to the fact that the assistance of the Holy Ghost would prevent a legitimate pope acting freely from engineering such destruction. But some of you twist the insistance that the Holy Spirit would not allow a legitimate Pope to fail like this as some kind of principle invented or made up by sedevacantists. Ridiculous. It's been reaffirmed by pages of Papal teaching, teachings of the Church Fathers, teachings of the Doctors of the Church. So you twist that proposition into an affirmation of sedevacantism.

But many modern-day versions of R&R are nothing short of heretical.

So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #292 on:** January 26, 2023, 11:14:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 26, 2023, 10:47:22 PM

Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic. So was that of Archbishop Lefebvre

Matthew, could we please set up this quote from Ladislaus as an introduction to the CathInfo site? :)

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #293 on:** January 27, 2023, 12:01:17 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 26, 2023, 08:36:07 PM

How do you explain that an anti-Christ must be a heretic, MP?

Is a satanist necessarily a heretic? But he is anti-Christ, right?

Archbishop Lefebvre would call such a Pope an anti-Christ.

Would you not agree, MP?

St Robert Bellarmine is speaking:

On The Authority of Councils
He is describing the procedures for a Council.
I'm not a Council. He is not speaking to me.
I'm not deposing anybody.

I'm just a Catholic avoiding sinning against the First Commandment by praying in union with an antichrist.

What is an antichrist?

According to ABL the concilliar popes are antichrists.

St John defines it further:

22Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.
1 John 2:22

Whether they be a satanist, a heretic,

or a non heretical antichrist pope who somehow "got consecrated" even though he is invalid matter,

I can't join my prayers in union with theirs.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #294 on:** January 27, 2023, 01:01:59 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 27, 2023, 12:01:17 AM

St Robert Bellarmine is speaking:

On The Authority of Councils
He is describing the procedures for a Council.
I'm not a Council. He is not speaking to me.
I'm not deposing anybody.

I'm just a Catholic avoiding sinning against the First Commandment by praying in union with an antichrist.

What is an antichrist?

According to ABL the concilliar popes are antichrists.

St John defines it further:

22Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.
1 John 2:22

Whether they be a satanist, a heretic,

or a non heretical antichrist pope who somehow "got consecrated" even though he is invalid matter,

I can't join my prayers in union with theirs.

This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.

On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...

The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...

The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.

Stubborn · « **Reply #295 on:** January 27, 2023, 05:29:14 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 26, 2023, 07:20:58 PM

From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.

Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?

From memory, the way it worked in my neck of the woods I think is typical.....

The then Father Sanborn, over time, worked himself into a frenzy in order to become sede. When he was fresh out of the seminary his sermons were awesome, even spell binding (to me) and I would say all of his parishioners really loved that man as a true holy and courageous priest with a great gift of communicating to his sheep! I still have a deep respect for him to this day from sermons he gave some 45 odd years ago.

Some how the word got out and almost every week you would see a new family or new people who heard of a TLM being offered in an old school's gymnasium. His little chapel was getting crowded and growing.

Then seemingly out of the blue one day his sermons switched gears as he started preaching against the pope, before long he started calling the pope, in a totally disrespectful way, "Montini" (most people did not know who "Montini" even was at the time), blaming him for everything. Shortly thereafter he came out insisting he was not the pope. I'm only guessing because it was so long ago, but I would say the transition from R&R to sedeism took him about 3 to 4 months.

During his early ravings against the pope from the pulpit, one by one his parishioners began leaving because of his sermons against the pope, but it was only few weeks after he went full on sede that more than half of his parishioners abruptly left due to his preaching exclusively and almost obsessively, sedeism.

The sad thing is, there was no need for him to switch gears at all, none whatsoever. All it accomplished was to stop the growth, cause division among the faithful, and who knows what became of those with nowhere else to go but left due to him switching gears for no reason, who knows how many of them left the Church altogether and/or went back the the NO?

Whatever happened, this was and still is the result of sedeism, this is the divisive nature inherent in sedeism that from then till now and into the future, is repeated over and over. For whatever reason, the sedes blind themselves to this, it's only purpose.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #296 on:** January 27, 2023, 05:40:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 26, 2023, 10:47:22 PM

Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic.

So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.

Ladislaus,

Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?

If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #297 on:** January 27, 2023, 05:42:58 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 27, 2023, 05:40:09 AM

Ladislaus,

Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?

If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?

Even better, how does Fr. Chazal's position differ from Stubborn's, since Stubborn believes Francis is pope and "quarantines" or "impounds" him just as Fr. Chazal does?

Meg · « **Reply #298 on:** January 27, 2023, 08:41:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 26, 2023, 10:47:22 PM

But many modern-day versions of R&R are nothing short of heretical.

So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.

When has Fr. Chazal ever referred to any traditional Catholic as a heretic, as you continually do here? When has he ever said that a Catholic must have positive doubt about the Pope, as you say we must have? Your mixed-up beliefs are nothing like that of Fr. Chazal.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #299 on:** January 27, 2023, 06:21:57 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 27, 2023, 01:01:59 AM

This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.

Thanks for the quotes, PV. I'll address that in another post. First:

Okay, if not every antichrist is a heretic,

would Catholics who are antichrist be heretics?

Can a Catholic be an antichrist and not be a heretic?

That doesn't seem possible to me.

Yet, ABL believed these popes were Catholic, right?

And he believed they were antichrist

and yet they were not heretics?

That's contradictory, isn't it?

A Catholic antichrist who is not a heretic?

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 37586 times)

Miser Peccator

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Miser Peccator

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Miser Peccator

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Ladislaus

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Miser Peccator

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Stubborn

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

DecemRationis

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

DecemRationis

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Miser Peccator

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter