On the heels of yesterday’s post, it would seem that a Catholic primer on Christian unity is in order.
DOGMA: The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, and he who departs from the faith in even one point of doctrine proposed by the Church’s authoritative Magisterium is outside Catholic communion and, therefore, outside communion with the Church of Christ; i.e., such persons do not enjoy Christian unity.
HERESY: Heretics enjoy “partial communion” with the Church of Christ.
HERESY: Heretics enjoy Christian unity (i.e., unity with the one Church of Christ) along with the children of the Catholic Church, whether Anglican, Lutheran, etc.
DOGMA: Unity is a mark of the one Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and this unity cannot be destroyed or in any way torn asunder by the will of men (e.g., those who would depart from her).
HERESY: The Church of Christ, His Mystical Body (aka the Holy Catholic Church) has been wounded by the fragmentation and division that exists among the heretics.
HERESY: Catholics, along with heretics, are traveling a path “toward unity.”
DOGMA: The only way for heretics to attain to Christian unity is to enter into communion with (i.e., convert to) the one true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church; united in one law of belief, partaking of the same sacraments, under one visible authority, that of Christ’s Vicar, the pope.
HERESY: Catholics are, and indeed must, seek with the heretics a “unity” that is either undefined, or imagined to be a form of common prayer, witness or service, etc.; i.e., “unity” that is not explicitly defined as the return of the heretics to the one true Church of Christ.
[NOTE: The dogmatic teachings referenced above are given in the following (not exclusively) Mystici Corporis, Humani Generis, Mortalium Animos, Satis Cognitum.]
That Pope Francis has actively promoted each of the heresies listed above is beyond any doubt. In this, he is not alone among the conciliar popes.
He does, however, stand out for having made the following statement this past weekend:
I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps. But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians. And that blood (of martyrdom) unites.
The simple fact that Pope Francis realizes that his comments “may sound … heretical” is evidence that he knows very well that he is bucking against what “some” understand to be the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the very definition of that which is heretical.
Clearly, the pope finds this concern of sufficient credibility to merit being mentioned publicly. This is important.
While Pope Francis does not give any indication that he agrees with those who believe that his commentary is heretical, by addressing this opinion directly, he makes it known that he is aware of the gravity of his commentary.
In other words, he can no longer deny having at least some comprehension of what is at stake here; it is not simply the sensibilities of certain pious men that are being challenged, but rather immutable Catholic teaching.
This, in my opinion, ups the ante considerably, so to speak.
If previously it wasn’t entirely clear to the faithful members of the College of Cardinals (if indeed there are any) that the time is nigh to formally require this pope to either confirm or deny his assent to authoritative Catholic teaching on the matter at hand, it should be now.
There can be no question, based upon the magisterium of numerous popes as so very clearly given in the century leading up to the Council (see links above), that Pope Francis’ statements are, objectively speaking, heretical; making of him a material heretic.
The only question that remains – one that needs to be answered for the good of the Church – is whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic; meaning, he knowingly rejects that which the Church requires one to believe in order to remain in the Church of Christ, that is, Catholic.
In order for this question to be answered, a process must take place. (Again, I cannot encourage you enough to see Robert Siscoe’s article on the topic.)
If this process ever came to pass, and Pope Francis were made to answer for his material heresy, I would not expect him to say, “Catholic dogma says ‘X,’ but I reject that in favor of ‘Y.’”
What I can well imagine him saying is something along the lines of:
“At one time the Catholic Church required the faithful to believe ‘X’ in order to remain in the Church, I believe that this is no longer the case and we are called to believe ‘Y.’”
Or perhaps more likely:
“At one time the Catholic Church required the faithful to believe ‘X’ in order to remain in the Church, but the Second Vatican Council opened the way for a deeper understanding; namely, ‘Y.'”
The former is enough for the pope to judge himself to be a formal heretic, as the immutability of Catholic dogma is a dogmatic teaching in its own right.
The latter would put the Council itself on the witness stand as a defendant (where it most certainly belongs).
In any case, my sense is that there isn’t enough faith in Rome for that process to take place. The College of Cardinals as a whole seem far too disoriented to think beyond their blind attachment to the Council and are, therefore, highly unlikely to ever do such a thing.
I hope that I’m wrong.
For those with the stomach for such things, below is the full statement issued by Pope Francis this weekend. In it, he repeats several of the heresies listed above in addition to the one already quoted.
What a disturbing and tragic video. Into what depths of depravity has the Holy Father fallen. There is not only an issue of false ecumenism, but of substantial metaphysical error. In stating at 4:30 min. to 5:10 min:
“But there is someone who ‘knows’ that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, HE WHO IS ANOINTING US (emphasis mine) with (the blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, that they are one, that they are brothers”
Pope Francis is perverting Augustine/Thomistic metaphysics and promoting a metaphysical dualism in which Evil knows and comprehends the Good, in which we know what is the good through evil. Something so contrary to our venerable Christian philosophy which holds that Evil is an absence of the Good, and that all was created from He who is “all Good and Goodness”, and “deserving of all of our love”. There is no sense of Holiness, there is no sense of Sanctity in these words. It is an abomination!
Regarding the sword that Christ brought into the world, Pope Francis’ interpretation of modern history is also gravely and grievously false to the point of being plainly duped by the Evil One. He claims we can know we are one because without discrimination the Evil One attacks all Christian denominations. But could we not just as easily say that the Evil One wishes the damnation of all souls, and having accomplished confusion and wrong theology in all the so-called “Protestant Christian denominations”, the Evil One is now solely targeting, guns-a-blazing, full steam ahead, with full unholy impetus, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I am stunned and cannot even weep for Bergoglio.
Louie, why wait for the cardinals? We too as the faithful have the right to rebuke the Pope and try him for the Signatura or the CDF, if I’m not mistaken. The late Fr. De Nantes did sue the Pope for “scandal, heresy and schism”. His plaints however were very elaborate and quite rudely phrased in his so-called “Liber Accusationis”, so were dismissed off-hand by the Pope and the judges.
He sued Paul VI and John-Paul II for good understanding…
Right about the Abbe de Nantes, dear EgidVK. So interesting that you brought that up.
Dear Mr. V.,
Never in my wildest nightmares did I ever think I’d have to raise my nausea threshold beyond the level it had reached by late Spring 2013. Who knew.
Dear Alarico,
“…the Evil One is now solely targeting, guns-a-blazing, full steam ahead, with full unholy impetus, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Absolutely! The war is between lucifer and Christ. The ultimate, supreme target of lucifer is the destruction of the one and only Church of Christ. All non-Catholic sects are insignificant in this regard, because they are already subjected to demons. What we are experiencing now are the fruits of the persistent efforts, over a long time, of the judeo-masons in conformance with the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita:
“… Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him… for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. … This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun – all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and, humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce. … the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sail to the wind in order to reach it. … You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon; let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares (nets) like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.”
http://www.brizek.com/endtimes/altavend.htm
Thats nice….in the entire 8 minutes and 42 seconds he says “Catholic” one time and even then its thrown in as “just another” religion among many. Its as if these people are truly ashamed of the word “Catholic” and consciously avoid saying it as much as possible.
Dear Louie,
This was researched for the previous post, but it fits even better here since you just provided the link:
We took a close look at the full video of the Pope’s message to the group of which
his close Pentecostal friend Giovanni Traettino from Casserta, is part BTW.
__
It’s nearly a copy of the messages he gave July 28th,2014 in Casserta-in what the Vatican called his “private” meeting [with 300 guests of Traettino – from around the world] where he also appologized to the Pentecostals for the Catholic Church’s imposing presence that had historically hurt the spread of their movement, which he so much admires. There he emphasized the confusing message–that the Holy Spirit first “creates diversity” and then “creates unity in diversity” –praising his good friend Tony Palmer ( deceased for 1 week at that time) for coining the term “reconciled diversity” –a concept which any right-minded Catholic designates false ecumenism which deliberately ignores the prerequisite need for unity of Belief in the unchanging Truths the Catholic Church is mandated by Christ to preserve and teach, and which these sects founders, current leaders, and members have all rejected, causing their complete separation from her.
(eponymous flower has available info on Caserta and links to the speech of 2014)-omitted here to avoid posting delays.
___
In this latest message, though, Francis vascillates between two viewpoints while hiding behind his straw-man’s (THE DEVIL’s) belief that full unity already exists:
FIRST THESE-contrary to Church teaching: QUOTES:
Minute 4:10-20 I feel like saying something THAT MAY SOUND controvercial, or even heretical, perhaps.
— 4:25-32 But there is someone who “knows” that despite our differences, we are one.” [The Devil]
— 4:38 -52 It is he who is persecuting us–persecuting Christians today..anointing us with martyrdom.
— 5:O1 -15 He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ..that they are one, That they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…They are Christians!
— 5:18-25 And that blood (of martyrdom) unites! Today dear brothers and sisters, we are living an ecumenism of blood!
_____
AND THEN THESE, implying conformity to Church teachings by recognizing we are not fully united:
minute 5:37-42 This must encourage us to do what we are doing today…to pray, to dialouge together..TO SHORTEN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN US, to strengthen our bonds of brotherhood…(which the council teaches exist due to Baptism)
____
The only real EVIDENCE we see of his personal errors of belief, is in his urging all to ignore the doctrinal differences that separate us- as the concern of theologians– totally dismissing the need for any agreement to be reached, before getting together (at Caserta he said even to preach the Gospel) thus considering ourselves united enough to do all we desire to do together– despite the anathemas of pre-Conciliar popes:
Minute: 6:04 I am convinced it won’t be theologians who bring unity among us. Theologians help us. The Science of Theology assists us.
— 6:20 BUT If we HOPE that theologians will agree with one another, [sound of hearty laughter] 6:27 we will reach unity the day after judgment. [more loud laughter, clapping]
=========
Is this last bit, he utterly dismissed the HOPE Our Lord Himself expressed in His prayer to the Father -found in the very Scripture from which this group took its name: John 17.
___
The so-called “Spirit of VII” surfaces there. The Council documents themselves call for Doctrinal issues to be recognized as things that prevent full unity:
” UNITATIS REDENTEGRATIO”:
–p.3: “The differences that exist in varying degrees between them [Baptized but separated Christians] and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.”
–p.11: It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.
–p.18 It is the Council’s urgent desire that, in the various organizations and living activities of the Church, every effort should be made toward the gradual realization of this unity, especially by prayer, and by fraternal dialogue ON POINTS OF DOCTRINE”
___
UT UNUM SINT:
— p.18: “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”,33 and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.”
=================
Treating doctrinal differences with the sects and even non-Christian religions, as things that will get in the way of “unity” if people allow them to-effectively turns the words of the Documents into an on-paper-only pretense of Orthodoxy, to which words pay homage while actions gravely contradict them. But a council would have to condemn not only Bergoglio’s, but the actions of all the Popes since John XXIII on THIS matter.
We still believe in miracles, but are realistic enough to realize it will take a big one to get action based on this video. The evidence IS out there though, from all he’s said and done since March 13, 2013, and previously in Argentina. It may help call attention to it, as well as to the degree of desperation of Faithful Catholics.
God Bless you for trying, Louie.
de Maria,
–
Wait till the upcoming sin-nod…
You might need a good dose of fresh air then. 😉
Heh-heh-so real!
My family got a copy of the Abbe de Nantes Accusations when it came out. It was considered to be very harsh in tone and wasn’t passed around to many for reading. I read in when I was old enough to understand it, in 1986, the year of Assisi and the year I was confirmed. The Abbe really had a great amount of discernment about what was going on.
Regarding this:
“HERESY: Heretics enjoy “partial communion” with the Church of Christ.”
Are there documents that address this in particular? The new Code of Canon law and Vatican II speak of “not in full communion” as opposed to “not in conmunion” due to common Baptism and based on St Augustine’s and St Robert Bellarmine’s “tria vincula” theory of conmunion. How would that fit in?
I believe that Leo XIII addresses this with great clarity:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896)
.
“Outside communion” does not invite the idea of partial communion, in fact, precludes it. Note as well that this is an infallible teaching (i.e., it is the constant witness of the Church).
.
“Common Baptism” does give a special shared designation insofar as that the mark is indelible, but once one departs in the least degree from the true faith, it’s of no avail unto communion.
.
Neither heathen, heretic, nor Jew has any communion with the Church of Christ, but the heretic alone has the indelible mark of Baptism.
Trying to keep up with the tremendous research evidenced by those who comment on this blog, I stumbled upon this…
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/10/10/priest-announces-he-enjoyed-reading-encyclical-divino-afflante-spiritu-enclyclical-of-pope-pius-xii-on-promoting-biblical-studies-commemorating-the-fiftieth-anniversary-of-providentissimus-deus-to-o/
“Speak softly, but carry a big stick—–aimed at the Barque of Peter!”
Has anyone had the courage to check out the books behind him? I was afraid to look!
Dear Indignus Famulus, Thank you both very much. God bless.
Well he has said his favourite author (of fiction) is a radical atheist. As for theology and philosophy . . . he invokes heretical ideas, and atheistic ones.
Dear Ever mindful,
Thanks for the always-helpful reminder to keep appreciating and studying Sacred Scripture. Following your link’s lead we found encouraging words in Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu”.
__
-Quoting St. Jerome, he wrote:
par. 57 “If there is anything in this life which sustains a wise man and induces him to maintain his serenity amidst the tribulations and adversities of the world, it is in the first place, I consider, the meditation and knowledge of the Scriptures.”
__
p. 60 He advises Bishops and priests:
“With this spiritual food the mind of the interpreter is fed and nourished “to the commemoration of faith, the consolation of hope, the exhortation of charity.”[43] “To live amidst these things, to meditate these things, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else, does it not seem to you already here below a foretaste of the heavenly kingdom?”
__
And also the laity:
“Let also the minds of the faithful be nourished with this same food, that they may draw from thence the knowledge and love of God and the progress in perfection and the happiness of their own individual souls….with all their heart. “Let them pray, that they may understand”;.. labor to penetrate ever more deeply into the secrets of the Sacred Pages.. teach, and preach, in order to open to others also the treasures of the word of God.”
__
And says to all:
“… be mindful of the promised reward: since “they that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that instruct many unto justice, as stars for all eternity.”
( 30th of September, feast of St. Jerome, the greatest Doctor in the exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, in the year 1943, the fifth of Our Pontificate).
Ah the Word of God. 🙂 🙂
Pax Christi
Sounds like “The Boys From Brazil.” Our Lady told us this would happen.
–
I see now that Poor Francis was talking about Satan. At first I thought he was referring to the ISIS crowd. Makes more sense. And I agree Alarico 100%.
I’ve noticed almost all priests, bishops (and Poor Francis) use Christian instead of Catholic – the words we use reflect the thoughts we think.
Yes, thanks for putting that together. It really comes home when it’s laid out in series, no? Bad.
Thanks, Louie, it’s getting clearer.
Beautiful, IF. Reading Jesus’ words, and actions brings a comfort. The Scriptures tell us He was so calm, so gentle, so generous, so merciful, so understanding, so insightful, so loving…
–
The world seems to recede…we are like the woman at the well, sitting in the sun, listening to Words that are like fresh, cool water washing away the turmoil in our harassed minds…so too reading the Psalms – it’s all there – nothing has changed. God Our Father loves us with an infinite love and He will offer the grace of unity with Him until our last breath.
Dear Lynda,
You’re welcome. The more we look at what ‘s going on right now, the more we think the Good Lord has allowed the election of this Pope to fire up his still-faithful hierarchy with a graphic demonstration of just how far amiss the modernists can take the ambiguities and “spirit” of VII. Perhaps at some point the dam will break, and we’ll hear them shout “Enough!” and “Leave!”
Scripture does promise us -at some point in the future, a son of Mary who will “rule with an iron rod”. 🙂 🙂
Amen.
I had a similar response. It is bizarre that the ‘authority’ of Bergoglio’s ecumenism is based upon the actions of the devil. The devil is using muslims to kill all these people whom the muslims call Christians, and so we must believe that all these people belong to the Church?! He therefore raises this satanic authority above that of Christ and His Church that clearly denies Bergoglio’s devil-based definition of Church.
Return to the unadulterated Code of Canon Law of 1917 (the first and only authentic codified law of the Church, intitiated by Pope Saint Pius X and completed by Benedict XV – (can’t find an online English Translation: http://catho.org/9.php?d=fn ) ). The 1983 Novus Ordo Code permits and promulgates heresies. It’s important to remember who approved that new code – JPII who approved so many things contrary and in direct contradiction to Christ’s truth. One example: JPII ‘authorized’ the Nestorian Rite (a Rite without the words of consecration). No True Pope could or would ever do such a thing. In authorizing this Rite in 2001 he effectively denied the dogma that the Church cannot change the substance (matter and form) of the sacrament. In the Nestorian ‘sacrament’ of communion, the Body and Blood of Christ are nowhere signified – and JPII and the CDF (Novus Ordo ‘replacement’ for the Holy Office) approved this.
Pope Pius IX: None [of the heretical and schismatic ‘communities], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (Jam Vos Omnes, 1868)
–
Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits — but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible — since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: “I believe in one…Church.” (Satis Cognitum)
–
Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members…It is to depart from divine truth to imagine that a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith. (Mortalium Animos)
–
The hierarchy of the Novus Ordo is abounding in manifest heretics. Siscoe doesn’t use the full quote from Bellarmine: A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a — Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. [De Romano Pontifice. II.30.] Bellarmine clearly teaches that the manifest heretic loses jurisdiction. “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church….A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” [(1943 Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum II:453]
–
Louie wrote: “The simple fact that Pope Francis realizes that his comments “may sound … heretical” is evidence that he knows very well that he is bucking against what “some” understand to be the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.” As Louie prayed in the Tradwriter, ‘May the Lord in His infinite Mercy, please raise up quickly and in our day, the holy and intrepid prosecutor that we so desperately need.’
“It has been one year to the day since Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected to the supreme pontificate. An unusual year in all respects, that seems to have lasted an eternity, given that Francis has not ceased to utter countless words and make countless gestures at a revolutionary pace since his unprecedented “buona sera” delivered Wednesday, 13 March 2013 in St. Peter’s loggia. A profane greeting, and highly symbolic, since which the course of time has carcely been able to resist the Bergoglian frenzy and fury. Continuous action and incontinent words, noisy and confused, flow forth like a mountain stream that gushes into a waterfall, attracted by the force of the void that inevitably pulls it into a vortex where nothing can be seen clearly and where nothing can escape the deadly flood that destroys everything in its passage. His dubious enterprises should initiate long theological studies, steered by the talented and erudite pen of some major apologist, whom perhaps, in His infinite mercy, Divine Providence will deign to send to us in order to enlighten our sleepy minds with his luminous teachings. Pending this salutary event, I dare to publish this small article in which I have tried to compensate for my lack of talent with a serious and painstaking work and to balance a narrow science with unconditional and unreserved love for outraged truth. 03/13/14” For the full article: http://www.novusordowatch.org/mileschristi-francis-englis.pdf
Dear I F,
Thank you for extracting a beautiful truth from a satire blog,which I only recently discovered…
Please could I share a further link, which seemed so funny…
“I think the most fascinating thing to learn was that while Christians were being persecuted by the government, they decided to squabble over language instead of coming together to fight for their right to religious freedom.”
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/08/07/report-some-2nd-century-roman-christians-hated-latin-mass-because-it-was-said-in-the-vernacular/
PS. I put in the full quote from Bellarmine.
An excellent comment Salvemur.
Yeah. I reckon the ‘This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction’ is not something to be dismissed. Those who are still in the Novus Ordo Hierarchy who are validly ordained priests/possibly Bishops who have not preached public herersy, you men, therefore, have JURISDICTION to depose Bergoglio – hop too!
The Siscoe articles recommended by Louie do not stand unchallenged. Siscoe is vehemently anti-sedevacantist. To get a balanced view of heretical popes, deposing popes etc., please also read: https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf
Louie, Thanks for all your great and faithful work. This is some of your best. However, as crazy as this may sound, given the circumstance of the Church and faithful, I believe the latest “missive” “Pope Francis, His Humbleness”, on video and in living color no less, is prayers answered by Mary, Our Mother and Protector of her Son’s Church. Why? Because it is soooooo OUTRAGEOUS that anyone with a scintilla of common sense let alone a smidgeon of knowledge about the OTF, KNOWS that PF is spouting PURE HERETICAL UNADULTERATED NONSENSE.
We are at a tipping point for sure. Even the Neo-Catholics will have to deny their eyes, ears and admit to sitting on their brains if they keep quiet about this. Absent PF’s conversion, I have been praying that he would become so OUTRAGEOUS that even CINO’s and former Catholics would know he is a preaching, teaching, walking and talking heretical windbag. There is no in between. We need to pray for PF and all the cabal around him. Absent his conversion, we need more of this from him…NOT LESS. Its the equivalent of “Look mommy, the king has no clothes on”
Dear Ever mindful,
Ha! didn’t catch the satire –thought it was some kind of misprint and went looking for more info. — joke’s on us
Worth it, though. Nice stuff from Pius….:-) 🙂
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/12/26/breaking-vatican-to-posthumously-grant-henry-viii-annulment-queen-to-dissolve-church-of-england/
Hi, Louie,
If I may quote the Catholic Encyclopedia‘s statement that a dogma “might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church”, I cannot see the definitive statement (ordinary or solemn) in your sources above.
That said, what I understand is that your sources demonstrate Apostolicity of doctrine. They are of dogmatic value, i.e. were the Church to deem it necessary to define a dogma in this area, these sources could be used to establish or prove it.
What I also understand is that, were someone to attempt to define ex cathedra a proposition that contradicted your sources, it would be highly unlikely that they could demonstrate the Apostolicity of that contradictory proposition.
In other words, it is my understanding that your sources are “as good as” dogmatic (and we are obliged to assent to them) but they are not technically infallible.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Wow – the more one digs up the past of the post-conciliar papacies, the more ugly things one finds out.
I had no idea about “Saint” JP II “The Great” promulgating an utterly non-Catholic “liturgy”. I guess anything goes in the conciliar church.
–
Benedict XV helps to puts things in perspective about what is necessary for church membership:
Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Thus far Mundabor’s site is the only one that I can see (FOLLOWING Louie’s lead) who is calling out that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!! What are the other trad blogs waiting for?
For Bergoglio to stand in the balcony of St Peter’s and personally declare he is the Anti-Christ?
Oh wait – no, then they would say that he had some kind of mental fit and he didn’t really mean that…
We need all the trads of the world to stand united against the heretic-in-white!!
I know. I reckon when it all comes out in the wash, the waste water will be unbelievable:
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=34&catname=15
Dear Salvemur,
Thank you for posting this link to Miles Christi’s incredibly good monograph on Bergoglio. In my dumb and humble opinion, this is OBLIGATORY READING for anybody who calls himself a Catholic. How there can exist any confusion, or uncertainty, after reading this, regarding the origin, nature, mission or goal of the NO church, or the heresies of VatII and the conciliar popes, I simply do not understand.
Dear Hoc,
So is Novus Ordo Watch.
In addition to the ludicrous notion of “interfaith” worship with heretics who have no consecration at their “liturgy”, particularly egregious is the fact that Wojtyla mandated intercommunion with heretics who do not believe Our Lady is the Mother of God.
–
So much for “Saint” JP II “The Great”‘s wonderful devotion to Our Lady.
Thanks, Dumb_ox:
.
That same Catholic Encyclopedia entry says:
.
“But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.”
.
In the sources above we find the popes claiming recourse to “the practice of the Church … always the same, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, and the Sources of Revelation.”
.
As such, they would seem to fit this definition of dogma.
.
In any case, lest that one word be poorly chosen, I am perfectly happy to substitute in its place, “infallible and irreformable Catholic doctrine.”
I call, again, for us here, and in conversation/writing never to refer to ourselves as Christians. We are Catholic.
–
I correct anyone who calls me a Traditional, or Conservative, Catholic – no! I am a Catholic.
–
Anyone who tramples on one iota of what Catholics believe and practice is not a Catholic. It really is that simple.
Dear Salvemur,
Please keep these articles coming! Don’t stop soon! This really blows the mind. And to think that millions of good, innocent, faithful souls are given this agent of satan to venerate as a great saint. The comfort is that they will be judged according to their innocence and after the chastisement everybody will know the truth.
The “From Rome” blog has posted Louie’s video and seconded his motion, adding access to the petition started a while back.
But you’re right, there’s little other reaction evident.
It’s possible many don’t see this as taking things a step further, as Louie does. Our own reaction to the video was that it is very similar to the Caserta fiasco last year, with the added use of the references to the “someone” who fits the description of the Devil, as a ploy we’ve been seeing more and more over the last two years–a sort of built-in “plausible deniability”. If anyone accuses him of believing those things, his spokespeople simply claim they misunderstood how he was making use of a literary tool, and regarding the word “heresy” he was referring to how some people might mistakenly react. It doesn’t wash clean, but it’s just Jesuit-tricky enough to keep the opposition waiting for something much more useable in an “ecclesial court of law”.
Hear! Hear! Bravo! Well said Barbara! 🙂
Thanks for your reply, Louie.
There also appears to be a definitive, and therefore infallible, statement of the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council that is precisely to the point here. In fact, this statement immediately sprang to my mind when I saw Bergoglio translated in the previously posted video, in which he speaks of an “ecumenism of blood”:
“Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record….
We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ’s sheep’,… have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine….
[T]he holy Roman church,…
firmly believes, professes and preaches…that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
(Click here for the translation on papalencyclicals.net. H/t to NOW for drawing attention to the above statement.)
Dear Barbara,
Amen. When we read the Documents of VII, we see (IOHO) way too much emphasis on this “bend-over-backwards” mentality towards heretics (separated brethren) and unbelievers, to the point where the Mandate of Christ gets demolished. For example:
Unitatis Redintegratio p.11 :
“The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren.”
Our reaction: How absurd is it to expect no obstacles to dialogue to develop when talking about the Truths we have to offer, that their founders erroneously rejected. These instructions leave us trying to walk on eggshells.
___
JPII wrote in Ut Unum Sint:
“When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth. For this to happen, any display of mutual opposition must disappear. Only thus will dialogue help to overcome division and lead us closer to unity.”
Same problem. Their opposition must disappear. Ours must stay in fidelity to Christ’s teachings. This whole idea of “equality” of demeanor is a trap laid by the Devil, that has gotten these dialoguers to where the Pope is today–warning people that what he is about to say will likely strike some as “heresy”.
He’s simply following instructions of the Post conciliar Popes who preceded him. We need to have a review of VII and a purge of this junk it contains.
Better yet, let’s just revive the “index” the #and put it on as #1.
Dear Louie and all,
While we’re on the topic of ecumenical debacles—Weren’t all these Catholic outreaches to the Jews supposed to improve relations with them?
Looks like we were taken it.
GloriaTV reports today that the Israeli Government is attempting to eliminate Christian schooling in their country:
“Without Precedent: Today the Christian Schools in Israel hold a big demonstration in front of the Ministry of Education.”– which has reduced their budget by 45% in the last ten years. -“This has forced the schools to increase fees charged to parents”
however
“last year, the Ministry limited the ability of Christian schools to collect fees from parents. This amounts for them to a death sentence.”
—-
Time to home-school?
It’s pretty astonishing (and disheartening) that thus far, a meager 400+ people have signed the petition (linked on the From Rome blog) calling on the college of cardinals to depose Bergoglio.
–
It ain’t happening.
Heretics aren’t going to depose one of their own. We have to be realistic.
Peter Lamb,
–
Your statement above in reply to Salvemur’s link on the JP II approved Nestorian interfaith worship: “The comfort is that they [those who believe JP II is a saint] will be judged according to their innocence and after the chastisement everybody will know the truth.” paused me to think. It is indeed a charitable statement (and I don’t criticize it) but I personally take a more cynical approach, if you will. Yes, there are good catholics out there (the good family of the persecuted Asia Bibi being an example that comes to mind) that don’t have an understanding (yet) of all the issues and of the perfidies of the post-conciliar pontiffs, but for the majority, at least certainly in the west – how many people can claim “innocence” in today’s sin drenched world as an excuse for being ignorant of the truth?
With the easy availability of information via the internet these days, it seems a hard sell that anyone could claim ignorance as a legitimate excuse for not knowing the truth.
–
But yes – I agree that after the chastisement all those of good will that had until now remained ignorant will know the truth.
It’s worth noting that Francis took a significant pause before his sentence about “heretical”, and followed that word immediately with “I don’t know…” (which the English subtitles left out).
Any analysis of these papal comments that seeks to establish formal heresy (beyond material heresy) has to take this little escape clause of his into account.
Oh wait! Jimmy Akin would write a column explaining in 25 points why Pope Bergoglio really didn’t mean what he said and how his words are to be CORRECTLY interpreted, according to Akin.
P.S. Akin did write a column explaining why what the pope said was not heretical. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-it-doesnt-matter-what-kind-of-christian-you-are-9-thin/
It’s not only the “maybe what I’m saying is heretical” statement that’s under scrutiny here, but the fact that Bergoglio admitting he doesn’t care one bit about the deposit of faith lends credence to the thesis that he has knowledge of the heterodoxy of the other heresies he has uttered in the past.
All Christians are certainly not the same. That some of one of the countless protestant sects may die for Christ is true; I know many fervent protestants. But we are not and ever will be the same. Only in the Catholic (ok, the Orthodox too) Church can the Holy Eucharist be found and the demonic assault is targeted towards that truth and those who uphold it.
The “facts” are way too “iffy” to try to prove or prosecute. Jorge may not be a natural thinker or scholar, but he’s obviously had a lot of practice playing word-games with the public and press–(not something we admire). In this comment section alone, we see three different views of who the “someone” who “knows” and is persecuting Christians is in the Pope’s mind:
Isis, the Devil, or God ( Mudabor’s take (which is not so far-fetched when you consider that if it’s supposed to mean the devil who knows the Truth, it’s really the Truth that Francis is trying to use for “clout” in that statement. And God IS Truth. So trying to “prove” what he meant, takes us right back where we’ve all been for 2 years, 2months and 2 weeks so far.
(but who’s counting?)
🙂 🙂
The point here is not “proving” or “disproving” anything.
Bergoglio himself has said it: HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH.
dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
I wanted to say this, but I am so, so, yeah so very- glad I didn’t. You put it so much better than I ever could. Pointed, on target, non verbose. Oh, man-I love it when Catholics speak thus.
precisely
Dear In Hoc,
That’s been our point for over two years now, and still is if (see our comments above). What Louie is contending here, if we understood him correctly, (and many seem to be agreeing) is that something major happened during that video, to escalated the situation, and provide more evidence for Hierarchy to use. We aren’t seeing what THAT.
But as we’ve said, his dismissals of doctrine as something the Theologians can keep arguing over in some back room, while we all buddy-up and work together to spread the Gospel, are what we see as the real evidence provided every time he has gathered with Pentecostals and Evangelicals.
So, agreed.
my very fallible opinion.
“Pope francis ” is the biblical false prophet we are living in the last few years before our lord returns he is as the prohecy of St Francis Assisi said the destroyer. He will/is laying the ground work for the 1 world religion ready for the Antichrist who is due on the world scene very soon most likely to end WW3 he will be viewed as some great peace maker , francis will praise the antichrist who after a short time will make the world beleive he is himself divine and will want us to worship him as GOD. Under the reign of the antichrist the mark of the beast will be introduced (microchip) which we cannot accept. His reign will be for 3 1/2 years.
If we follow the Pope on his claim that all Christians are “one,” shouldn’t that spell the end of the ecumenical movement? Doesn’t it mean unity has been attained? It seems a lot like George Bush’s “Mission accomplished.”
Whether you’re right or not about the details–time will tell. But it’s never a bad idea to remind folks of the warnings of this powerful book of prophecy that apply to everyone. We must keep turning away from sin; not tolerate it in our midst; Hate the false teachings God hates; refuse to take the “mark of the beast” in order to buy or sell; and persevere to the end, doing penance for sin, with that “first Charity” to which Our Lord reminds us to return.
Our Lady of Fatima added the daily Rosary, Scapular, and First Saturdays
Time for some comic relief, dear brethren? Well, I got nothin.’
But, slightly OT-
I see that along with Mr. V., Fr. Isaac Relyea will be at upcoming CFN Conference. I always liked Fr. Relyea. Scroll to bottom for scheduling.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/c73abff4e7f8bfcfabcb042960bcb866-369.html
A sermon from Fr. Relyea on the power of a mother’s prayers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrz_dnBirE
I second this.
Yes, and what would this look like? I’m here, and there is a Jew on the other side of this table. I say (beginning the dialogue) “Jesus is the Saviour of the World, He is the One you awaited, He is the Son of the Father, and Himself God. Let me show you using the Scripture we share how this works” Then the Jew says “no, he’s not.”
–
Pretty short dialogue.
–
What’s the point of this silliness? What I need to say is “Mr. Jew, please open your eyes to the truth. I will pray to the Holy Ghost that He will enlighten you. Please, please let me talk to you about this before it’s too late for you to be saved.”
–
We have been dialoguing with the poor Jews for decades. Result? Nothing. Wouldn’t it be great if we could try Plan B? Tell the truth, beg them to listen, pray hard for their enlightenment. Tell them to give us a call when they really want to talk.
–
Crazy, I know.
My understanding is that being in a state of habitual mortal sin dulls the mind and makes it very, very difficult to hear the truth. Many Catholics who use contraception and who abort their babies, and fornicate, and commit adultery are in a constant state of grave sin. And this all the while attending Sunday Mass and sending their children to ‘catholic’ school….their ears are shut and their eyes are blind.
Ask and ye shall receive…..
“The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray: “Take only ONE. God is watching.”
___
” Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies. A child had written a note, “Take all you want. God is watching the apples. ”
🙂 🙂
One of Poor Francis’ ideas which doesn’t get much play is that we can and should dismiss ‘theologians’ because they just spend all their time disagreeing with each other, and talking all this intellectual stuff nobody can understand, or care about…nay, nay, we just have to take the pulse (or smell the armpits) of the People of God.
–
Once they tell us what they ‘want’ we’ll know in which direction the Church ‘should’ go.
–
The softening of already mushy brains of the poor man in the pew.
This book has been mentioned before but I recommend it again: Lord of the World by Father Hugh Benson. Prophetic and scarily like what is happening now- written in 1907 or thereabouts.
–
Who is Julian Felsenberg? Obama? Hilary? Jorge?
The sheer depth of knowledge displayed in the comments section makes me feel like an idiot!
Most of you would make superb apologists for the faith.
The currently heretical German Bishops’ coalition and their supporters (including higher-ups) come readily to mind these days when reading St. Jude’s Letter:
–“Dearly beloved..I ..beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) .. these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. Woe unto them..walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain’ s sake.
___
But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting.
___
And some indeed reprove, being judged: But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal.
___
Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, [25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages.
Amen.
Hello Peter – an important source:
–
http://sggresources.org/products/the-anti-modernist-reader-vol-1
–
Although the majority of works compiled in the reader’s first volume are online at the main page in the link above, they are quite tricky to find, but having the book at hand makes it so much easier to read and then find the links under their headings so they can be shared around.
That’s the rub – valid doesn’t mean legit:
–
Pius IX tells us that ‘he who eats of the lamb outside [of the Holy Roman Church] has no part with God.’ (Amantissimus, 1862)
–
Only baptised people who keep Faith with the Teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church – Her perennial Magisterium – are Christians in truth (the authentic desire for such at the end of one’s life, if the practical application hasn’t been available, serves as the ‘baptism of desire’). This is a fact revolted against by VII and by everyone locked into the error of protesting against Christ and His Church (somehow they believe they can have a DIY Christ and a DIY Church and belong to the non-DIY Christ andHis non-DIY Church?!?). A person who applies their baptism in protest to Christ’s reveled Truth – His Church (Tradition, Scripture, the See of Peter) is outside the Church.
de Maria. oi, thanks for this link – ‘a victim soul to God’ = what Bergoglio would call a ‘self-absorbed, promethean neo-pelagian’.
“…their ears are shut and their eyes are blind.”
That’s exactly right.
“In Hoc Signo” makes an important point, quote:
“HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH”
(emphasis in original).
The charitable presumption of Catholicism in a papal claimant is, like any presumption, rebuttable by evidence to the contrary, such as:
1) Testimony of Giorgio Napolitano, delivered to Bergoglio’s face, during the latter’s state visit to Italy, November 14th, 2013:
“We have been struck by the absence of all dogmatism, the distancing from positions ‘not touched by a margin of uncertainty,’ the call to leave ‘room for doubt’ characteristic of the ‘great leaders of the people of God,'” Napolitano said, quoting [Bergoglio’s] words from an interview with a Jesuit confrere published in September.
2) Homily of Bergoglio delivered at DSM, April 4th, 2014:
“How is it, though, that he, who yesterday was a heretic, is today a Blessed of the Church? It is because yesterday, those who had power wanted to silence him because they did not like what he was saying.”
3) Homily of Bergoglio delivered at DSM, March 17th, 2015
“Even today there are Christians who behave like the doctors of the law and ‘do the same thing they did with Jesus’, by objecting: ‘This one speaks heresy, this one cannot, this one goes against the discipline of the Church, this one goes against the law’. And thus they close the doors to so many people.”
And then there is the video we are currently discussing. Reading Jorge through Jorge: these are the words of a missionary for heresy.
Salvemur, Great stuff – thank you.
Well said. There are only those who are Catholics and those who are heretics.
This is true and very obvious. And hence to diabolic oppression.
We do in effect have the chip already as we can’t buy or sell except in computer controlled systems for the most part.
my dear salvemur,
do you think His Humildad would be that kind???? One Ave for you know who, please? I see significant progress. God bless you.
dear Paul Morphy,
of all here, you are probably the one saint among us. Think St. Joseph Cupertino.
dear Indignus famulus,
I knew you would not fail in providing a Puerto Rican coffee over the keyboard moment! God love you.
dear Dumb_ox & In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Your comments, c’est magnifique !
“This is what Francis said. Note that, in contrast to the Vatican’s English translation, Francis did not say that it may perhaps “sound” like a heresy, but that it may perhaps “be” a heresy! The candidness of this admission is beyond stunning. Not even we at Novus Ordo Watch would have ever imagined that a Vatican II Antipope would ever be so bold and preface a heresy with the declaration, “This is perhaps a heresy”!
Really, the Francis “pontificate” is Sedevacantism for Dummies. He’s now telling his adherents to their face that he is a heretic! No, not simply a heretic “perhaps” but for sure, not only because what he said after this prefatory remark was indeed frightening heresy (his “ecumenism of blood” and “Protestants and Catholics are one” heresies — see our original post), but also because he expressed very clearly that he is absolutely willing to adhere to and teach heresy, even though — thus he claimed — he “does not know” whether this particular idea is heretical or not. Even if he doesn’t know, the fact that he is willing to teach and adhere to it regardless shows his heretical depravity. An analogy will help: A deer hunter who sees a creature move in the forest but cannot tell whether it is a deer or a human being but shoots nonetheless is morally (though not legally) guilty of murder, because sin exists in the will, and he is clearly showing himself to be willing to shoot a human being if that’s what it should turn out to be. Similarly, here in Francis we have someone who, claiming ignorance, is perfectly willing to preach heresy to the world, because by his own admission what he is saying may very well be a heresy and this does not deter him.
As we explained in our original post, Francis claims to hold the office of the papacy, and therefore he has no excuse whatsoever for his words. Assuming for a minute for the sake of argument that Francis were a true and valid Pope, we can say that it is his duty — his more than anyone else’s in the entire world — to know whether what he teaches to others is heresy or not. The fact that he so casually quips, “I don’t know”, only underscores the perverse will of this man, who does not care whether he teaches heresy in place of the Gospel. Sorry, but a nonchalant “I don’t know” doesn’t cut it if you’re the “Pope”. Why does he not know? It is his job to know, if he’s the Pope! And if he truly doesn’t know, why doesn’t he go find out before he contradicts revealed truth for which the Apostles and so many martyrs over the centuries gave their lives (not to mention our Blessed Lord Himself)?
HE DOES NOT CARE. [My emphasis.]Whether his teaching is heretical or not, he will hold it either way and he wants you to embrace it — this is the message he is sending. If he is truly ignorant on the matter, then his ignorance is 100% culpable. A man who is entirely capable of discovering the truth and whose strict obligation is to know the truth on a given point of doctrine, but nevertheless chooses not to educate himself on the matter and yet presumes to teach others, is so gravely culpable for his ignorance that morally and legally (i.e. in terms of both sin and Church law) he is clearly pertinacious in his heresy (cf. Canon 2229). All this jibes entirely with everything we’ve been saying about the man from day one. Just remember, you heard it here first. …”
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/#.VWb0E7meDGf
Dear Dumb Ox,
We can take In Hoc Signo’s statement further, as this Pope has in word and deed, given evidence of going beyond not “caring about Dogma”, to having a personal disdain for- the just application of it in Church teachings and disciplines regarding unrepentant sinners; preferring to shower exaggerated public and private affection on them, just as he calls all people to practically worship “the poor” (before whom we should all kneel), ALL in the name of the “Mercy” of God and the will of the Holy Spirit. What is now evident is a total disregard for the impact on souls of false teachings; and the placing of human affection and affirmation on a pedestal higher than the throne of Our Lord.
___
But the way he creates dizzying mazes using language in interviews and speeches-including those you quoted above, makes it impossible at times to use his words as real proof of these things.
-In your first example, the word “dogmatism” (as he frequently uses it), is defined in dictionaries as ” arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinions or beliefs”.
-not as the application of Dogma. Thus his “call to leave room for doubt” is made to “sound” reasonable. (Until we learn the specifics of the case in which he wants it applied)
-In your second example- yesterday’s heretic becoming today’s Saint- can easily be said to apply to Joan of Arc.
-And in your third, what the pharisees called heresy, was not heresy, as we all know, but their means of controlling people. Hence he uses them as the straw- men for his push to open doors to every unrepentant sinner he wishes to invite to lunch or Christmas, or to reception of the Eucharist.
–These these things give his Lombardi-crew all the wiggle-room they require.
=====
May we suggest some more certifiable examples as evidence?:
___
–His call at Caserta for Catholics and Evangelicals not to wait for the Theologians to agree, but to go out and preach the Gospel together.
— His reinstating of priests like Marist Father Fagan, [author of “Does Morality Change?” 2003] and Sandanista-priest Miguel d’Escoto who says his greatest hero is Fidel Castro–not only without their publicly recanting, but while still publicly affirming their beliefs.
— His recent opening of the cause for Sainthood of Helder Camara- who wrote a satirical poem against the Catholic teaching on women, calling them “victims” ..because they are “forced” to bring children into the world,” which ends with an invocation of the Blessed Mother to pray to God the Father, “not to participate in the birth of monsters.” The same Camara who, “Against the wishes of his bishop, became the General Secretary of the Fascist Party of Brazil, and formed, Opus Angeli – a think tank of modernism, attracting…Hans Küng, ..Giuseppe Dossetti, Bernard Haring, Ivan Illich who promoted ecumenism, women Deacons, women priests, and the abolition of priestly celibacy.”
=====
Yes, Louie’s call for action from our Hierarchy is totally appropriate.
p.s. Add Radcliffe to the list, as well.
If we are allowed to go OT a little now and then, I’d like to mention a little idea I picked up on a pro-life site some time, which I liked very much. I love babies and spent many years delivering them. You adopt some unborn little fella, or gal and pray every day that they will be saved from abortion. I say: “Beloved Holy Family, please save my unborn adopted son from abortion and let him live to be a holy Jesuit Priest.” I say it when I get into the bath, so I never forget. I have always loved true Jesuites – the Intellectual Soldiers of Christ.
What about reading Francis through Marx? 😉
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/confidential-meeting-seeks-to-sway-synod-to-accept-same-sex-unions/#.VWUmsE9VhBd
Helder Camara is a “saint” according to Francis’ NewChurch – after all he “bent” his knees in front of the poor didn’t he? 😉
–
Well, ehm, despite the fact that the “Red Archbishop” supported the Nazis during the 30s; one the largest mass murderers in history, Mao Zedong, among a host of other – ehem – “respectable” figures. 😉
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/64cc5fea79e29c2e0516f1045fa051ed-392.html
–
The line-up of figures ready to be churned-out by the “Canonization” factory grows more and more grotesque…
Dear Peter,
God Bless you -you’re still delivering babies, and encouraging others to join you.
May St. Ignatius Loyola, intercede with you, and help bring his order back to holiness and integrity.
Fr Fagan’s stuff is egregiously evil – not only anti-Catholic Faith but anti-fundamental moral truth. Needless to say “highly recommended” by his friend who was purporting to reeducate me in “Moral Theology” 10 years ago, whilst the doctrine of the Faith, as found, inter alia, in Veritatis Splendor, was completely ignored. And when I referred to same, I was attacked.
Yes, the composite heresy of modernism, which rejects all dogma, all objective truth. The most lethal to souls of all heresies.
It might be interesting to read just what theologians of the past disagreed over, and what Poor Francis thinks present day theologians disagree over.
–
My sense is that in the past learned men in The Church debated issues always using the Revelation, Catholic Faith, writings of The Fathers, and Tradition as a template. Once they agreed on these basics (which they did) they were free to explore in depth. If there was dissent those dissenters writings and preachings were examined. They either brought themselves in-line with Truth or they were kicked out. Now we have so-called theologians questioning the very basis of our Faith.
–
So Poor Francis thinks modern methods of ‘doing theology’ is bad (he’s right) but he uses this dissent as an excuse to ignore them altogether and go directly to the people-of-god.
–
And there are those soft-headed sheep who lap this up. They lap it up because they don’t want to listen to the faithful Theologians from the past, and they are too brain-dead/lazy to try to understand the dissent of the present.
Dear Mr Lamb, were you an obstetrician? Are you aware of the Dublin Declaration after Conference on Maternal Health in Dublin a couple of years ago? You can sign this if you haven’t already.
great post Alarico, very illuminating, thank you
Dear Barbara (and all)
You’ve raised some interesting points, both here and above when discussing how sin causes darkening of the intellect. We wondered whether or not diabolical disorientation always or automatically involves personal sin, and found a great little mini-refresher course written by Father Gruner, about it, that helped us get a better idea of what it is supposed to be, according to Sister Lucia.
http://fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg3.asp
It left us with a renewed awareness of how vulnerable we all are these days, and how important it is to keep up the daily practices that help us not to break with God and lose the extra help of Graces to fight it. Nobody is impervious to it, and thinking about that, increases our natural sympathy for those caught in its trap. It doesn’t diminish our determination to fight the errors, vigorously, but may help us fight off the temptations we sometimes find ourselves leaning towards– to become excessively angry with people like this Pope and the Bishops and priests who currently are helping to make our World and our Church part of this ongoing nightmare. We wondered if something like that was behind your decision to start referring to him as “poor” Francis a while ago.
This diabolical disorientation is -according to Father’s descriptions–can easily account for what we see going on all around us today.
May God protect us all, and save our families and world from it.
p.s. Father highly recommends the too often neglected practice of making Friday a day of special Penances.
Maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on ol’ Jorge, after all he is only doing his bit to maintain conciliar tradition:
” … It all conforms perfectly to basic Masonic philosophy as described by the celebrated Masonic author Manly P. Hall, in The Lost Keys of Freemasonry (p. 65):
“The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that as a Mason his religion must be universal: Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little, for he recognizes only the light and not the bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows before every altar, whether in temple, mosque or cathedral, realizing with his truer understanding the oneness of all spiritual truth.”
This describes perfectly the attitudes and behavior of all the Conciliar popes and was carried to an idolatrous extreme by John Paul II in his highly publicized initiatives towards Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and African animists.”
http://www.novusordowatch.org/story091605.htm
I just read the Chris Ferrara piece over at Catholic Family News, linked above.
–
So this is the take-home message? That Poor Francis has never left Argentina, that he simply moved house, then moved house again, but continues to be the Liberation Theologist he always was?
–
This puts some things into perspective, no? I had not thought much about this in such a specific way…apparently even John Paul II and Benedict couldn’t whitewash LT. And now it’s back with the Pope implementing it full throttle.
–
I don’t want to inhabit a Church which is mired in decades old Marxist carp. But I guess this will have to do until something better comes along! (that’s a joke, folks.)
Yes, I started referring to this pope as Poor Francis for two reasons. One) he seems reluctant to call himself the pope, and prefers Bishop of Rome, so who am I to use anything different? Second) he really is ‘poor’ in intellect, faith, true humility and a proper understanding of his role as our “Peter.”
–
I guess there is a third reason: this poor man is in danger of losing his soul, and dragging millions down with him – therefore he needs my prayers and those of all here.
This could set the cat amongst the pigeons…
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/12/12/pope-francis-confirms-cats-still-going-to-hell/
Pope responds to harvestingthefruit videos!!!
They must be told, No!” the Pope said to a crowd of over 100,000 gathered for the outdoor Mass. “No to so much hair gel…no to all that cologne…no to gold crosses resting in a furry bed of chest hair. No means no!”
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/06/22/pope-excommunicates-95-of-italian-men/
Dear Lynda,
Yip! and I’d love to! 🙂
Hi, Indignus,
These are good examples, but consider the following imagined scenario:
1) Indignus objects: “His reinstating of priests like Marist Father Fagan…and Sandanista-priest Miguel d’Escoto….”
Bergoglio accuses:
“Even today there are Christians who behave like the doctors of the law and ‘do the same thing they did with Jesus’, by objecting: ‘This one speaks heresy, this one cannot, this one goes against the discipline of the Church, this one goes against the law’. And thus they close the doors to so many people.”
2) Indignus objects: “His recent opening of the cause for Sainthood of Helder Camara….”
Bergoglio accuses:
“How is it, though, that he, who yesterday was a heretic, is today a Blessed of the Church? It is because yesterday, those who had power wanted to silence him because they did not like what he was saying.”
3) Indignus objects: “His call at Caserta for Catholics and Evangelicals not to wait for the Theologians, to agree, but to go out and preach the Gospel together”
Bergoglio accuses:
Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.”
Homily of Bergoglio delivered at DSM, May 22nd, 2013
There is another perspective on this. Bergoglio is not creating wiggle-room for his own defense: he’s bringing the prosecution.
Dear Indignus,
An excellent comment and another OBLIGATORY READING link. What a wonderful article by Fr. Gruner!
Among many very good points, I found this very interesting:
“To get the faithful to go along with their heresy, they introduced new practices into the Mass such as Communion in the hand. The purpose of this was to reinforce the belief in the new doctrine that Jesus is not equal to God the Father, so that instead of receiving the Host on the tongue as taught by the Apostles, they treated the Sacred Host as if It were not that important. Thus they encouraged lay people and religious to take the Host themselves. Catholic reverence and adoration of the Sacred Host was destroyed by the Arians who taught their followers and confused Catholics to not adore Jesus as God, and to not treat Him with the profound reverences He deserves.”
If one is aware of this history, it becomes immediately obvious why communion in the hand has been reintroduced in the NO.
There are so many other vital points made – especially regarding Catholics clinging to what the Church of their father’s taught and believed. Thanks again! 🙂 🙂
Dumb Ox,
–
“Bergoglio is not creating wiggle-room for his own defense: he’s bringing the prosecution.”
Brilliant – spot on. You hit the nail on the head.
LOL! 🙂
I do the Stations of the Cross, at home, just with my St. Benedict crucifix, on Fridays. Just an idea.
Dear Peter,
Don’t know if you’re familiar with Gabriel Castillo’s apologetics work, but we love his demo on a dark surface -right at the start of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0
Whatever the motives for Communion in the hand were or are , this treatment of Our Lord’s precious body and blood, soul and divinity, is absolutely unconscionable IOHO.
-Worth a thousand words.
Dear Dumb Ox,
No argument from us about him bringing on the prosecution, as well. Our main point was that his actions in reinstating the people mentioned, are not as ambiguous, confusing or deniable as the words in this video or any other of his interviews etc.. The heresies these people he honors teach and preach are documented and have been denounced in the past by the Hierarchy, very publicly. So they are contain verified evidence that is on record, to support the claims being made about him here, which can’t be denied with any real plausibility.
We hope you didn’t mistake our explanation of the double-speak for defense of his true intentions, as it was obvious he agreed with the idea he was expressing using a third party–whoever it was supposed to be.
Louie,
God bless you for your stand for the Truth. This book helped me tremendously move from seeing the problem to understanding the cause to taking right action. I pray you will read it in its entirety.
http://www.the-pope.com/preface0.html
Dear Indignus,
ROFL!!! Not at the content – at the presenter. What a character, simply bursting with personality. Young men like this really give me hope for the future. The content is excellent! Definitely OBLIGATORY VIEWING for all. Thank you very much! 🙂 🙂
Dear Peter Lamb (and all)
Since you reacted the way we do to Gabriel Castillo’s passion and charisma,
In case you’re interested in more of his apologetics
We know of three locations to find his videos on the internet
(there may be more) (He also ships his own brand of Catholic Playing cards)
1. GabiAfterHours
2 The Church Militant (Not to be confused with Michael Voris)
3. Kolbe1019
(a.k.a.)
True Faith TV
https://www.youtube.com/user/GabiAfterHours
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChurchMilitant
https://www.youtube.com/user/kolbe1019
http://truefaith.tv/
Off Topic. For those with a seasoned love for Father Gruner.
We were unable to attend the funeral, and were touched by the first photo in this series posted by tradcatknight -of Father fully vested in the open coffin
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/father-gruner-crusader-of-our-lady.html
Dear All
Radical Catholic has written a very thought-provoking, thorough analysis of the Pope’s video address in Phoenix–which takes on Jimmy Akin’s defense as well as addressing a number of issues raised by commenters here:
http://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/
Well said: ‘There are only those who are Catholics and those who are heretics.’ This is what the Faithful Catholics who conclude the Vacany of the Sees and their occupation by non-Catholics have said for decades.
God bless you (and Ave’s for yours (all these roses at Her feet will be recouped at the hour of our death to the benefit of those we are bound to pray for, I’m sure of it) – Ave’s – the gift that keeps on giving!).
–
PS. RE: His ‘humilidad – a perceptive commentor on the Novus Ordo watch feed (Francis in Message to Ecumenical Event: “I feel like saying something that may sound … heretical”) pointed out that in Bergoglio’s heretical declaration he separates ‘catholic’ from ‘Apostolic’? Bergoglio says this: “He [Bergoglio’s ‘Christ’] doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians. And that blood (of martyrdom) unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.” The commentor says: “[Bergoglio] is not likely talking about the so called Orthodox because he had already named them. Is there some other group commonly called Apostolic of which I’m not aware?
I’m going to descend into speculation and ask if he isn’t tacitly admitting that the Novus Ordo church is no longer Apostolic. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that the Judases at Vatican II had the desire to phase out Apostolic succession in the Modernist church, thinking it a quaint outdated notion no longer needed in the modern world, but decided to keep the idea a dirty little secret because it would have been considered too radical for nearly everyone at the time. We know they usurped the name Catholic for practical reasons. In their minds do they consider us to be Apostolic, but not themselves? Did Bergoglio let the cat out of the bag, or was this simply more of his usual rambling?”
Is the Novus Ordo, (current papa of which, is Bergoglio) and those who promulgate it, Catholic or not? The (FSSP etc) say yes. The SSPX say, only sometimes. The sedevcantist says, obviously not – and since you cannot rule something you do not belong to, jurisdiction/authority is still ‘vacant’ in the Sees occupied by the Novus Ordo who adhere to VII/New Rites (defection from Christ and His Church). —– From a 1991 article by His Excellency Bishop Sanborn on why sedevacantism is the proper Catholic position in this time of the New Order occupation of the Vacant Sees of the Holy Catholic Church:
–
“Where is the Church? Is the Catholic Faith to be identified with the Novus Ordo religion? This question is thorny, since, if you answer affirmatively, i.e., that the Novus Ordo religion is the Catholic Faith, then resistance to it becomes schismatic and possibly heretical. On the other hand, if the answer be negative, then there arises the problem of the Catholic Church without a visible hierarchy…How does one reconcile the present state of the Catholic Church with indefectibility? This problem, with its diverse answers, is at the root of most of the controversy among those who have remained faithful to tradition…Where is the Church? For no one can err in following the Catholic Church, at least in her essential roles of teaching doctrine, of leading souls to heaven through her general laws, and of sanctifying souls by means of valid sacraments. In order to save one’s soul, therefore, it simply suffices to know where the Church is. One can and must, in all good conscience, follow the teaching and prescriptions of the Church in order to save one’s soul, and to set oneself up against these is to be heretical, schismatic, or at least gravely disobedient. In any case one could not save his soul…The fundamental principle of [the sedevacantist] solution is that it is impossible to identify the Novus Ordo and the Catholic Church. It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith, morals, worship and discipline of the Catholic Church. But it is impossible that the Catholic Church defect. Therefore it is impossible that these changes proceed from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is impossible that those who have enacted these changes (viz. Paul VI, John Paul I, & John Paul II [and their successors]) enjoy the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, the mission from Christ to rule the faithful. If they did enjoy this jurisdiction, they would have enjoyed infallibility in these matters, as it is impossible for this authority to teach something false or to prescribe something sinful for the Church. The sedevacantist therefore insists that one cannot regard the modernist hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, since otherwise one would be associating heresy, sacrilege, invalid sacraments, error, and sinful laws with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, making absurd the words of Christ, “he who hears you, hears Me”. In a word, the sedevacantist position is that the modernist hierarchy cannot possess the Catholic authority which they claim to possess, because the Catholic authority is preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from doing what these modernists have done…These principles which have led to this conclusion are absolutely ironclad. They are supported either by philosophy or the teaching of the Church. They are unassailable, and do logically lead to their conclusion. The indefectibility of the Church is thus saved in this system, since it refuses to associate with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ this abomination of modernism which is the work of the devil.” ——- http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10
–
Niether God, nor His shepherds could ever give to the Faithful anything that is “false, pernicious and sinful” (Salza disagrees calling such a teaching ‘extremism’ which implies that he thinks it within the remit of Christ’s mission that His shepherds can, with proper authority, lead souls astray). A sermon on heresy and schism (true jurisdiciton in the name of Christ and ‘legality’ are not ipso facto the same thing): —– http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-4-in-veritate-episode-5-modern-heresy/
Dear Salvemur,
How very perceptive! It’s certainly no mistake. He is meaning something. I think your speculation could be correct. “Catholic” = NO. “Apostolic” = pre-VII Catholic. Remember at all times he is not a fool acting alone. He is a very carefully selected member of the High Command of a very sophisticated (in temporal terms) judeo-masonic army attacking the Church.
It is crucial for the modernists to destroy the Apostolic Succession, if they hope to destroy Christ’s Church. That’s the whole point of fiddling with the forms of the Sacraments – invalid episcopal concecrations = invalid all that follows. In their minds, they know that they are not Apostolic. I think he did let the cat out of the bag in a sort of Freudian slip.
Absolutely Beautiful.!!!
I watched the lot. What a great guy!!!
From the relevant article in the link provided:
–
“The inescapable fact is that no Pope has ever spoken like this before, because this is not how Popes speak.
–
Popes do not preface a statement with, “This might come off as heretical, but…,” or “This might be offensive to pious ears, but….”
–
Popes do not speak in this manner because there is no other way to interpret such words than as a preface to a public profession of a sentiment worthy of at least theological, if not canonical, censure.”
–
IOW – so, yes – what we have here in front of us is definitely a blatant admission of heresy on the part of Bergoglio – something that has never happened before even with ecumaniacs such as “Saint” JP II “The Great” or modernists-in-disguise such as pope Ratzinger.
Bergoglio is definitely ratcheting up the apostasy to a new level.
–
I’m worried about the continued silence of other trad blogs on this outrage (other than NOW, Mundabor, and the “From Rome” blog).
I’m seriously starting to question their commitment to tradition. Last year we already had an ominous sign when rorate failed to call out the Judeo-Mohameddan-“Catholic” joint prayer event in the Vatican gardens for the outrage that it was.
dear salvemur,
Thanks, edifying comment on key matters. For you & all here,
May I point to over 2 hrs recorded at BXVI’s resignation which, by necessity, addresses more “key issues,” which are not opinions, but are brought forth from Holy Mother Church-Mater et Magistra. It’s a friendly call-in, to which many questions of then & today, receive a response. The position we hold is attacked often vis a vie “how this will all turn out” & the fact that we do not (for certain,) know- is reason to dismiss the position. A contributor, a valid priest, exorts us to see that the position may hold mystery, but bc it is faithful to Catholcism, does not end in contradiction. Towards the conclusion, Bp. Sanborn makes a strong, courageous yet poignantly heartfelt statement which I won’t attempt to paraphrase. Anyone who listens to the end, will know it when they hear it. The show costs $1.49 to download forever. Peace be to you & all dear brethren here.
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-ii-episode-18-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi/
As we wrote in our earlier comment, we didn’t react as strongly as Louie, because of our growing familiarity with the Pope’s literary tricks, but we too wonder why so few Traditional blogs are addressing this issue, and why normally concerned writers like Pat Archbold of Creative Minority Report would be so dismissive writing:
___
“bottom line..Did the Pope know that this statement is problematic from a Catholic view, possibly even heretical?” Yes, he said so, before he said it.
These are facts, not opinion. This is what happened. Get over it.”
___
Jimmy Akins (of course) claims the Pope wasn’t referring to an indifferentist-type oneness, but simply pointing out that one of the ways in which we are united is in our mutually being attacked and persecuted by the Devil, who views us as a single Christian enemy..(despite the fact that the Pope used the word “knows” indicating a truth) He claimed the reference to possible heresy, was nothing more than a literary form of exaggeration -hyperbole- designed to call attention to the Pope’s words, and that furthermore, because the group was ecumenical,”..no one should expect them to interpret the word “heretical” in the technical, Catholic sense.”
====
What other sense of the word heresy IS there in a Christian’s mind, other than a rejection of a formal teaching?.
====
And regarding Archbold’s “So what” mentality- It’s not what we would expect from a guy who wrote (in the Register last Dec 17th) just after the Pope’s “La Nacion” interview:
“Since the Pope does intend such informal and semi-informal communications to be part of his personal magisterium while simultaneously asserting the clarity of this body of teaching, it is necessary for me to re-evaluate my approach. With proper respect for the papacy and even accounting for a fair amount of Kentucky windage, I think it reasonable, necessary, and proper to evaluate such comments in light of clarity and continuity.”
====
–Evaluating in light of clarity and continuity =
“This is what happened, get over it” ?
Sorry, Pat, that’s a cop-out.
http://youtu.be/7JPlTEnUO4E
“This is what happened. Get over it.” (???????!!!!!!!!!!!!)
–
My jaw literally dropped when I read that.
–
WHAT IN HEAVEN’S NAME IS GOING ON???
Is the light of faith – at least the “Sensus Catholicus” – being gradually extinguished in Catholics who had heretofore robustly defended the faith during the tenure of Jorge Bergoglio? Is this part of the infamous “Francis effect”??
Thank you, Mr Lamb, for suggestion; due to my chronic illness, I can’t often get to a Church.
I think Mr Archbold lwas refuting the contention of many that there wasn’t even a suggestion of material heresy in what Pope Francis said.
Shame Lynda, I’m very sorry to hear that. I will pray for you and I’m sure so will everybody else. Come sit next to me and Indignus at St. Gertrude’s on Sunday. 🙂
Lynda,
–
“Get over it” is a clear suggestion to forget the matter in question.
IOW – it’s not such a big deal to brood over insistently.
Dear Lynda (and In Hoc),
We re-read the post because of your above comment, and think you are right–we took it wrong. It wasn’t clear to us that he was saying that to those sending him things like Jimmy Akin defenses of the Pope, and the choice of words, (as In Hoc pointed out -GET OVER IT ,USUALLY means it’s of no great import.
__
But when we paired it up with his previous post “This week in the imaginary crisis” we got a much better understanding of where Pat stands.
Saying something like “stop trying to defend it” might have been a better choice of words to avoid the confusion. ( -Or is it just us?) 🙂 🙂 http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/05/this-week-in-imaginary-crisis.html
PS. Lynda corrected us below–pointing out that Pat wasn’t saying GET OVER IT to those who were upset about the Pope, but to those attempting like Akin to defend him. Please see our comment below.
Please see our correction below.
Sorry, the above didn’t go where intended.
The comment which follows, required a correction of facts. See Lynda’s comment below it, please.
de Maria. A LOL comment from the Novus Ordo Watch com-boxes: “Everyone says that the pope can’t be declared a heretic because they need someone with authority to declare him a heretic. So here, the “pope” himself calls himself a heretic. Can’t get much higher authority than that.”
I.F. & Lynda,
–
It appears the confusing phrase has been edited in the article to avoid confusion. Now it reads:
“This is not commentary or opinion. These things happened. Make of that what you will.”
It looks like someone over @ C.M.R. is checking out the comboxes of Louie’s blog. 😉
Here’s a good quote: “Catholicism is the law of life, the life of the intelligence, the solution of all problems. Catholicism is the truth, and everything that departs from it one iota, is disorder, deception, and error.” Juan Donoso Cortes.
–
This man was a counter-enlightenment thinker, and writer in the early 1800 in Spain. He was a staunch Catholic and spoke truth always. Google him – worth reading some of his stuff. It sounds so crazy!!! But he articulates what ‘should’ happen when God is in charge of His world.
Maybe ye should offer Mr Archbold your copy editing skills!
Dear Salvemur ( and all),
regarding your above post:
“Everyone says that the pope can’t be declared a heretic because they need someone with authority to declare him a heretic. So here, the “pope” himself calls himself a heretic. Can’t get much higher authority than that.”
It’s groaningly amusing- while regrettably untrue, because his statement was: “I feel like saying something THAT MAY SOUND controversial, or even heretical…”
___
And if Francis were to OPENLY declare himself heretic, [as opposed to just demonstrating it as he has done elswhere in the past] and announced his stepping-down, we’d still have EVERY major problem his pontificate is so graphically
illustrating -because (the reason Louie started this blog) it so perfectly follows the directives of the Documents of Vatican Council II which promote and encourage this same modernist/progressive/socialist agenda we see boldly parading before us. Another star pupil like Francis -such as Tagle of the Phillipines- would likely be elected to replace him right now -even if he simply retires for health reasons. (Not that this likelihood should stop good Cardinals from doing their duty)
___
Loyal Cardinals have all the evidence they need to depose Bergoglio for a number of things, especially his promotion of Communion for self-confessed adulterer Jacqui Lisbona in Argentina, who publicly stated several times that (calling himself Father Bergoglio) he responded to her letter with a phone call and told her, (knowing she has children with, and is still living in sin with, a divorced man, whose marriage was never annulled)
“A divorcee who takes communion is not doing anything wrong.” And added a rebuke to the local priest who refused her the Sacrament “There are some priests who are more papist than the Pope.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-sinner-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
___
THE COUNCIL (VII) NEEDS TO BE RE-EVALUATED AND PURGED OF ERROR.
Regarding “ecumenism”, Unitatis Redentigratio contains about a 50/50 mixture of declarations requiring that doctrine be considered important and “ultimately” accepted by those who currently reject it, WHILE at the same time making numerous statements urging the Faithful NOT TO WAIT FOR the completion of that imagined, hoped-for, “gradual” CONVERSION of what we know to be heretics and schismatics; but (as we see it) to basically jump right in and bond as much as possible with all people, no matter what they believe–working and praying together as closely as possible.
___
Rather than believing and warning all- that the acceptance of heretical beliefs has separated them completely AFTER the Baptism that formerly united them to us, they claim: ‘We believe that THIS UNITY [initiated by Baptism] SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church as SOMETHING SHE CAN NEVER LOSE and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. [That rings alarm bells in us.]
–They also claim that individual conversion and ecumenism are two very separate, distinct things, which should not be a stumbling block to such activities:
“.. it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”
— Similarly, Nostra Aetate makes the statement about the un-Baptized (which we find ABSURD) that we worship the same God as the Muslims-claiming they worship the Trinity in ignorance of the fact that there are three Divine Persons in One God. In actuality, they vehemently reject the idea of a Triune God, when it is presented to them, and refuse to believe Jesus is God, specifically. Their monotheism doesn’t unite us, because their definitionn of the god they worship MATTERS (IOHO).
====
These teachings so contrary to those of the past, are promoted along with claims that the Holy Spirit is leading His Church in a new direction, and in new ways.
But Dogmatic teachings from the past tell us, there can BE no truth which contradicts Dogma and Doctrines of the past, including interpretations that claim to reverse past understandings of those teachings.
__
-Despite that, Unitatis Redentigratio ends with these imposing words: (bearing in mind that Paul VI affirmed that VII was NOT a dogmatic Council)
“Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, November 21, 1964 ”
___
So pupils of VII, like Francis, go on being 100% loyal to it, while rejecting what contradicts it from the past. (Like the Mandate of Christ to proselytize–teaching them all that Christ taught, and BAPTIZING them) As he reminded Missionaries on Mission Sunday (Pentecost) the day after his Phoenix message aired:
” Being a missionary is NOT ABOUT PROSELYTIZING or mere strategy…” (followed by his usual emphases on “living the Gospel” and walking with people.)
AND
“Today, the Church’s mission is faced by the challenge of meeting THE NEEDS OF ALL PEOPLE TO RETURN TO THEIR ROOTS and to PROTECT THE VALUES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CULTURES. THIS MEANS KNOWING AND RESPECTING other traditions and philosophical systems, AND REALIZING THAT ALL PEOPLES AND CULTURES HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HELPED FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN TRADITIONS, to enter into the mystery of God’s wisdom and to accept the Gospel of Jesus, who is light and transforming strength for all cultures.
___
This is exactly the type of language we have witnessed over the past 50 years, which has led to the indifferentism all around us in the Church, today, and the belief that we need not convert anyone, as God is leading them all to Himself in some mysterious way.
(Sorry if anyone is offended by the length of this. We felt it was worth saying)
Are the doors not open to all??
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/05/27/minotaurs-and-krakens-is-where-i-draw-the-line-pope-francis-says-i-would-not-convert-them/
I.F.
–
For the record:
This is what Francis said in Spanish:
“Me viene a la mente decir algo que puede ser una insensatez (pause)…quizas una herejia…no, se…”
This is the proper translation:
“It comes to my mind [“I feel like saying” seems OK as a substitute] saying something which could be an “insensatez” [rash, imprudent – ‘controversial’ is a little far off for translation here] (pause)…MAYBE A HERESY…I DON’T KNOW…”
–
IOW: He’s flat out admitting he might be uttering heresy. He doesn’t care, obviously, otherwise he wouldn’t be making a flagrant admission about his possible heteredoxy.
Dear In Hoc,
Thank you for the translation.
We’re not saying he’s no heretic, just that after spending even more time analyzing all this, we don’t see how that particular line of his message that mentions the word heresy-whether its AS originally reported OR as you provided-correctly translated, is supposed to be proof that it applies to him, in this instance. (His promotion of Communion for adulterer’s says it much more clearly to us. So does his talk about not waiting for the Theologians to agree–as THAT translates into the council’s thinking- That Dogma doesn’t matter “for now” as much as being together now matters for desired dogmatic unity in the future.
___
The heresy of indifferentism is implied by his words about the “someone” (we assume is the Devil), logically implying that since it causes Satan to view all the Baptized as one-regardless of their heretical beliefs, (i.e the sects he listed) that those listening should realize how important their Baptism was, in setting them apart from non-believers, and joining them together even in Satan’s view. –and their suffering at his hands is another cause for feeling united.
__
The Council Francis follows so ardently, talks a lot about “degrees” of oneness. Francis makes it clear [in minute 5: 37-42] that he recognizes those-that our “unity” is still incomplete and there is still work to do. Like the Council, he acknowledges the importance of theologians in that regard, and tells people not to wait for the resolution-also like the council-before getting together :
“to pray, to dialogue together..TO SHORTEN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN US, to strengthen our bonds of brotherhood… (which “bonds” the council teaches STILL exist due to Baptism despite their breaking away) [Another area that is obviously contrary to Church teachings of the past and to Sacred Scripture as well -which tells us to “have nothing to do with those who believe another doctrine” and in Our Lord’s words, to treat them as the Jews treated Tax collectors and sinners i.e. shun them socially.
___
Doesn’t his recognition that there remains that “DISTANCE BETWEEN ” him and those he’s addressing there-, works against, rather than for charging him with the heresy of indifferentism he mentioned earlier as the reason for the Devils willful blindness to our differences?
___
So while he WAS as you say, “flat out admitting he might be uttering heresy” he was not concerned because the heresy in question was being attributed by him to the Devil only. And thus we see no “flagrant admission about his possible heterodoxy” in that particular statement.
Dear Indignus,
Your comment contains many truths, but at the end of it I don’t get what you are trying to say, i.e. what is your point?
You state:
1. Bergoglio has demonstrated himself to be a heretic in the past Agreed!
2. VII promotes a modernist agenda. Agreed!
3. Loyal (i.e.true) Cardinals have all the evidence necessary to depose Bergoglio. Agreed!
4. Unitatis Redentigratio is a mixture of orthodox and heterodox teaching, (i.e. typically modernist gobbledegook). Agreed!
5. That heresy severs the communion of baptism. Agreed!
6. To say that Catholics and Muslims adore the same God is absurd. Agreed!
7. That VII teachings are contrary to traditional teachings. Agreed!
8. Paul VI affirmed that VII was not a dogmatic council. Disagreed!
i. Paul VI states that Unitatis Redentigratio, which concerns Faith and Morals, is promulgated by his authority, as Vicar of Christ, to the whole Church. Every single requirement to elevate this document to the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium is complied with.
ii. I have previously posted his statement that VII was to be regarded as having the authority of Ordinary Magisterium half a dozen times.
9. That Bergoglio and other pupils of VII adhere to novelties which contradict traditional doctrine. Agreed!
So, what point do you wish to be deduced from the above?
Is it simply that your Pope is a heretic and that VII was a false Council? That your Novus Ordo Church is not Catholic? If so, Agreed! I keep your seats at St. Gertrude’s warm and ready. 🙂 🙂
If, despite all you have written above, you do believe that Bergoglio is the Pope and that Montini was the Pope and that the NO church is the Catholic Church, then, in terms of orthodox Catholic Doctrine, you must accept and submit to their teachings with Devine and Catholic faith. If you don’t accept and submit to their teachings as Popes, you are not Catholics, but heretics. Sadly, the only ones who can have it both ways are the SSPX.
With the greatest love and respect and I know how hurtful and difficult it is, but just sit and think quietly, but objectively, is sedevacantism an error, or is it Catholicism? 🙂 🙂
You couldn’t make this up:
“I [Leonardo Boff, one of the stars of Liberation Theology] said: “Holiness, I cannot [come].” He said: “Holiness, no! Holiness is the Dalai Lama [!!!!!!!]. I am the Bishop of Rome. It is fine [that you cannot meet me now]; I will call you another time.” ”
Another memorable phrase (giving some welcome comic relief) from the “Bishop of Rome” 😉
🙂 🙂
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/178bev05_29_2015.htm
Dear Peter,
Having agreed 8 out of 9 times with Indignus Famulus, I would conclude that you are a very agreeable fellow.
dear Peter Lamb,
With respect, your statement wrongly concludes that if the conditions you mentioned were met by IF “——you are not Catholics, but heretics.” This is vastly inaccurate& in no way represents the sedeprivationist position, to which I think you adhere. Even if IF agreed with everything in VII, (which we know they do not,) they would still be legally Catholic. In being so, and here I paraphrase part of the explanation we discussed—-they can be freely admitted to the practice of the Traditional pre-VII Faith by a traditional priest without any lifting of excommunication & without any abjuration of error. I beg you to study fully the position dispassionately and research the ecclesiology & theology behind it. I also encourage Indignus famulus to do the same. Only in discussing these things without emoting, as I’ve said prior, can we intelligently engage without, may God forbid, unnecessarily igniting already heightened vulnerabilities in this catastrophe now more than 50 years fermenting.
Dear Peter,
Where we are “going” with all this is where we always attempt to go – where the truth is. (Not towards issuing new declarations of Papal-status, if that’s what you hope for–we consider that the job of the Hierarchy.) (But please keep saving the seats for us, if it will help prevent someone else from taking one) 🙂 🙂
___
Regarding “obedience” to a Pope who appears to hold heretical views- it’s really pretty simple.
Christ and what He taught always has top priority. We do what the Pope tells us to do, so long as it is not contrary to that. As Cardinal Burke said in a recent interview: “..if a pontiff were to make decisions against the doctrine and practice of the Church, I said that I would resist, because we are all in the service of truth, starting with the Pope”.
___
Since you say you expect us to follow the Popes because we still recognize them as such, shouldn’t you encourage us to accept the words of Paul VI as true?
” January 12, 1966.
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”
__
In his closing speech at the Council Dec 8, 1965, Paul VI said:
“But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, EVEN THOUGH NOT WISHING TO ISSUE EXTRAORDINARY DOGMATIC PRONOUNCEMENTS, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
___
(Though he mentions Church (non-dogmatic) authority, he does ends up saying they just want to be heard and understood by everyone) 🙂 🙂
___
Since something that is not declared infallible is obviously subject to errors, it remains our responsibility be on guard against them. Since the documents are such a mixture as we said, as Louie pointed out many times, it does seem possible to read them through the lens of past Teachings, and follow their directives only in light of those.
For example, we practice ecumenism by reaching out to others willing to talk with us, first and foremost with the fact that they need to become Catholic and renouce the falsehoods their beief systems contain. We’ve never been attacked for this approach, and in fact have had some great responses-once from a group of Muslims we met at a pro-life Fair, who were very appreciative to meet Catholics unafraid to express what the Church has taught for over 2,000 years. Sadly, like many protestants, they seemed to know our Faith better than many other Catholics we encountered. We plant seeds whenever we can, by good old fashioned PROSELYTIZING, which the Pope says not to do, but Jesus overrides with His mandate.
See how it works? 🙂 🙂
I.F.,
–
It seems to me you’ve been pretty lucky in your dealings with Mohameddans.
I’ve had to deal with a good number of them through my work (I’m not from the Middle East BTW, it just so happens that there were a number of them through my workplace, and I’ve met them through other channels too) and the vast majority are anything but tolerant with Catholicism.
The only ones that perhaps could be described as “tolerant” are those describe themselves as “Muslim” but who don’t practice the faith and don’t care about it either.
–
And from a local source – I’ve learned that in Egypt, even prior to the current turmoil, Christians were widely discriminated against.
–
In short – Mohammedans are a tough nut to crack… 😉
Dear In Hoc,
Our first reaction was to joke around and say “We have no problem agreeing not to use the word “Holiness” in connection with this Pontiff.”
__
But on further reflection, it’s no laughing matter, really. Although each Pope is free to personalize his papacy somewhat, it seems wrong to us to eliminate cherished Traditions associated with the Papacy, that were established as expressions of the Church’s reverence for Our Lord Himself–whom each Pope represents. Jesus Christ is not just “the Bishop of Rome”.
He is the eternal King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and Holy is His name.
Dear In Hoc,
From what we read, and hear from others, you’re experience is the much more common one. Even Pope Benedict had that problem.
We sympathize. Prayer is sometimes the best recourse.
The Consecration of Russia should bring some big changes.
Mea culpa! I should, in politeness, have said “one,” not “you.”
Your point about adherents of the NO religion still LEGALLY being Catholics, is of course quite correct, but not relevant to my statement.
I stated that if one recognized Bergoglio and Montini as valid Popes, then one is obliged by Catholic doctrine, to accept their Magisterial teachings with Divine and Catholic faith and to submit to them completely.
I absolutely stand by my statement and it very definitely does reflect the sedevacantist and Catholic position:
—-
“… both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.” (Pastor Aeternus.)
—-
“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.”
(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)
—-
“The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.”
(Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)
—-
There is nothing to dispute. If one recognizes Bergoglio and Montini as true Popes, then to refuse complete submission, or to SELECTIVELY submit to their infallible magisterial teaching is schism and heresy. Simple, unemotional Catholic doctrine 101. There is zero emoting, or “igniting already heightened vulnerabilities” involved.
You know that I would never intentionally disrespect, or hurt Indignus, or yourself, but facts are facts. 🙂
—-
Dear Peter,
The key word in your quotes is “truth”
We don’t contradict any truths.
p.s.
We’re not offended. We just continue to think you’re wrong and we’re right. 🙂 🙂
Dear Peter Lamb,
I don’t understand how it isn’t relevant, but so be it. I was responding to your statement. Even strong recognize & resisters are not heretics. They are Catholic. (We are not talking about SSPXer’s here, they are in an entirely different category.) Of course you are right in that I do know you would not intentionally hurt , disrespect, etc. I hope I did not imply that.
Dear Indignus,
LOL!!! Your riposte to my keeping your seats is very good! 🙂 🙂
A true Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching anything contrary to the teaching of Our Lord, or to the detriment of souls. He is the guarantor of the Pope’s infallibility. So we will never be called upon, nor are we ever permitted, to sift the teachings of a true Pope.
If you are forced to sift the teachings of a conciliar pope – that’s telling you something.
Dear Indignus, in all conscience I could never encourage you to accept anything said by Paul VI as being true. He speaketh with forked tongue from both sides of his mouth:
Your quote from Paul VI’s Audience of 12 Jan., 1966 CONTINUES :
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma [solemn magisterium] endowed with the note of infallibility but it still PROVIDED ITS TEACHING WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM [also infallible] which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
Solemn Magisterium refers to the definition of dogma. VII defined no dogmas, therefore the reference to the Solemn Magisterium is completely irrelevant and unnecessary. It is only meant to hoodwink gullible souls into assuming that VII is not infallible Magisterial teaching, should that become necessary to excuse conflicts with traditional doctrine. This ruse, so typically Modernist, has succeeded with many.
Is the ordinary Magisterium infallible? It sure is:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm
It might be possible, here and there, to read something in VII through the lens of tradition, but most of the heresies are blatant.
There is simply no getting away from it – the teachings of an Ecumenical Council promulgated by authority of a true Pope to the Universal Church are binding and infallible. Submission to them is obligatory. That is Catholic doctrine, full stop.
Would one DARE to sift the teachings of Vatican I, or any other valid Council before VII? No, I think not! See my quotes to de Maria above.
One CANNOT stand with a foot in each camp. The conciliar popes are Popes formaliter, or they are not. VII is a valid Council, or it is not. Choose, then obey accordingly. Nobody can be half pregnant.
“PROSELYTIZING, which the Pope says not to do, but Jesus overrides with His mandate. See how it works?”
No, dear friend, it never ever works like that. 🙂 🙂
Dear de Maria,
I think you make a valid point regarding my accuracy and therefore your comment is relevant.
A material heretic is innocent of sin and would remain a Catholic. An occult heretic maintains communion with the Church in the external forum and would remain a Catholic. A formal, pertinacious heretic severs communion with the Church completely and would no longer be a Catholic. Somebody who rejects one iota of Catholic doctrine rejects all. So anybody who rejects any part of the doctrine of a valid Council promulgated by a true Pope is a schismatic and heretic, but whether he remains a Catholic, or not, would depend on what kind of heretic he is. So my statement was inaccurate and your comment is relevant. My apologies. 🙂
Dear Indignus,
“We just continue to think you’re wrong and we’re right. 🙂 🙂 ”
Well that doesn’t leave me any wriggle room at all. LOL.
So be it. God bless. 🙂 🙂
As God bless you all. You are all brilliant.
What Paul Morphy said here on May 27 bears repeating,
“The sheer depth of knowledge displayed in the comments section makes me feel like an idiot!
Most of you would make superb apologists for the faith.”
—————————–
Off topic, but I hope of interest to you all is Randy Engel’s latest post on Renew America
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/150528
Dear Peter,
With all due respect, we believe you are wrong in believing that God protects all a true Pope thinks and teaches. As we understand it, only teachings promulgated ex cathedra are infallible, and they are rare and very specific.
-Cardinal Burke’s assurances that he will oppose error, even if the Pope is promoting it, is one good reason.
___
St. Paul corrected Pope St. Peter’s actions precisely because he was teaching error by example. Yet Peter
was definitely the true Pope, before AND after he was corrected .
___
Pope John the Twenty Second taught his erroneous belief (while Pope ) that the beatific vision was not to be granted anyone till after the final judgment. He finally recanted just before the end of his Papacy.
A writer we respect and trust, Robert de Mattei, writes about the magnificence of the Church’s teaching on the beatific vision:
” At the beginning of the XIV century, a Pope, John XXII, contested this thesis in his ordinary magisterium and fell into heterodoxy. The most fervent Catholics of that time corrected him publically. Cardinal Schuster wrote: “John XXII has the gravest responsibilities before the tribunal of history ..since he offered the entire Church, the humiliating spectacle of the princes, clergy and universities steering the Pontiff onto the right path of Catholic theological tradition, and placing him in the very difficult situation of having to contradict himself.” (Alfredo Idelfonso Schuster o.s.b. Jesus Christ in Ecclesiastical History, Benedictine Publishing 1996, pp. 116-117).
____
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-pope-who-fell-into-heresy-church-that.html
Mr Lamb, You’re wrong. A pope can err outside of the very narrow parameters of infallible statements. One must obey the pope in all matters of doctrine and discipline except where the instruction is in opposition to the Deposit of Faith and morals.
Dear Lynda,
To protect our dear Peter from the coming Divine wrath for those knowingly speaking falsehoods:
– for the record, we attend a Diocesan approved TLM on Sundays and Holydays, and the N.O. when those are not available-on weekdays, etc. Sometimes we attend both TLM and N.O. on Sundays, when helping out at our local parish.
St. Gertrude’s is a parish supported by Sede Vacantists, or rather Sede Privationists?, as de Maria describes them.
-Just so no readers get confused. 🙂 🙂
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
Thanks for posting this reminder of proper priorities.
– Hope people don’t miss the initial caveat that the work presented is
“pure fiction”. With the stuff Pope Francis sometimes says, it might otherwise be passed around as real..
–What worked into it are some beautiful statements of truth like this one:
“Any consideration of protecting man’s environment must begin with a universal commitment to the protection of man’s first environment – the womb – made all the more sacred by the metaphysical reality that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God/Man, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who came into the world to save man from sin, chose to make His first abode in the virgin womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
=====
We can envision a new Bumper sticker:
PROTECT THE PRIMARY ENVIRONMENT-
(THE WOMB AND THE PRECIOUS LIVES IT BEARS)
Peter, Thanks for clarifying how currently non-sedes need to be viewed as either papolatrous or schismatic. However, I disagree. To take your 3rd point first, (by Dom Paul Nau), when’s the last time you read, (other than from Mark Shea, et al), the words “Pope Francis”, (or Begoglio), and “clearly” in the same sentence without a negative? Regarding the other quotes, I just make sure that when I read pronouncements, I read them through the hermeneutic of continuity. That helps clear up any of my confusion.
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
We have often been reminded and inspired by your comments and devotion to The Blessed Mother and Our Lord, to examine our daily lives more closely and regularly in light of what they have asked their children to do. Expressions of genuine Faith and calls to remember their words, are every bit as awesome to us as the most complicated apologetics dissertation.
God Bless you (And Paul) for all you contribute, including your prayers.
Indignus – de Matteo’s facts are misleading. John XXII did preach an erroneous idea about the beatific vision but he did so years before it was defined by the Church in a manner that did not fall in line with his theorising – “The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.”
–
John XII: ‘“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” Later, under Benedict XII, John XXII’s opinion was corrected – but his opinion could not be heresy since, as mentioned, it was not yet defined by the Church and therefore the ‘conditions’ for heresy, which de Matteo directs at John XII didn’t exist.
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/01/28/dr-de-mattei-prescribes-an-anti-sede-tranquilizer/
Having a Humble Opinion of Self
EVERY man naturally desires knowledge ; but what good is knowledge without fear of God? Indeed a humble rustic who serves God is better than a proud intellectual who neglects his soul to study the course of the stars. He who knows himself well becomes mean in his own eyes and is not happy when praised by men.
Thomas a Kempis
Dear Lynda,
You are correct, but that is my point exactly – a TRUE Pope cannot (Holy Ghost ; infallibility) magisterially (solemn, or ordinary) give instruction “where the instruction is in opposition to the Deposit of Faith and morals.”
The Holy Ghost will not permit it! The Church is indefectible.
Paul VI endowed VII with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, (see above.) Francis, in the quote provided by Dumb_ox stated: “Look, I have written an encyclical and an apostolic exhortation, and I continually make declarations and give homilies, and this is magisterium“.
Obviously the Pope can err and is just as human as we are in his personal opinions as to whether it’s going to rain, or not, or whether hamburgers taste better than hot dogs – but not when he is teaching faith, or morals, as Pope, to the whole Church. He is then infallible!
If he DOES teach error, as Pope, concerning faith, or morals, to the whole Church, which contradicts the Deposit of Faith, then he is not and cannot be a true Pope. It’s as simple as that! If one denies that, then one denies the DOGMA of Papal Infallibility and becomes a heretic.
The parameters of infallibility are not as narrow as is commonly thought by many people:
“Writing in the Clergy Review for April 1935, Canon George D. Smith, Ph.D., D.D., was already drawing attention to this misunderstanding which has worsened among traditional Catholics since Vatican II:
What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.”
Dear Indignus,
I certainly do NOT believe “that God protects all a true Pope thinks and teaches.” That would be ridiculous. Please see my comment to Lynda.
“As we understand it, only teachings promulgated ex cathedra are infallible, and they are rare and very
specific. ”
You understand very wrong – please see my comment to Lynda. 🙂 🙂
Pope John XXII was not a heretic. Bergoglio is.
“Dr. de Mattei treats the case of Pope John XXII (1316-1334) as an example of “a pope who fell into heresy and a Church that resisted.”
The implied conclusion Dr. de Mattei wants us to draw about sedevacantism proceeds, more or less, from the following analogical argument: John XXII (1) became a public heretic after he was elected pope, (2) but he did not therefore lose the papal office, and (3) the Church resisted him. So too, Francis (1) has become a public heretic after he was elected pope, (2) but he does not therefore lose the papal office, and (3) we have the right to resist him.
The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. However:
(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.
(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.
Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)
Thus, it is incorrect for Dr. de Mattei to claim that John proposed his thesis as “an act of ordinary magisterium regarding the faith of the Church.”
In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following:
“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262.)
Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy.
So, two of the conditions which by definition are necessary for heresy to exist were simply not present in the case of John XXII.” 🙂 🙂
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/de-mattei-tranquilizer.htm
Salvemur – High five!! 🙂
Dear Mike,
“currently non-sedes” sounds good! 🙂
Yip! “clearly” and “Francis” are oxymorons.
“the hermeneutic of continuity.” Wishful thinking.
Dear Ever mindful,
Amen !!!
Please send this to all modern Jesuit seminaries.
Thank you, Indignus famulus, for your kind words.
God bless you both.
I meant to say: “God bless you all.”
NOT “AS” God bless you all. Sorry.
Dear Salvemur, Peter Lamb, (and anyone interested)
We’re putting this response here so it doesn’t go even longer stuck in one of those narrow lanes up above. (will try to leave a note up there)
___
.The fact that Pope John XXII’s beliefs and teachings on this matter were proven false, was simply one point we used to refute the claim Peter appeared to make
(above) that A VALID POPE is PREVENTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM TEACHING ERROR–even when NOT officially promulgating (“ex cathedra).
___
[Peter, we’ve checked your response to Lynda as you asked,] and it looks like you contradicted your own statement in defense of John XXII -where you claimed
he was only acting as a Theologian when he gave his series of sermons incluing his false teachings [therefore fallible?] (and BTW we don’t agree that a Pope
can demote himself to “only theologian” status without resigning. –Benedict XVI tried that regarding his book about Jesus of Nazareth including his comments that we shouldn’t be trying to convert the Jews right now) anyway, after claiming he was only speaking as a theologian ( which was reportedly not actually said by him until the night before he died) you then end with this quote
-in which we capitalize the contradiction we see:
___
” It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous
teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or
implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, OR THROUGH THE TEACHINGS OF APPROVED THEOLOGIANS, IS NO LESS INFALLIBLE THAN A SOLEMN DEFINITION ISSUED BY A POPE OR GENERAL COUNCIL. IF THEN, A DOCTRINE APPEARS IN THESE ORGANS…. of divine Tradition as BELONGING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE ..DEPOSIT OF FAITH committed by Christ to His Church, IT IS TO BE BELIEVED BY CATHOLICS with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff
—-Surely the Pope would have to qualify as one of those “approved theologians” you mentioned, since he is the highest authority in the Church giving “approval” to anyone in need of it?.
========
Peter , you also appear to attempt to mitigate the impact of the Pope’s teachings -mentioning it as if only a minor series of talks in France. But the Wickipedia report indicates they were more widespread and well-known than that, because ” “Even before he was pope, he argued that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment.”
And the impact of that series in France was HUGE:
According to the de Mattei piece:
“When John XXII re-proposed this error, he was openly criticized by many theologians. Among those that intervened in the debate, were Guillaume Durand de Saint Pourcain, Bishop of Meaux (1270-1334), who accused the Pope of re-proposing the Catharist heresies, the English Dominican Thomas Waleys (1318-1349), who, as a result of his public resistance underwent trial and imprisonment, the Franciscan Nicola da Lira (1270 -1349) and Cardinal Jacques Fournier (1280-1342), pontifical theologian and author of the treatise De statu animarum ante generale iudicium.”
AND he continues…
“When the Pope tried to impose this erroneous doctrine on the Faculty of Theology in Paris, THE KING OF FRANCE, Philip VI of Valois, prohibited its teaching, and, according to accounts by the Sorbonne’s Chancellor, Jean Gerson [even] reached the point of threatening John XXII with the STAKE if he didn’t make a retraction. John XXII’s sermons totus mundum christianum turbaverunt, so said Thomas of Strasburg, Master of the Hermits of Saint Augustine (in Dykmans, op. cit., p. 10).”
=====
To both Salvemur,(and Peter)
Regarding your concerns that Mr. de Mattei used the word “heterodoxy” in writing about John XXII and referred to his errors as heretical in his title,
while noting your objection that it wasn’t until the subsequent Pontificate (of Benedict XII, 1336), in his papal bull “Benedictus Deus” that it was
dogmatically declared “that the souls of the departed go to their eternal reward (or punishments) immediately after death, as opposed to remaining in a
state of unconscious existence until the Last Judgment.” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html
___
It appears undisputed- that John XXII was Pope from 1316 to 1334, while he taught (in sermons) that the beatific vision will only be granted to souls after
the final judgment; and that after death souls remain in a state of unawareness until that time of final judgment–all of which he recanted near the end of
his Papacy.
___
*
But it is ALSO claimed (by Taylor Marshall and the book he cites here) that in 1311, -5 years before the start of John XXII’s Pontificate- “The definition
of the beatific vision was dogmatized at the the Council of Vienne, where it was declared that “The elect move from nature to grace to glory.” (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403). We don’t know that this statement addressed the timing of that “move to glory” but it is implied so by Mr. Marshall, and other sources claim that all
the Documents of that Council have been lost except a few fragments still in Paris. We mention it because it does call your claim into question, and the
citation for further research is provided, of which someone may be able to make further use.
=====
(We’ll set that other dogma aside for now -because it raises questions we don’t have the means/info access to answer immediately)
But the question remains: WAS THIS HETERODOX TEACHING despite the later promulgation of the dogma you mentioned AND ignoring the prior council?
Pope Pius XII- reminds us -in “Munificentissimus Deus” ( Dogma of the Assumption) that when a Truth is declared dogma:
___
1. THE CHURCH IS simply carrying out it’s commission of “PRESERVING ALREADY-REVEALED TRUTHS pure and entire ..”. and
2. Vatican I taught: “the Holy Spirit was NOT PROMISED to the successors of Peter .[SO]. THAT by his revelation, THEY MIGHT MANIFEST NEW DOCTRINE, BUT SO
that, by His assistance, THEY MIGHT GUARD..THE REVELATION DELIVERED TO THE APOSTLES, or THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH.” AND that “ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TO BE BELIEVED BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD OR IN TRADITION, AND WHICH ARE PROPOSED BY THE CHURCH – either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, AS DIVINELY REVEALED TRUTHS WHICH MUST BE BELIEVED.”
____
So, checking in SACRED SCRIPTURE for the TIMING of the Beatific Vision after death and it’s footnotes for any consensus about these matters.
___
first We find pertinent citations (with no footnotes or references to timing), which tell us the Beatific vision is our reward:
— “We see now in a glass darkly, but then face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12) “Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God (Matt 5: 8)
— and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30).”
==========
but then we see THE ACCOUNT OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN in Luke 16: 19-31 turns out to be a jackpot of footnotes and teachings/information on this:
V22: “The beggar died, and was carried by angels to ABRAHAM’S BOSOM.”
1. ABRAHAM’S BOSOM: “The place of rest where the souls of the Saints resided TILL CHRIST HAD OPENED HEAVEN BY HIS DEATH”
2. ABRAHAM’S BOSOM: “The place where the souls of Saints and departed Patriarchs waited the arrival of their Deliverer.” It was thither that Jesus went
after His death, AS IT IS SAID IN THE CREED “HE DESCENDED INTO HELL TO DELIVER THOSE WHO MIGHT AT CHRIST’S ASCENSION, ENTER INTO HEAVEN.”
___
V25: “Abraham said to him…(speaking of their differing life situations) ..but now he (Lazarus) is comforted and thou are tormented.”
(Augustin Calumet 1700’s) “[from Philo: de Execrat p.9 37b}– Jews not only acknowleged the existence of souls, and their state of happiness or misery
after this life, but also that the souls of the saints and Patriarchs interceded with God for their descendents, and obtained for them the succor they stood
in need of” [obviously this teachings completely contradicts the idea that the souls are not aware until the final judgment]
__
V26: “…between us and you there is fixed a great chasm, so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, nor from thence come hither..”
“God’s justice has decreed that the bad should be forever separated from the good. Here take notice that the Latin and Greek word v22 translated HELL even
in the Protestant translation, CANNOT SIGNIFY ONLY THE GRAVE.”
==========
AND THE TRANSFIGURATION-in which the dead are seen not sleeping, but talking with Jesus: Luke 9:28–36) and 2 Peter 1:16–18 refers to it.]
Matthew 17: V3: “And behold there appeared to them, Moses and Elias, talking with Him”
___
(St. Cyril AD 400’s) “The disciples also, upon seeing the glory of their fellow creatures, would be filled with admiration at the condescension of their
Divine Master and considering the delights of future happiness, be stirred up to a holy emulation of those who had labored before them; and be fortified in
their ensuing conflicts, for nothing so much lightens the present labor, as the consideration of the future recompense .
=====
NOTE: THESE last INTERPRETATIONS -by St. Augustine and Cyril WERE available for 900 years before Pope John XXII developed his heterodox theory that contradicted them, and then became Pope.
____
Finally, we wonder WHAT DID BENEDICT XII use as his reasons for the promulgation, (linked below) and were these things long-understood by the Church or newly perceived? The document seeems strangely bereft of Scriptural or other references and citations, so we are left without an answer to that question.for the time being.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html
======
Overall, it appears to us that you are defending the indefensible here. Even if we ignore the intercessory actions of the saints, we certainly cannot ignore the parts of the Creed it contradicts so directly.
“signed”
your still- friendly, hard-working Christ loving, adversaries in this matter,
🙂 🙂
Dear Peter,
Rather than try our reply here, we put in as the next entry at the bottom June 1st, 2015. God Bless. It’s a long one.
🙂 🙂
Dear Mr. Verrecchio,
I tried to take this “conversation” to your forum, and I am sorry to say that I do not know how to post on it. I am sorry for going off topic here with my following question.
—————————
Dear Peter Lamb, salvemur and In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Although I do not share it as I once did, I respect your position of sedevacantism and find so much of the truth in what you write. I listened to Gerry Matatics’ cds and often listened to him on ISOC before Judith Sharpe disassociated herself and ISOC from him because of his saying that Bishop Sandborn cannot be a legitimate bishop under the current circumstances. I also visit the “novus ordo wire” and “call me jorge” sites to find truth. I presently take the position that Mr. Verrecchio, Barbara and Indignus famulus take on the present situation of the Church. They have articulated well in the past.
You have shown great respect and kindness to others on this site, and have demonstrated extensive knowledge to me here. With the understanding that I mean this in all kindness and in hope of learning the truth, I have a question for you.
I am wondering what you think of the words of St. Padre Pio to Fr. Luigi Villa when he said the following:
‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI.
———–
http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html
—————————————–
What is your opinion of the reason that Padre Pio would call Pope Paul VI the pope if he were not truly the pope? Surely, Padre Pio would know the truth, don’t you think?
———————————————-
Also, if any of you is savvy enough to direct us back to Mr. Verrecchio’s forum to continue this “conversation” I would be so grateful.
————–
http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html
Dear Indignus,
You know we are going to get into trouble and should be going to the forum?
1. Yes, the ordinary magisterium is also infallible.
2. Pope John was a theologian who became Pope. Theologians routinely debate thorny issues until the holy see pronounces judgement, when all debate on the matter ceases. This is routine practice for theologians.
3. Pope John was debating his thesis in his capacity as private theologian, which it is his perfect right to do. He made it perfectly clear to all that he did NOT propose his thesis as “an act of ordinary magisterium regarding the faith of the Church.”
He “proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (See above.)
Again when he said: “I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (See above.)
The statement that ” John XXII, contested this thesis in his ordinary magisterium and fell into heterodoxy” is false.
4. The extent of the debate and the identities of participants, are of historical interest, but irrelevant to our point of discussion.
5. “Vatican I taught: “the Holy Spirit was NOT PROMISED to the successors of Peter .[SO]. THAT by his revelation, THEY MIGHT MANIFEST NEW DOCTRINE, BUT SO that, by His assistance, THEY MIGHT GUARD..THE REVELATION DELIVERED TO THE APOSTLES, or THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH.” AND that “ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TO BE BELIEVED BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD OR IN TRADITION, AND WHICH ARE PROPOSED BY THE CHURCH – either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, AS DIVINELY REVEALED TRUTHS WHICH MUST BE BELIEVED.”
Amen!! Please read it carefully again yourselves, then pass it on to all your NO friends. 🙂
6. Your researches on the Beatific Vision are very interesting.
7. Time for “Survivor” again. Another week has flown! God bless. 🙂 🙂
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
The site you link to is a most excellent one! I have read every word on the whole site and various articles more than once. I wish with all my heart that everybody would read all of that site. Fr. Luigi pray for us!
Fr. Pio was merely referring to Paul VI as Pope by way of identification – not meaning that he was a valid Pope. If you have read that site, you know very well where the NO church came from and why Catholics must resist it with all their might. Fr. Pio was simply stating a fact to Fr. Luigi. Paul VI was a proven mason – Fr. Luigi provides every detail of his membership and spent his whole life trying to ferret out masons in the Vatican. 🙂
P.S. Particularly note the photo of Montini publicaly wearing the ephod – insignia of the High Priest of the Jews !!!
Servant of Our Lady,
–
Just for the record – I am not a sedevacantist.
I do hold, however, that there are serious reasons for believing that Francis is not a true pope. IOW – yes, I do hold this possibility open, without pretending that I hold a definite answer, but without going to the other extreme of saying that the NO sacraments are invalid etc.
The college of cardinals needs to get its act together and formally depose Francis due to manifest heresy (barring a highly unlikely abjuration of his errors).
The “canonization” of non-saints JP II and J XXIII are further proof to me that we are not dealing with a true pope.
This is what Chris Ferrara had to say some time prior to the fake canonizations, which puts things in their proper Catholic perspective:
–
“What is done is done. But in reality, no matter what anyone says, we remain free to pray for John Paul II instead of to him—even in the Diocese of Rome itself. And we remain free as well to pray that the Holy Ghost will never allow the calamity of the last pontificate (or the one before it) to receive, per impossible [NOTE WELL – PER IMPOSSIBLE!!], the perpetual and infallible imprimatur of a formal canonization. May Our Lady intercede for us, for Holy Church, and for the late Pope John Paul II.”
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0515-ferrara-beatification.htm
–
The truth is this: after the “Canonizations” a bogus new, novel “definition” (or understanding) of canonization was concocted by some trad blogs in order to fit in with the “canonizations”. But as we know, catholics are called to reject novelties – so I will stick to the centuries old understanding of what a canonization entails and represents.
–
However, until the Church makes a formal declaration on the matter of Bergoglio holding validly or not the papacy (which I believe it will do once the crisis subsides), the question is still “open” so to speak. As long as Francis is not deposed (by a formal process involving the bishops/and/or the college of cardinals, he will continue to inflict damage on the Mystical Body of Christ.
Peter,
–
Do you have the link with the info regarding the evidence of Paul VI being a mason? I’m not saying it’s not true, it’s just I’d like to read the evidence myself.
Thanks.
I am often wearied by the many things I hear and read, but in You is all that I long for
Thomas a Kempis
Dear Peter Lamb,
Thank you for your response.
I think that Fr. Luigi was very holy, as well.
I have read very much on that site, including the online book “Paul VI beatified? Never” by Fr. Luigi. I have also noted the photo of Montini publicly wearing the ephod. Though he was treated very badly by Paul VI, I never got the impression that Fr. Luigi (or Padre Pio) thought that Paul VI was not a true pope.
————
If you know of any reference on this site or elsewhere where I might see more clearly how either Padre Pio or Fr. Luigi thought this, please let me know.
Thank you.
Thank you, In Hoc Signo Vinces.
I am sorry I was not clear on your position. I agree with you 100% on everything you said here.
———
Could you please tell me what IOW stands for. I have looked and cannot find this one. Thank you.
IOW – in other words.
Thank you, crawler.
Dear Peter,
The way we see it, once a man (even a theologian) becomes Pope, his responsibilities to protect and teach the pure deposit of Faith, far outweigh any personal desires he still has to dally with or sermonize on scandal-causing theories, especially one which challenges such well established teachings of the past as the essentials of the Creed, the intercession of Saints, particular judgment of the soul, heaven, hell and purgatory and even the continuation of conscious life after death. ( such as a period of “nothingness” from after death until the general judgment does) .
__
John XXII’s openness to contradiction from other theologians doesn’t mitigate the damage done, and no amount of trying to separate him into two distinct entities—theologian and Pope, can really accomplish such an impossible thing. The sees him as the Pope, while he holds that office, no matter what he calls himself ( including “just the Bishop of Rome”).
__
What’s the difference between what John XXII did there, and Benedict XVI’s writing “as Theologian-while-still-Pope, his idea that we can drop all the effors to convert the Jews right now? None that we can see. Ever heard anybody remind people it’s not the Pope but Theologian-Benedict’s idea, when talking about converting the Jews these days?
___
We’re obviously at another impasse here, that would require either you to drop the sede view, or us to get you to drop the sede view.
(only two options.). 🙂 🙂 Enjoy your break .
Although if the “Survivor” you’re talking about is that T.V. show with a bunch of half naked men and women running around sweating profusely in a jungle, that we see advertized, suggest you elevate your entertainment standards to something you wouldn’t be embarrased to invite Our Lady to watch with you 🙂 🙂
God Bless you.
Thank you for the link, In Hoc Signo Vinces.
I see what you mean about the infallibility of canonizations after reading Christopher Ferrara’s words. I never thought the canonizations were true either.
—————————
You said:
“I do hold, however, that there are serious reasons for believing that Francis is not a true pope. IOW – yes, I do hold this possibility open, without pretending that I hold a definite answer, but without going to the other extreme of saying that the NO sacraments are invalid etc.”
—————
I agree, and I think Fr. Gruner thought the same thing about this Francis. I heard Fr. Gruner say in an interview with John Vennari that Pope Benedict had claimed that he (Benedict) yet held onto some part of the papacy. Also, Fr. Gruner had this link on his website:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/two-popes-has-papacy-become-diarchy.html
———————-
The above article has these words in it:
Pope Benedict said he……..
“did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, nor the office, or the duties, i.e. which Christ Himself attributed to the Head of the Apostles and which has been passed on to his successors. The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office.”
———————-
If Francis has not the protection of the Holy Ghost that remains yet with Pope Benedict……..
But as you said, “I do not pretend that I have a definite answer….”
But I sure DID think Louie had the definite answer, however, in his last two posts.
I only wish the Cardinals would jump on the bandwagon, so to speak.
This is pure evil:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/01/vatican-official-hits-back-at-pro-life-criticis-over-un-invitation/
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
We read a lot about the controversies over Benedict’s resignation, too, and while some of them seemed to make sense, we couldn’t help but give his own words a lot of weight. He just doesn’t seem like the type to cave in to coercion of any kind.
And his statement sounded even a bit ticked off :
“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” he wrote to Vatican Insider website,
““The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculation regarding its validity is simple absurd.”
__-
That’s awfully hard to dismiss in favor of theories that suggest he held on to part of it secretly. but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Hey Peter. Back at ya. The dedication to the Truth evinced in no small measure by the small number of sedevacantist priests out their is invaluable.
Yes, IF. You are correct.
But it looks to me as if he actually said BOTH things.
That is what modernists do, after all.
Dear Servant,
You said it. Sounds like a schoolyard clique headed by a bully.
This question is a hard one to resist: “Do you really have a higher moral standard than the Pope? Or is your own minimalistic version of the Creed, consisting of the single item: ‘We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion…..
___
This Pope is the one who wants these moral issues put on the back burner, so it’s likely a lot of pro-lifers have higher standards than he does. How can anyone claim to be worthy of trust or respect and authority regarding other issues, when they don’t see the need to make the killing of the most helpless among us, the number one priority until it’s abolished?
Hello, Servant of our Lady. As to how Padre Pio viewed Paul VI – Padre Pio lived in the era before anyone was called a ‘sedevacantist’ and before the fruits of the VII and the Novus Ordo Rites had been imposed universally upon the parishes of the Church. If he had lived to see this error universally enforced? How could he not have concluded that such error could never be universally enforced by Christ’s Vicar (and it was most certainly universally enforced)? The idea that such a universal tyranny of error comes from a valid authority in Christ contradicts the voice of the Church for 2000 years.
Dear Hoc,
Yes – its the site linked by Servant of our Lady. Spend some time on this site. See the history of Fr. Luigi. His mission was commissioned by Our Lord Himself. He asked Fr. Pio to summon Fr. Luigi and send him to Pope Pius XII. The info you want is in “Paul VI Beatified?” See “Benedict’s Pallium” and his “Mitre”, Padre Pio”s Church – read the lot. See the satanic symbolism of Judeo-masonry. This will make your hair stand straight up. Here is the NO church stripped naked !!! http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
Judeo-masons worship lucifer, who is the devil. satan is actually a lesser demon. We say “satanism”, but we should say “luciferianism.” Montini was a Judeo-mason before and after his election as pope, in fact he was the chief Judeo-mason in the world. I have forgotten his proper title as head honcho of judeo-masonry, but that is why he was allowed to wear the ephod. Judeo-masons are the worst heretics on our planet, because they adore the devil himself, so Montini was, by virtue of his position as head honcho of judeo-masonry, the archeresiarch on Earth.
Now Pope Paul IV said:
“[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 … 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;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity … through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted … as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived AUTOMATICALLY, AND WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.” (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.)
There you have it – Montiniwas legally elected Pope materialiter but, by virtue of his heresy never Pope formaliter, nor were all his pals. By the way, Padre Pio never said the NO mass in his life. Remember, those were early days, things were not as developed as they are today.
One has to actually see little aborted babies struggling and gasping with their little mouths for breath, their little hands opening and closing, to really appreciate the infinite horror of abortion. They go on gasping for ages and ages. All you can do is baptise them and cry. The worst place in hell is reserved for abortionists.
Yes. Padre Pio had obtained (well before the motu proprio days) the ‘permission’ to continue to be a True Catholic Priest, celebrating the True Catholic Rite.
Agree. How can one put it in ‘coompuntive’ terms for pro-abortionists? Would you rather stick a full grown cat in a blender or a little kitten? Granted, the little kitten will make less mess, but then Bergoglio exhorts, “Make a mess!”
dear In Hoc Signo Vinces and Servant of Our Lady,
For the consideration of you both, the following is offered:
******8*
“Sedevacantists are not deposing anybody, since they have no authority to do so. Hence, in the Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, the faithful can and must say only that the Novus Ordo hierarchy lacks authority, for the reasons stated, but is not and cannot be deposed, except by a legitimate authority.–”
Taken from:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sedevacantism-pope-sifting.htm
Dear de Maria,
Thank you for your excellent comment which makes our position crystal clear. The deposition by proper authority is required for legality in the external forum. Having now read your link please may I add a bit more of it for general consumption? :
“… every Catholic must compare everything he hears to the Church’s previous magisterium, even new acts of the magisterium itself, since the magisterium fixes the Church’s dogmas, which are the object of our faith. So once the Church has pronounced on any dogmatic or moral subject, its pronouncement becomes fixed in concrete. Nothing thereafter may legitimately contradict it. Even popes are bound to the previous magisterium.The assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Church assures that any act of the Church’s magisterium will be in accordance with previous magisterium. Furthermore, by the gift of indefectibility, the Holy Ghost assists the Church in such a way that no universal discipline or law, whether liturgical or otherwise, could prescribe something sinful. If, therefore, there is a contradiction between the previous magisterium and the current magisterium, the Catholic must side with the previous magisterium, which is not in any way alterable, and is the object of his virtue of faith. In so doing, the Catholic must see the contradictory “magisterium” as not coming from the hierarchy which is assisted by the Holy Ghost. For it is impossible that a hierarchy, so assisted, could promulgate such a thing. Therefore the contradiction found in the new “magisterium” must be seen as an infallible sign that it does not proceed from a divinely assisted hierarchy. Therefore Paul VI’s promulgation of Vatican II’s heresies is an infallible sign that he did not enjoy papal authority, nor ever did, since he would have been assisted in such a way as to avoid the promulgation of heresy and error… The serious error of the SSPX and of Bishop Williamson is precisely to say that the pope and the Catholic hierarchy as a whole is capable of contradicting the previous magisterium, and is capable of promulgating evil liturgies, disciplines and laws to the whole Church, thereby creating and promulgating a whole new and false religion. The solution, they say, is to sift the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium, liturgy, disciplines, and laws for what they find traditional, all the while recognizing the promulgators of the false religion as the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. This means that the infallible Catholic hierarchy has universally promulgated heresy and error, as well as evil liturgy, laws, and disciplines. But this is contrary to faith.
Therefore the faith requires us not to sift the faulty magisterium and disciplines, but to reject the promulgators as a false hierarchy, that is, as a hierarchy which does not have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. Therefore the faith requires us not to sift the faulty magisterium and disciplines, but to reject the promulgators as a false hierarchy, that is, as a hierarchy which does not have the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church … Sedevacantism, … follows what St. Paul says to the Galatian faithful in the first chapter of that Epistle. If anyone, including and angel or himself, preaches a doctrine different from what he has preached, let him be anathema [see Gal 1:8-9]. He does not say: sift the false doctrine for traditional tidbits. In other words, if the preacher should contradict the previous magisterium, he should be utterly rejected, and not “accepted but sifted.” Likewise Paul IV calls for the utter rejection of the elected pope who turns out to be a heretic. The faithful are commanded not to sift his doctrine for truth, but to consider him as a false pope.
Therefore if by “pope-sifting” we mean that the Catholic faithful must reject as false a preacher of false doctrine, even if he should be St. Paul himself, then sedevacantists plead guilty, for this is what St. Paul and the Catholic Church require us to do. “Pope-sifting” is in fact the wrong word. “Heretic-sifting” is more accurate, i.e., sifting the hierarchy for heretics, something the Church has always done. For no heretic can be a true pope.”
Isaiah 1: 15
“And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood. ”
___
The greatest demonstration of God’s Mercy and Love- the Incarnation and Holy Sacrifice of His only Son, is still lavished upon all those who sincerely repent, even from these foul sins:
[16] Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes: cease to do perversely, [17] Learn to do well: seek judgment…
“..if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool. [19] If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land.
___
[20] But if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath: the sword shall devour you because the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
Yes, these images you describe are exactly what turned Jewish born atheist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, into one of the best known Catholic Pro life advocates, creator of “The silent Scream” and “Eclipse of Reason”. AFTER having performed over 70,000 abortions and founded NARAL -to help remove abortion laws. He knew he could never make up for what he had done, and carried it with him always– along with his gratitude to God.
Dear Peter
If we understood you correctly, you’re claiming the Holy Spirit protects true Popes from error even in their ordinary teachings, which are then subject to our assent. So, why can you not see how illogical it is you and all Sedes, to agree that Pope John XXII was a true Pope, when it is so apparent that the Holy Spirit failed to protect him from teaching error ( just as the current Pope does) in his series of homilies/sermons (not debates) the contents of which were officially proven to be false and heretical teachings which, as all heresy does, go against the Revealed Deposit of the Faith?
You and many other sedes claim he was able to shed his role as Pope for the times in which those things occurred–assuming the alter- persona and role of a fallible theologian, who then taught his errors and heretical beliefs that souls enter a period of unawareness after death and remain so until the final judgment, before being allowed the beatific vision after purgation. (against the then well known teachings of the Apostles and Fathers on the Creed– Our Lord’s deliverance of the souls waiting in Limbo since the Original sin; the intercession of Souls of the dead for those on earth,immediate damnation for unrepented mortal sinners, and even the words of Our Lord to the good Thief while on the Cross “THIS DAY” you shall be with Me in Paradise”)
You make these excuses for his heresy, claiming it wasn’t officially declared heresy until the next Pontificate, as if, he had no way of knowing that it went against all of the teachings we just listed here–which ANY Catholic, even a child taught only the Creed, would know. –which is why the King of France at the time demanded he recant his teachings, and why your excuses for him don’t stand up to simple reason.
We can see why you make them. If he was a true Pope, as you agree he was, then he would have to be incapable of teaching error. So since he did teach error, you have to find ways of claiming that either it wasn’t error, or it wasn’t really he who taught it. Unfortunately for your claims, History records that he taught it, while he was preaching sermons as Pope, and that the scandal was due to that.
You truthfully claim that he stated he was not declaring any of it official teaching and was open to correction. But he didn’t make those statements WHILE he was giving his sermons, did he? And the facts ARE, that he thought and believed all those false things, and taught them publicly, WHILE he was, according you your beliefs, protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
Dear Indignus,
Thanks for this. I’ve just watched “the Silent Scream”. I heard of it years ago, but there were no computers then and I have never seen it before. I had one of the very first sonar machines in private practice in this country, in about 1977. When women came to me requesting abortion, I stopped them on the spot and then put the sonar on their tummies showing them, there is the heart beating, there’s his hands, there’s his head etc. By the end of it, there was no more talk of abortion. Medically this film is spot on, despite what the abortion propagandists have to say, even if they come from Harvard.
Dear Peter
If we understood you correctly, you’re claiming the Holy Spirit protects true Popes from error even in their ordinary teachings, which are then subject to our assent. So, why can you not see how illogical it is you and all Sedes, to agree that Pope John XXII was a true Pope, when it is so apparent that the Holy Spirit failed to protect him from teaching error ( just as the current Pope does) in his series of homilies/sermons (not debates) the contents of which were officially proven to be false and heretical teachings which, as all heresy does, go against the Revealed Deposit of the Faith?
You and many other sedes claim he was able to shed his role as Pope for the times in which those things occurred–assuming the alter- persona and role of a fallible theologian, who then taught his errors and heretical beliefs that souls enter a period of unawareness after death and remain so until the final judgment, before being allowed the beatific vision after purgation. (against the then well known teachings of the Apostles and Fathers on the Creed– Our Lord’s deliverance of the souls waiting in Limbo since the Original sin; the intercession of Souls of the dead for those on earth,immediate damnation for unrepented mortal sinners, and even the words of Our Lord to the good Thief while on the Cross “THIS DAY” you shall be with Me in Paradise”)
You make these excuses for his heresy, claiming it wasn’t officially declared heresy until the next Pontificate, as if, he had no way of knowing that it went against all of the teachings we just listed here–which ANY Catholic, even a child taught only the Creed, would know. –which is why the King of France at the time demanded he recant his teachings, and why your excuses for him don’t stand up to simple reason.
We can see why you make them. If he was a true Pope, as you agree he was, then he would have to be incapable of teaching error. So since he did teach error, you have to find ways of claiming that either it wasn’t error, or it wasn’t really he who taught it. Unfortunately for your claims, History records that he taught it, while he was preaching sermons as Pope, and that the scandal was due to that.
You truthfully claim that he stated he was not declaring any of it official teaching and was open to correction. But he didn’t make those statements WHILE he was giving his sermons, did he? And the facts ARE, that he thought and believed all those false things, and taught them publicly, WHILE he was, according you your beliefs, protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
—-
The only reasonable thing to do is admit a real Pope believed and taught error, (not ex Cathedra) that was not prevented by the Holy Spirit. He recanted, thank God, due to persuasion of others who were not deceived as he had been.
Dear all,
Sorry, the post below was meant as a response up above to Peter’s, post to Servant of Our Lady and for “general consumption” of all.
We’ve reposted this with its conclusion –where it was supposed to go, above.
Sorry, all. 🙂 🙂
Off Topic –Interesting news about the ongoing conference on the Liturgy:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Cardinal Sarah says the Holy Father instructed him:
” “I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI.”
___
Speaking to those now involved in this work, Cardinal Sarah said:
“My friends, I want you to help me in this task. I ask you to continue to work towards achieving the liturgical aims of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, I) and to work to continue the liturgical renewal promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, especially through the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2007 AND THE MOTU PROPRIO SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM of 7 July 2007. I ask you to be wise, like the householder in St Matthew’s Gospel, who knows when to bring out of his treasure things both new and old (cf. Mtt: 13: 52), so that the Sacred Liturgy as it is celebrated and lived today may lose nothing of the estimable riches of the Church’s liturgical tradition, whilst always being open to legitimate development (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).
========
Don’t mean to sound totally pessimistic, but with the Collegial Consecration of Russia not yet done, we expect that despite this sounding like a change from the more familiar “attack mode” against the TLM we’ve all experienced over the past 2 years of this pontificate, we may be about to witness some new attempts to tamper with what we have now, that could be worse than anything we’ve seen yet.
We continue to pray for all (from the Collect of Trinity Sunday)
“O Almighty and Everlasting Go, by Whose gift Thy servants, in confessing the true Faith, acknowledge the glory of the Eternal Trinity, and adore the unity of the power of Thy Magesty: Grant that by steadfastness in the same Faith, we may evermore be defended from all adversities. Through Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God
for ever and ever. Amen.
dear IF,
You state: “You and many other sedes claim he was able to shed his role as Pope ————-.” No. This is not the sedevacantist position. Nor does what you say which flows from that erroneous thought.
*******
I did not read Peter Lamb’s post, so if anything therein led you to glean that, such must be addressed & corrected. Hopefully, the following will assist.
But first, I deliberately offered a link to (which only addresses the position in part,) to In Hoc & Servant of Our Lady so they could read the article for themselves and not in the words of a sedevacantist (me,) who might err. Here my comment should not be misconstrued to say that Lamb erred, I do not know. I am merely attempting to halt a serious misconception in the bud, no matter from whence it came. I hope you can read that article I linked for the parousal of the two other commenters at some point.
If you wish to know the position, this explanation will help, which I also hope you can read at some point.
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
You may find this agoniizing to read, only because the catastrophe is addressed head on & we all know that feeling. But getting past that, it isn’t difficult & is written with clarity.
As you already know, Des Lauriers authored the initial draft of what later became known as the “Ottaviani Intervention.”
Peace be to you.
( Sorry this was so long in comment, but I’m not that good at English to begin with.)
On a more positive note–Sighn that the “Real” Holy Spirit still at work in souls:
(from Gloria t.v. news)
Latin Oration: On May 27th 22-year-old James McGlone delivered his Commencment oration at Harvard University in Latin. McGlone is a member of the University’s Catholic chaplaincy and of “Juventutem”, the international association that gathers young faithful of the old Roman Rite.
Dear, dear Peter Lamb,
May the Most Holy Trinity reward you for all the babies you saved and particularly for the souls of the tiny ones you baptized. May those souls greet you in heaven and pray for you in your perseverance in this “valley of tears.”
Thank you, salvemur.
That is an excellent point about Padre Pio not having lived long enough to see the fruits of VII and NO Rites.
On the Chiesa Viva site, though, I cannot see that Fr. Luigi took the sede position. He died only two y
Sorry. I did not mean to send that reply without finishing it.
———
Anyway, he died only two years ago.
Good response.
Thank you, de Maria numquam satis.
(What a great name you have!)
Dear Indignus,
It depends on what you mean by “ordinary teachings.” If you mean his day to day activities eg giving a lecture to a class of students, or theologians on an opinion, or giving a homily, then the answer is no. If you mean his teaching in the Ordinary Magisterium, then the answer is yes. It is crucial to distinguish between his private and official acts. As a private man his opinions carry the same weight as yours, or mine, or the man next door’s. When he is speaking officially, as the Vicar of Christ to the whole Catholic Church on matters of faith, morals, governance, or discipline, then it is another matter entirely, then the protection of the Holy Ghost against error i.e. infalibility, is invoked. Pope John’s homilies were to certain groups of people expressing his private theological opinion, on a particular point of theology, which was open for discussion. He wasn’t promulgating his view, as Pope, as a matter of faith, to the whole Church.
A Pope does not do everything he does AS POPE, i.e. in his official capacity. When he buys a hamburger he does so as a private individual. When he promulgates an encyclical officially, as Pope, to the whole Church, then he acts in his official capacity. He does not put down and then pick up his mantle as Pope. He does not “shed his role as Pope” for the times he is buying hamburgers – he is constantly Pope until he dies, or resigns, but like anybody else, he acts on occasions in his private capacity (not protected) and on others in his official capacity (protected.) That is not assuming an alter-persona. He expressed his opinion in public. So what?
“You truthfully claim that he stated he was not declaring any of it official teaching and was open to correction.” That, dear friends, is the whole point in a nutshell. 🙂 🙂
Whether he made it clear that he was open to correction (i.e. expressing an opinion) before, during, or after his homilies, I don’t know, but the important point is that he made it quite clear to all that he was speaking in his private capacity, on a subject open for legitimate debate – no heresy there. His audience, like you, didn’t get the distjnction and that caused the furore.
P.S. Bergoglio says that his homilies are magisterium. He might be correct in the sense that in this day, every word he utters is broadcast to the world – a fact he is fully aware of and he obviously intends to be heard in his official capacity. This was not so in the days of Pope John – then only those in his immediate vicinity could hear his homilies – he was not speaking to the whole Church.
Thank you Servant of Our Lady, you are very kind. 🙂
Amen. I first watched The Silent Scream in 1982 at a SPUC public meeting. I cried myself to sleep for a year afterwards thinking of all the babies being intentionally murdered with state backing all over the world.
Dear Lynda,
I am on Day 4 today of the St. Louie de Montfort’s Fiery Prayer Novena for your intentions, (including your imprisoned priest friend) and especially for your perseverance in your devastated homeland, Ireland.
(I am making the 6 day prayer into a 9 day novena.)
—————————————
God bless you. Stay close to Our Mother! She is our ‘Commander’ in this battle.
————————-
“But we are an army whose ‘Commander’ knows each and every one of the enemies, who has observed and observes every one of their hidden actions, each one of their words, and even their very thoughts. Ask yourselves, under such conditions, can one speak of secret plans, clandestine actions and invisibility?”
Who is our ‘Commander’?
“It is the Immaculate Virgin, the refuge of sinners, but also the one who tramples the infernal Serpent. She will crush its head!”
————– St. Maximillian Kolbe
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_010_Kobe_Jewsl.html
Dear Peter,
We may differ with you on other matters, but on this topic we are 100% united. God Bless you a hundred fold for your Faithful defense of the unborn!
Dear de Maria
Apologies for the length of this, but we felt it important to show you the facts, and since this com section is so far advanced, it’s likely folks will be going over to the new post soon, we think.
___
We admire your constant charity, so we had thought to spend some time on your last link. Unfortunately we found it was written by a Bishop who has proven himself to be at best reckless, (please bear with us, we don’t say that lightly) if not deliberately dishonest-in slandering Pope Francis publicly for allegedly saying and believing that “God does not exist”.
___
Ironically that quote came from one of the relatively few videos we’ve seen in which Francis was teaching all the right stuff. We consider this Bishop highly educated and intelligent, yet it only took us about two minutes to see through the bogus presentation of the words of the Pope-that went viral-and which the Bishop is using to certify his false claim. So either he didn’t want to know the truth, or he is really not smart enough for anyone to trust his judgement on such important matters as these. If you have a link to someone else on the same topic, we’ll be glad to take a look. But we hope you’ll be kind enough to review what convinced us of this problem:
=====
Dumb Ox posted the Bishop’s accusations on April 22, 2015:
“Bp. Sanborn draws the following conclusion, (1) as a consequence of recognizing Jorge Bergoglio’s claim to be Vicar of the Divine Person of Jesus Christ (which I do not, regarding him instead as a notorious heretic) and (2) having what Sanborn calls “a Catholic attitude toward authority” (which I hope I do). He writes:
“Imagine, Francis’ heretical blasphemy, ‘There is no Catholic God,’ and ‘God does not exist’ now belongs to the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church, if this system is correct, and will take its place alongside the venerable tomes of the teachings of Saint Pius X”.
___
We located the source quote on Novus Ordo Watch, then challenged Dumb Ox’s comment and Bishop Sanborn’s judgment. Peter Lamb then challenged us with his own misinterpretation, so we posted our full analysis, after which he graciously acknowleged his error.
=====
Here’s the text provided by N.O. Watch–a translation off of a video:
___
” So often [people ask]: ‘But do you believe?’: ‘Yes! Yes! ‘; ‘What do you believe in?’; ‘In God!’; ‘But what is God for you?’; ‘God, God’. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds … This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist! ” (“Pope at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”, News.va, Oct. 9, 2014)
=====
And here’s our post to Peter:
Dear Peter, We’d be among the first to denounce a Vatican spin-job that claimed “bad translation” where there WAS none–especially if we witnessed a talk that was reported accurately after checking the language ourselves.
___
In THIS case, his detractors have taken sound bites out of context, and are making the most of them. If he HAD meant to say what they’ve misinterpreted this to mean, we could understand their outrage. But Truth must never be compromised –even when attempting to discredit a modernist who is leading people astray in other ways.
======
SIMPLY LOOK at the words. Realize that he was using a very simple role-playing progression–building his usual straw-man which he then proceeds to knock down with his teaching:
He’s first says when people are asked,
1. Do you believe? they respond with Yes! Yes!.
and when asked
2. What do you believe in? they respond with “In God!”
and when asked
3. But what is God for you? they respond with “God, God, But God does not exist.”
– He makes an aside to his listeners:
4. “Do not be shocked” and proceeds to MOCK that idea saying:
5. So, God doesn not exist!”
=======
From there he goes right in to his usual “teaching moment”, and stays very orthodox, declaring:
. “There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, NOT some vague idea in the clouds.”
–“This God spray does not exist!”
(meaning this idea he is mocking -that God does not exist other than as some unknowable, untouchable mist in the clouds–is all WRONG)
Finally, he punctuates his refutation of that idea again, saying very emphatically:
“The three persons exist!”
==========
All very rational and logical, once you sort out the actual script from the jumble you find online.
And one other thought:
Modernists NEED people to believe in the Blessed Trinity as a Divine Mystery, so they can promote their versions of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit –which go hand in hand with their progressive aims.
–God then becomes not a “Catholic” God, but God the Father of ALL MEN (regardless of their rejection of Him.
— Jesus is the loving, brother and savior, Who walks and eats with (unrepentant) sinners.
— The Holy Spirit is the God of surprises, that leads us into NEW things–like VII and false ecumenism that doesn’t try to convert etc.
Think about it. Why would he want to suddenly claim that his three best excuses for all he says and does, don’t EVEN exist?
=========
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
Please say a prayer for me too. I am on the brink of the biggest crisis of my life and I need the help of a lady like you.
dear Indignus famulus —–June 3, 2015,
I appreciate your reply although it wasn’t necessary to cut & paste this for me, I’m familiar with that particular flow here. With regard to Francis & the godspray issue, Francis did what Modernists do, which isn’t surprising since he is one. At it’s core-it was a clandestine attempt to mislead in using the term godspray to hopefully guide the sheep away from Teaching on the Divine Essence-The August Trinity. Godspray-Essence-Modernist tactic.
*******
That said,
nowhere in your response is there any indication that you have reviewed what I’d suggested you review, for you did not respond to that content. I may be wrong, but it seems you were turned off bc you saw that +Sanborn was the author. That happens.
****
Note here that His Excellency is only the author of this particular explanation of the des Laurien Thesis, not the Thesis itself–which was authored by des Lauriers, who authored the draft of the intervention then put forth by Cardinal Ottaviani.
*****
I hope (at some point, as I said, ) that you will familiarize yourself with not only with the des Laurien Thesis, but moreover I hope that you will become prudently informed on the sedevacantism from its inception and all that encompasses.
****
At no point in long my life did I ever think I’d see a day when a Catholic goes out of their way to defend an apostate such as Bergoglio by pointing out such as–” one of the relatively few videos we’ve seen in which Francis was teaching all the right stuff.” Nevertheless, one can see this daily, if not many times on a daily basis. within varied sources. IMHO, this is beyond tragic.
Dear de Maria,
You are one very sharp lady. Please remind me never to tangle with you again. 🙂
Dear Indignus,
You are going to cause my death – by frustration. You see so much, but you can’t see the wood for the trees. I’m keeping your seat warm for one day in the future. 🙂 🙂
dear Peter Lamb,
Take heart in that you possess that Pearl of Great Price, of which no one can rob you. Not by burglary nor by home invasion. This is bc The True Faith is your home. Years ago, when I came out of homelessness, I was welcomed by Mr. Verrecchio, the gracious owner of this site — to comment here, even holding the position I do. Here I’ve met some stalwart trads like you and many others. You are prayed for. May the Peace of His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Peace not of this world, be to you.
Dear De Maria,
Thank you very much. The greatest gift of God to men is women like you ladies on this site. 🙂
Absolutely, dear Dr. Peter Lamb.
Thank you for the honor and kind words.
I will add your intentions to my novena (day 5 today) and will extend it for you for a full 9 days.
And for all who contribute to this site, especially Mr. Verrecchio, I will continue to pray.
God bless you.
May we all (along with our dear ones) be together in heaven one day! May God grant us final perseverance.
Dear De Maria, this “teaching” of the pope is at the very least an attack against the virtue of faith (if not the object of faith, on its face). However, in the context of all his attacks on the Faith over just the past two years, it is only reasonable to view this as an intended attack on the object of faith, too, in his unclear, suggestive way. Even more harmful to the ignorant.
Dear De Maria,
Apologies for the long cut and paste, since you had already seen it. With Louie’s new setup, we’ve had no success so far, linking to past comments.
__
Could you please explain what you meant when you wrote: “At it’s core-it was a clandestine attempt to mislead in using the term godspray to hopefully guide the sheep away from Teaching on the Divine Essence-The August Trinity. Godspray-Essence-Modernist tactic.”
__
Is this some known phrase? We’d never heard the word “godspray” before this Papal quote. A search turned up nothing. Or are you saying you reject the interpretation we presented , because you think Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of teaching ANYTHING in accord with the True Faith, because of his proven modernism-, so it must mean something harmful even if you have no proof in the words themselves? Or something else entirely? This matters a lot to us, because we believe that Truth must be paramount in all our lives and speech-especially about others and even more so in this case, precisely because it would be so easy to ASSUME something false based on past experiences with OTHER topics infested with modernism. .
Do we give the devil an open door and place ourselves in his service that way? . It’s not this apostate/ Pope we were bent on defending, but the TRUTH, which is one of the descriptions Jesus gave us of HIMSELF. We are obliged to seek it always, regardless of who is speaking it, and must denounce falsehood, also regardless of who is speaking it, so that WE stay followers of Christ and not Belial maintaining our integrity at all times.
___
We prefaced that defense of him with the fact that we don’t hesitate to denouce the “spin” when we see it, and it is distasteful for us to have to defend him, ever, because we know him to be so generally harmful to the Church in his zeal for the modernist progress using VII.
__
But if he did no wrong there, spoke no falsehood, then it harms +Sanborn and all who follow his lead, to speak so falsely about him.
=====
You mentioned getting the impression we were “turned off” seeing +Sanborn was the author. That term often indicates an unfounded prejudice, but in this case, because we were simply doing something you asked, we jumped right in to reading the body of it and missed seeing his name. In the very fist section, we found it categorizing people who accept the N.O. as people who accept everything VII and Benedict believes. He then differentiated those, from the SSPX, who object to VII and the Pope. So right off the bat, where do folks like US fit into his description of reality in the Church today? We don’t. And neither do many many other people who attend the N.O.
__
We realize any dissertation has to define the groups it will be discussing and the limits of its scope. But in THIS case, one of the major causes of the conflicts and problems in the Church today is the fact that there are so many differing viewpoints among individual Catholics, including Sede’s, that creating these categories initiates a giant false premise on which to base false conclusions.
___
He then claimed that there is less unity among both the N.O. group and the SSPX, than among Sede’s. THAT has not at all been our experience since coming online. We’ve seen zero disagreements to date among current SSPX supporters, (although we’ve read of a letter some priests wrote to Fellay with concerns that he might not be staying strictly enough with + Lefebvre. .
We see very little disagreement among the so called “neo Catholics” like Akin and co, and the MOST among those who say they are Sede. You, yourself have recently postes several times, declaring things Sede’s have said in Louie’s com box, not representative of the true beliefs of Sedes in general.
___
N.O. attendees are not a discernable “group” with a single philosophy, they are, for the most part simply Catholics (or name-only Catholics) who haven’t given their philosophical allegiance to a group protesting the N.O. or VII. That makes them also the largest group, which is why it’s so impossible to categorize them. It was a little beyond that point in our reading, after he mentioned how overwhelming this all can be to lay people, that we looked up and noticed +Sanborn’s name. His slander of the Pope regarding “God does not exist”, coupled with this artificial grouping he had just described, did affect our desire to read on, as every word then became doubly suspect.
___
We intend to make the time to do as you asked, and find another author writing about that same document. But we wonder why you would continue to put your trust in +Sanborn, if he doesn’t put the Truth first, or guard himself from making fully slanderous accusations that are so easy to see through?
__
This Pope has presented himself as a modernist who is gung-ho on VII, and may have a different definition of God than you and we do. We view his ideas about what the Holy Spirit does as totally messsed up, and he seems to see Jesus as a social worker who ignores sin, along with God the Father, who would welcome sacrilegous communions in the name of Mercy without justice.
___
But when he is falsely accused we will still defend him, as if he were Jesus on trial all over again.
__
We bear in mind, too, that we can each destroy ourselves by misusing our free will again and again without seeing the light. Jorge Bergoglio seems a mess, but God can still save him from himself, while he breathes. For this miracle, we pray daily, despite how the near absence of encouraging signs. We know you pray for his soul, too. It’s good to remind others, that these necessary criticisms don’t preclude his salvation.
Please let us know about that “godspray” thing.
===========
DEAR PETER LAMB,
We trust you will live through our refusals to accept what does not appear true to us. And pray God protect you from the effects of excessive frustration in the meantime, -especially due to anything we say. 🙂 🙂 Like de Maria, you have shown yourself to be someone who is passionate about following the Lord we all Love so much, and wish to serve; and are kindly towards those who disagree with your views. You should take consolation in the fact that IF you are right, and we keep seeking the truth as stubbornly as we do, we can ONLY end up believing as you do, and (groan) kneeling before our t.v. set on Sundays, instead of at a tangible communion rail before an actual tabernacle on a high altar. It’s not at all likely at this point, and we find ourselves moving further and further in the opposite direction the more we learn.
___
May the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, bring an end to all these divisions, soon, by making the Truth clearly known to all of us, and removing all obstacles to intellectual unity.
===============
DEAR LYNDA,
Is your comment about that homily of the Pope on the Trinity, and if so, how do you see it as an attack against the virtue of faith on it’s face?
___
In the context of all his attacks on the Faith over just the past two years, we have seen no evidence that he does not believe in God, in fact the opposite–as we said above, he’s declared God the Father of ALL, Jesus the welcomer of unrepentant sinners, and the Holy Ghost the creator of diversity and THEN unity in diversity.
___
We (traditional Catholics) generally don’t see or discuss the orthodox things he says in homilies here, as we are (with good reason) more concerned about praising what he does or says that is right, lest someone uniformed about the rest, follows him unwittingly into error. So we can too easily fall into the trap of thinking he NEVER does or says anything that is true and right, and that can cloud our good judgment..
___
But we must remain people of integrity, who do not condemn truth when it is spoken and then twisted by bad reporters or transcribers, into something that sounds false. (in this case absurdly false) Are you not joining in that thinking here? You normally don’t, which is why we so highly regard your comments and opinions.
========
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Dear Indignus,
“You should take consolation in the fact that IF you are right, and we keep seeking the truth as stubbornly as we do, we can ONLY end up believing as you do, and (groan) kneeling before our t.v. set on Sundays … ”
ROFL !!! 🙂 🙂
I’ve got an experiment in mind for you, if you are game?
Dear Peter,
You’re in our daily prayers along with all the posters here.
We send up some extras, since you’ve mentioned a time of great need. God Bless you.
Dear de Maria,
We have two questions.
As we began looking into the Ottaviani intervention we were suprised to see reports that Pope Paul VI had made “substantial changes” to the N.O. based on it, resulting in the following letter from the Cardinal to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B:
Quote
“I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success.”
(Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216, 343)
___
Apparently some controversy occurred after a French journal owner and VII critic named Jean Madiran said the Cardinal’s secretary (Augustoni, whom the Cardinal had hand picked as a young priest and guided for 20 years) presented that fabricated letter to the already-blind Cardinal for his signature, and claimed Augustoni was “dismissed” a short time later for doing that. This is said to have been proven false, as Jean Madiran, who made the accusations admitted later that he was not in the room when the letter was signed. And Augustoni, resigned only in order to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment.
___
First question: Why does no one mention these important changes, when offering the “intervention” as proof of inherent defects in the N.O. ? Obviously they matter a great deal, as not mentioning them amounts to misrepresenting the final product. And secondly, do you have any sources which describe the actual changes that were made?
Hi Indignus famulus,
Just trying to reply to you here, (not that it’s going to be that great-to be quite honest,) but I hope it suffices. Just want to clear up head on- that we do not “follow” His Excellency Bp. Sanborn. To imply that, is to infer that he is leading some kind of movement. +Sanborn is a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church & his role is that. It’s the Traditional Roman Catholic religion that we follow, my friends.
*******
It’s best to direct your queries/concerns regarding His Excellency’s PDF explaining the Des Laurien Thesis to Bp. Sanborn himself, he included a phone # there. (Note -this writing is not new, so #’s may have changed, I don’t know.) If you find that’s the case, I know for sure you can reach him at The Most Holy Trinity Seminary site-his number is there.
******
I know what Francis says bc I hear & read him in Italian & Spanish.
****
Sincerely I don’t know how else to describe the obfuscation of teaching brought forth by Bergoglio by means of not stating clearly the meaning of the Divine Essence (not godspray for crying out loud) but Lynda seemed to express similar problems with it and seemed to hear me. I hope it’s OK with Lynda if I defer to her, and thank her in advance.
***
The body of your reply I find so convoluted, but that’s probably my limited brain capacity. It needs be said I think though, that the scattering of the flock (which you call divisions, if you will,) is not a bad thing. It’s a sign of their Catholicism. It’s a sign that in these times the Truth is hard to find. But there are no divisions in the True Catholic Church. She is whole and unchanging. If us sedevacantists have found her, especially if a moron like myself did-anyone can.
*****
Disputes among sedevacantists may result from reaching into the already existing teachings of the Holy Religion to accurately react to this catastrophe, but we do not differ in matters of Faith. Hence, this does not equate to the confusion & differing on serious Faith matters that exists among Catholics residing within diocesan parishes. Continue to pray to God to guide you on how to accurately react.
*****
What I’m about to say I know you realize already, but I’ll state in anyway. Sedevacantists are not recognize & resisters {clearly.} We reject false popes. We reject the heretical Vatican II. We hold that the religion borne of VII is a non-Catholic sect. We left diocesan buildings inhabited by wolves in sheeps clothing identified by their adherence to, or collusion with, VII.
*****
Here I’ll quote one of the finest theologians alive today & what he says about the Sedevacantist clergy:
“We will never, ever, establish a counter organization to the Catholic Church, not ever-we would die before doing that. We are a stable in a storm, and we will always be only that-a stable in a storm.
That is –a place of refuge in a very difficult situation in which we don’t have any ordinary & canonical jurisdiction, but we have a true jurisdiction, to provide the Sacraments but not according to the normal canonical forms.”–His Excellency Bp. Donald Sanborn.
Taken from this, if you have questions:
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/season-ii-episode-18-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi/
PS Ah, yes, yes-I left out–of course I know that the apostate said something like “this godspray does not exist,” but he leaves that in the mind of his sheep that he is supposed to envelope in fullness of Truth at all times. Again, perhaps Lynda can expound.
If I do not see the morning, I pray that when I see the face of the Just Judge, I do not have to account for having defended at any time at all, the heretical Bergoglio and calling him, that vicious modernist, may God forbid, a holder of the Keys of Peter.
I believe that Fr. Cekada goes in depth on this in his acclaimed book “Work of Human Hands.” As you know, even those who detest sedevacantists with ad-hominems reviewed it as the definitive treatise on Paul VI’s mass. Here’s a link on YT to some informative individual video introductions to each chapter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuRntHB1Zc&index=12&list=PLDA085477E90AC096
Tomorrow I will try to locate where Father addresses directly what you asked, to save you time. I can’t remember if this is the one right now, IF.
Dear de Maria,
Thanks for your responses, but these last two left us worried about you.
It sounds like you’ve decided that the vicious modernist heretic is SO bad, that none of the usual rules need apply anymore to him, and you’re praying not to have to account for ( the sin) of having defended him ever, when you stand before God? What about the sin of ignoring God’s moral justice.?
___
What if a trial was underway for a guy who had a long list of priors, and an ambitious prosecutor decided to juice up the evidence with some fake stuff, just to seal the verdict.?
Using your reasoning, his partner says to himself “what the heck , this guy is so rotten, he needs to be behind bars . And when I stand before God some day, far be it from me to have defended such a scum bag by admitting to the court that my partner compromised the evidence.
___
They get a quick conviction, and it’s done.
Did the criminal deserve a fair trial? God thinks so.
Did the two lawyers damage their integrity
IF,
I think you should be ashamed of your filthy language.
*****
I realize we are all under immense stress for over 50 yrs now
****
So may I suggest you stop when you feel in this mood to speak as a moderator on a trad blog in such a fashion – wait for the urge to speak thus has passed.
*****
I would have been glad to continue to engage with you in a sincere fashion. However, this is the end.
****
The sin of heresy is greater than cold blooded murder. Your analogy is preposterous. Your position is demeaning of the role of the Sovereign Pontiff, which is actually taught in the collegiality evil discipline of Vatican II.
*****
This is but one of myriad reasons why the resistance position is so flawed. Nevertheless , it behooves you to continue to seek Truth in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I wish you well.
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
I don’t know enough about them to know if Frs. Pio, or Luigi ever specifically referred to sedevacantism as such. I think Fr. Pio’s opinion of the NO mass is clear from his avoidance of ever saying it. Whether Fr. Luigi ever commented on our current situation in his old age, I don’t know. All I know of him is what I’ve read on that site. Hopefully his biography will be written and then we may have our answers.
Dear Indignus,
“… either you to drop the sede view, or us to get you to drop the sede view. (only two options.).”
LOL ! There is a third and every time I think of it, I rub your seats in St. Gertrude’s fondly. 🙂 🙂
Dear de Maria,
WHAT “filthy language ” are you talking about.????
The words in the first paragraph ” vicious modernist and heretic “were quoted from YOUR comment just above it -they were not our words, but they WERE what got us concerned about you.– genuinely.
There was no sarcasm intended in that post, and it was not motivated by anything but Christian love.
We are very sorry to see this reaction from you., and assure you it was not at all expected or solicited by us.
God Bless you.
.
P.S. Dear de Maria,
We just reviewed all the words in our post to see if we missed something that would be offensive.
What our analogy had the lawyer saying about defending such a s—b– (won’t repeat it just in case it’s what offended you)
We’d always heard it used just as the Webster dictionary defines it:
–a dishonest, unkind or unpleasant person
slang: a dirty or despicable person.
someone who cheats the most vulnerable…
Checking a third dictionary, there is another slang meaning we discovered, that may be what upset you?
We had not heard of it. and it is not the common meaning according to them, either. If this was the problem, please accept our apology. Otherwise, we’re still at a loss as to what you may have meant.
dear IF,
Would it be acceptable to you to delete your entry and redo- i.e.- rephrase it –without the filthy term?
It lies within a area which categorizes it as inappropriate language. I will write Mr. V. to review it also. Until then, I’ve cautioned my grandchildren & other young teens to refrain from reading the site.
Surely you could have made your point without it.
****
That said, I repeat that the use of the analogy is outrageous & bespeaks an attitude toward the Papacy which is indicative of the Error of Collegiality in VII.
Dear de Maria,
1. You still haven’t acknowledged or answered our question about what you are referring to as “the filthy term”. Is it the one in our P.S..?
—
2. If so, we wouldn’t be surprised if most people know it as a harmless term, as the dictionaries say it is used and the only way we knew it, but since you point out another vulgar meaning that you are aware of, we certainly have no problem if Louie CAN pull it out, or change it to “lowlife”, it’s fine by us.
,—It was just a simple mistake, and due to our not having heard about that meaning before. Perhaps in your part of the country the vulgar meaning is more common.
3.Regarding your description of our analogy as outrageous, we totally disagree. You must be misinterpreting it, as it in no way reflects OUR thinking about any Pope.
It doesn’t criticize any pope at all. It simply demonstrates the point about moral justice we made to you. Actually your description of the current Pope fits your objections best. You say you pray you would never defend him, (which means even if he were falsely accused), and express a very low opinion of HIM -using the word vicious.
The analogy is about lawyers who willingly make use of false information because of their low opinion of a criminal, just as Bishop Sanborn and you, and those who agree with you are willingly using that false interpretation of the Pope’s homily, to falsely claim it as additional proof he is a heretic, (and in this case an atheist-“God does not exist”)–as the Bishop does.
The point is that using such false information to achieve the goal of discrediting someone–whether it be a criminal who is looked upon as without rights of any kind because of his record, or a Pope, who is looked upon as your description indicates you do, goes against moral justice.
There is nothing against any pope in our words or analogy, only in yours.
— Pax Christi
dear Indignus famulus,
Firstly,
Louie is known for his effective use of certain language in his writings & talks. As far as I’ve seen over time, he’s never lowered the bar to where you have, but maintains it at a certain level appropo to the dictates of Catholic modesty in engaging in the public forum. Hopefully in future you’ll follow more closely to his lead here. There’s no way you will tempt me to place in text herein albeit by means of repetition, with my name beside it, the filthy term you used.
Secondly,
I do get the analogy. It is a ludicrous one & inapplicable. I know you disagree. To state why I attest to the falsity of this analagy would take hours. This is only a combox.
Lastly,
The lengthy statement you’ve made within the context where you include “just as Bp. Sanborn and you” indicates an erroneous definition of what is meant, ultimately, by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Such is a common area of contention in charitable argumentation among resisters & sedevacantists. Again, requiring hours of review.
It needs be said that even if we disregad comments attached to your claim of slander upon the reputation of His Excellency,
Bergoglio is a Modernist. His crime is worse than abortion. Further, in addition to being a heretic, he is an apostate.
This makes this man worse than a Protestant because he claims Catholicity.
***
**When I have time, if yo welcome it & if you are willing to repost your analogy with lawyers & courts sans the vile terminology, I will put forth a further expounding upon just what was so criminal about Francis’ comments, and of equal imporjtance, Francis’ culpable ommissions on the godspray thing. ***
Thanks for everything.
Dear de Maria,
1. As you still refuse to even identify the word you still object to, we can only assume it is the one referred to in our P.S. to you. When we asked you to identify it again the last time, we suggested you simply tell us if it WAS the one in our PS. to you. If not, all you had to do was refer to the words before and after it in the sentence in which it is found. Instead you go on accusing and berating us for something you refuse to even identify.
___
2. Assuming it was the word we guessed third, and wrote about in our P.S. to you, You are WELL aware that the dictionary lists two commonly used and completely innofensive usages of that word, and Webster’s and one other we had checked first, do not list anything even remotely offensive. It took us three tries to find a dictionary that had one offensive meaning as its third slang– which we assume is the one you’re referring to– though we can’t yet be sure because you have withheld that informationn from us.
___
3. We have also made it clear to you that we had no knowlege of any filthy meaning when using that word, and used it in it’s simple slang common, UNFILTHY meaning in our analogy. Our backgrounds may be different from yours, but we have made it point all our lives to avoid filthy talk, entertainment, and enviornments where it is common. Our lives center on the Faith and Church and wholesome activities, which have left us totally unfamiliar with some of the less-common filth which you apparently have lodged in your brain with good alarm bells beside it– regarding this word. We are assuming nothing about your charachter here, as we know that exposure to filth is frequently involutary, and you have not demonstated anything other than propriety in your writings.
–What you have demonstrated here, however, is a deliberate attempt to discredit two innocent people by further implication and innuendo. Your continuing with these insinuations is behavior completely contrary to how a Catholic should behave, and even sinful, as you are obviously doing it with FULL knowlege that it is false and misleading:
=======
A. you wrote: “Louie is known for his effective use of certain language in his writings & talks. As far as I’ve seen over time, but maintains it at a certain level appropo to the dictates of Catholic modesty in engaging in the public forum. HE’S NEVER LOWERED THE BAR TO WHERE YOU HAVE”.
1. We lowered no bar, and YOU know it.
– The word we used, and defined it for you, is perfectly upstanding an fit what our analogy had the lawyer thinking. Defined by Webster’s
1. a dishonest, unkind, or unpleasant person 2. A dirty or despicable person.
_____
2. Now let’s compare that, with what YOU apparently have NO problem viewing as Louie’s HIGHER BAR: –(Since you just posted 6 comments on his latest post even joking about being an “uptight trad” immediately after TWN’s twice repeating Louie’s use of the wor d ” b-tch”, which we would think you would not want your grandchildren exposed to as we wouldn’t with our. (Of course they wouldn’t be online in the first place unless they were adult enough to discern these things for themselves)
Louie’s Higher bar word is defined as
1. the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals (obviously not how he used it)
2. A LEWD OR IMMORAL WOMAN (also not his meaning, but very well known)
3. a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse. (also not his, but very common)
and 4. (we can add this one -not in the dictionary, but obviously the way Louie meant it–a great difficulty or hard to accept situation or news)
____
So despite your loud outcry to us and to Louie you say, about needing to notify your grandchildren not to read the post because of our harmless word’s, obcure definition which is in your head, you said not one word to Louie or others in your posts– about his reference to what you know is commonly a “lewd or immoral womn” and figure your grandchildren are immune from picking up that language?
B. You then wrote: “Hopefully in future you’ll follow more closely to his lead here.” Sorry, don’t expect that. We don’t use such “filthy “language even if you’re okay with it.
C. You then wrote: There’s no way you will TEMPT ME to place in text herein albeit by means of repetition, with my name beside it, “the filthy term you used.”
–Real nice, de Maria. Here you pretend (omitting the most important fact) that we never suggested you could just refer to it as our P.S. if that was the word in question. . Instead you continue to refuse to identify it, WHILE continuing to malign our reputations with your false accusations and immplications that we are in need of your moral guidance to raise our standards as if we deliberately chose to use a filthy word, knowing the meaning you give it. You know otherwise, so this amounts to lying.
3. At this poin it seems to us likely you have been busy grinding an axe here, over your resentment of Bishop Sandborn being shown by us to be a slanderer of the Pope, and designated as either reckless or dishonest and therefore untrustworthy on an earlier blog. Since you responded to us after that with your high praise of him, calling him the “one of the finest theologians alive today” we have to assume you didn’t like what we said about him. But even an average level theologian doesn’t publish something without a thorough analysis and examination. So if he is as you say, then he’s guilty of publishing that slander, knowing either that it isn’t true that the Pope said it reflecting his OWN thoughts– but was citing a reprobate’s words–as most reasonably indictated in the context– OR that the context was so muddled by the poor transcription , that there is reason to be very unsure of what the Pope really meant by it, –especially since the context indicated he wasn’t declaring himself an athiest, because he finished with a perfectly sound definition of the Blessed Trinity. ANDused exclamation points after the words there is no godspray! Any reasonable and honest person in authority would never use such material as evidence of heresy.
___
You and the good Bishop and others, want to ignore those incontroverible facts, all on the grounds-which you keep repeating– that there is a long list of other terrible offenses against this Pope. As if the gravity of his other offenses wipes out the gravity of Bishop Sanborn’s and those of you who do likewise. It does NOT.
–This is basic dishonesty. Just as is your attempt to paint a picture of us here, knowing all the facts that prove otherwise, as crass individuals who need you to advice us to raise our standards in the future; when you know perfectly well there WERE no lowered standards involed at all in this matter–just a total and commendable ignorance of the gutter language attached to a harmless word, which is in common use in the culture IN its harmless meaning–due to deliberate lifetime avoidance of filthy language. You tried to turn that virtue into a vice. Shame on you. This manipulation of the opinion of others by false implication which you are practicing here, is evil and requires the misuse of high intelligence. As you’ve told us in the past you were a teacher, and currently speak at least three langauges, your frequent self-deprecating references to how dumb you are, will not suffice to excuse this. You need to look at how you’ve acted here, and realize it shows a clear pattern of manipulative use of speech to defame innocent others.
======== End of deserved lecture.
++++
Here’s a thought. Let’s call this a big mistake on your part, and one that you will make every effort never to repeat. And for us, we’ll forgive you and continue to pray for you as we do every day–and did extra last night with a Rosary.
Not for nothing did Our Lord show us the way, if we cooperate in the miracle of his Grace, Mercy and Love.
Please acknowlege if you agree. And God bless you, even if you don’t.
The Value of Adversity
IT IS good for us to have trials and troubles at times, for they often remind us that we are on probation and ought not to hope in any worldly thing.
It is good for us sometimes to suffer contradiction, to be misjudged by men even though we do well and mean well.
These things help us to be humble and shield us from vainglory. When to all outward appearances men give us no credit, when they do not think well of us, then we are more inclined to seek God Who sees our hearts.
Therefore, a man ought to root himself so firmly in God that he will not need the consolations of men.
Thomas a Kempis
Another pearl of inestimable value,
Thank you, Em..
God Bless
Good day for Graces: First Friday in the month of the Sacred Heart
🙂 🙂
dear IF,
Obviously, no – I do not agree with your term falling into the same category as Louie’s oft used phraseology.
*****
Your term has sexual innuendo inherent in its very meaning. By your refusal to delete & redo, you give your consent to that. Therefore, I am given to understand that you think it’s OK. I accept that. I do hear that it’s OK with you in your notes to me.
*****
I never said you used the term with deliberate malintent. Honestly, I don’t think anything you’d do or write, would have deliberate malintent.
******
Nevertheless
I can see why you accuse me of that. By my saying you should be ashamed of yourselves I implied that. For this I emphatically apologize.
*****
I reacted, when I read this term you wrote, with horror. I could & should have tempered that in order that my words not devolve into saying you should be ashamed of ourselves.
*****
But I asked you to rephrase. I hope you still will. Louie & you are in authority here. So far you’ve decided not to rephrase. So I think THAT is a shame. That is, that you choose not to remove it.
****
I actually wish I’d been more busy here, to be quite honest. Not to grind an axe, but just to read & be among others virtually.
*****
I bear no resentment to anyone attempting to attack +Sanborn’s reputation. (note correct spelling.)
*****
Attacks on him & sedevacantists are common. It’s not about him. He is the first to say that he is a nothing. It isn’t I who classify him as a great theologian. It’s those far more learned than I that consider him to be that.
******
Again, it’s not about His Excellency, it’s about the nature of the role of the Supreme Pontiff & substantial changes to the Catholic Religion wrought by VII. I alluded to this before. The references that you see as slander are deeply imbedded in these two things.
****
I had offered to discuss these matters with you further. However, sometimes chasms caused by deep the tsunami of the past half century make it next to impossible for conversations to occur among certain trads. I think this is the case now with us. But the info is out there. In good will I tried to introduce you to some of it & I’m sure many more will do the same thing in good will if you permit them to , as you permitted me.
*****
That is not to say, though, that sedevacantist clergy do not interract cordially & constantly with laity who attend diocesan parishes, diocesan priests, SSPX priests, FSSP priests et al. They most certainly do. All the time.
****
I am not a learned person in these things, IF, so it’s likely I’m wrong-but it seems to me you ought to confront +Sanborn to his face with the accusation.
Thanks for everything.
Dear de Maria,
You just did it again. WRITING FIVE MORE totally false statements about us:.
QUOTING YOU ABOVE:
“YOUR TERM HAS SEXUAL INNUENDO IN ITS VERY MEANING. BY YOUR REFUSAL TO DELETE AND REDO, YOU GIVE YOUR CONSENT TO THAT. THEREFORE I AM GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THINK IT OK. I accept that. I do hear that it’s OK with you in your notes to me.
AND:
“QUOTE;
But I asked you to rephrase. I hope you still will. Louie & you are in authority here. SO FAR YOU’VE DECIDED NOT TO REPHRASE. SO I THINK THAT IS A SHAME. THAT IS, THAT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO REMOVE IT.
=================
Here was our immediate reply to the request you made to us:
1. You still haven’t acknowledged or answered our question about what you are referring to as “the filthy term”. Is it the one in our P.S..?
—
2. If so, we wouldn’t be surprised if most people know it as a harmless term, as the dictionaries say it is used and the only way we knew it, BUT SINCE YOU POINT OUT ANOTHER VULGAR MEANING THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF, WE CERTAINLY HAVE NO PROBLEM IF LOUIE CAN PULL IT OUT, OR CHANGE IT TO “LOWLIFE”, IT’S FINE BY US.
========
What do those words mean to you, if not exactly the opposite of what you just falsely stated? When we enter a post, we have no access to it afterward. Do you? It’s totally up to Louie, and we gave him our complete assent and go ahead in that statement. Are you on some kind of medication that is clouding your thinking? We don’t want to be too hard on you if this is something you can’t help. Seriously.
____
And again you repeat the false statement that our word has sexual innuendo in it. We gave you the only two dictionary definitions of Webster in which there is NONE OF THAT. Therefore it must be something not very commonly attached as a meaning.
____
If we used the word dog, which the dictionary defines as a four legged animal that barks, and you had heard of a filthy use of the word dog-which shocked you greatly, even horrifying you, it wouldn’t be any different if you started ranting about the horrible use of the word dog in a sentence talking about pets, than what you’re still trying to do here.
____
We repeat what we wrote before–Louie can change it to “low-life” with our blessing.
_____
We do accept your above apology for the initial over-reaction, but it would help if you would also read what we’ve posted here, and realize how wrong you still are about both.
___
As far as the Bishop goes, we were contemplating calling or writing him, just today. –maybe if we live through this .
____
God Bless us all.