On the opening day of the USCCB Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, TX took to the floor to second a call for a report on the Vatican’s McCarrick investigation, to encourage Eucharistic Adoration at future assemblies, and to deliver the following plea on behalf of orthodoxy:
I’d like to see on the future agendas – and I’ll do whatever work I should do to help make that happen – but a section for each meeting to address the questions of guarding the deposit of faith. I think there are a lot of issues that are circulating around – some are just rumors; some are big questions – but I think I’d like to see on our agenda a section dealing with guarding the deposit of faith.
Strickland is a rising neo-conservative star known mainly for launching pithy Twitter statements in opposition to abortion and LGBT activism. He also seems to be winning fanboys in more traditional circles as well, with one such person on my social media feed reacting to his USCCB intervention by anointing him “a saint in the making!”
A saint in the making? Let us hope and pray that he is. For now, however, the most that we can say of him in the present is that he is either a hypocrite, a coward, or both.
Among the most pressing of “issues that are circulating around” these days are those concerning the blasphemy and heresy that is contained in Amoris Laetitia.
Far more than “just rumors,” the issues involved in this case are inviting a growing number of sincere individuals to ask whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic, an apostate, and thus an anti-pope.
I’d say that these qualify as “big questions,” wouldn’t you?
For all of his sound-bite bravado, Joseph Strickland doesn’t seem to think so, and if he does believe that Amoris Laetitia represents a genuine threat to the deposit of faith, he evidently doesn’t have the Catholic cajones to address them.
With regard to his public position on Amoris Laetitia – a text that ultimately invites those who insist on persisting in mortal sin to receive the Blessed Sacrament that Strickland says he wants the bishops to adore – a thorough internet search yields nary a word of criticism; rather, one finds nothing but praise.
According to him, Bergoglio’s diabolical document is “a beautiful teaching from our Holy Father Francis on the splendor of Christian marriage and the family.”
He goes on to say that “Amoris Laetitia … recalls the essential aspects of the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family which are based on Divine Revelation found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”
It can no longer simply be said that all those in an adulterous situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace – even among those who know full well the Divine Law. (see AL 301)
Where exactly does one find this in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?
The answer: nowhere; on the contrary, one finds these ideas condemned nearly verbatim by the Council of Trent!
Strickland went on to praise Amoris Laetitia further, saying:
The Holy Father offers advice to those who are struggling and facing challenges, especially those in irregular situations, recognizing the uniqueness of each situation and providing them with guidance on the path to fully realizing the common and constant teaching and care of the Church in their own lives.
And just what sort of advice does Bergoglio offer to those so struggling?
He tells them that they just might be in “a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise” (ibid.), and far worse, he tells them that persisting in adultery may very well be “what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits” (cf AL 303)!
That’s some “beautiful teaching” from some “Holy Father,” eh?
So much for guarding the deposit of faith.
Strickland’s praise for Amoris Laetitia as cited above was issued in April of 2016 as the text was being made public and it remains available on his blog at BishopStrickland.com. Since then, he has had very little to say about it other than complaining that the text is “distorted by the media.”
I’ve challenged Bishop Strickland directly on this subject more than once on Twitter (it is, after all, his stomping ground of choice), but he has ignored my calls (and those of others) for a clear refutation of the document’s grave errors.
All indications are that he (and other conservative, comfy and cowardly churchmen-of-the-council like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider) are hoping that, if only they ignore them long enough, the blasphemous heresies found in Amoris Laetitia will simply fade from everyone’s memory.
This, they seem to imagine, will allow them to stay focused on what appears to be their dual priorities; A) maintaining their benefices by staying in Jorge’s good graces, and B) growing their popularity by targeting the crisis du jour and low-hanging fruit issues like LGBT activism and abortion rights.
Unfortunately for them, however, Jorge has no intention whatsoever of allowing Amoris Laetitia to be shelved.
In an address to the USCCB General Assembly given on the same day as Bishop Strickland’s passionate plea to guard the deposit of faith, Papal [sic] Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, challenged the body on behalf of the Heretic-in-Chief:
The pastoral thrust of this Pontificate must reach the American people, especially as families continue to demand of dioceses and parishes the accompaniment envisioned by Amoris Laetitia.
Oh, yes… so much demand, you know, like all of those grassroots protests that were organized against the Traditional Roman Rite back in the 1950’s.
Be that as it may, Amoris Laetitia is going nowhere; and what’s more, for the genuinely confused it remains a dependable litmus test for revealing who among the alleged defenders of tradition – clerical or otherwise – is truly concerned with guarding the deposit of faith and who has other, more worldly, priorities.
How can it both be that these men are deemed as not being clerics or prelates of the Catholic Church since October, 1958, rather members of what is now commonly called, “the concilliar church”, and yet they are given the proper titles of clerics and prelates of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church as, “priest”, “Bishop”, “Cardinal”, “Archbishop”, and “Pope”. One does recognize the affront placed then to the law of non-contradiction by doing this, yes? The thing cannot both be the Church established by the Son of God made Man and not be that thing at the same time. As it is not the Church established by God and this being known as res ipsa loquitur, why then the improper nomenclature used for these men as in their titles, and also why all the attention paid to them, as at best, they are all apostates to the One True Faith, and as apostates they cannot be in charge as prelates of the thing they do not even belong to, as the Holy Catholic Church. So why would one who actually holds the Catholic Faith in their will as freely, even care what these men say or do? I’m simply wondering. In caritas.
No, many do not recognize the affront placed then to the law of non-contradiction. That is why we have this steaming hot mess.
They care what these men do because they do not know. They have not figured it out.
A faithful Novus Ordo attendee that I am close to figured it out, recently. With the Grace of God, more of us are waking up, In Caritas.
And hence we write, as we edify the questions, for all eyes to see which can see. As you write, by the reception of the grace of Almighty God alone, as this vision of these things, and if you will, is perfectly impossible, as immanently understood from one’s own human/natural, intellective power alone. May Almighty God continue to bless and keep you/yours’ and your friend. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Great post, Louie. The fetid quality of Amoris Laetitia leaps off the page for faithful Catholics. Numerous theologians have documented in a beautiful and lucid manner its heresy and malice. That this bishop is so either clueless or smarmy and is considered a darling among many is very sad, indeed.
What day in October 1958 did the first Fr. Sedevacantist withdraw obedience from his superior? Please name the priest and the day in October 1958.
Every time a heresy arises there is a false church competing and claiming to be the Church.
While we can call a heretic a stinky dog, sometimes prudence demands we refrain from doing so, especially on a public forum. So one may sometimes call Francis “pope” motivated by prudence.
If one acts as a coward, does that prove his heresy is formal and not just material? But make no mistake about it, Francis may very well drag the conservative prelates into formal heresy themselves if they do not speak up against him. St. Michael will put them on a balance scale and will see what they know and when they decided not to know it!
You again demonstrate your lack of holding the true as divine and Holy Catholic Faith in the external realm of objectivity. The Truth is hard but His name is Jesus the Christ and He commanded that He did not come to bring peace, rather the sword. Amen. You utterly affront the Authoritative teaching of Pope Paul IV in, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”. And again, as has been sited time and again, see section 6 of that infallible and Authoritative Magisterial document as from the Mind of Peter, which cannot change, as Christ cannot change, and as He established His Church upon the Rock He chose, as Blessed Peter in his Successors. Amen. Alleluia. You conflate and confabulate realities which you have no true as foundational understanding of, as this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. The Holy Roman Pontiff Paul IV deemed as with his full Apostolic Power and Authority, to which we are bound with the assent of faith into submission and at the pain of Hell, that ANY Bishop and at ANY time, who even DEVIATES FROM THE FAITH, yet alone commits heresy or apostasy Ratio, never was in truth a Bishop of the Holy Church to begin with, and of course, as it is the Holy Ghost Who selects His true Shepherds to lead the Church in Apostolic Succession. Amen. This is the infallible teaching of the Church. Pope Paul IV deemed this to occur ipso facto, without any need for further Church action otherwise. Anyone who denies this, cannot at once hold the divine Faith freely in his will, while at one and the same time, he DENIES IT freely in his will, as this is contradiction. Amen. To suggest that a Bishop who has deviated from the Faith or committed heresy, ever and at any time, after his faux assent into the Bishopric, was ever, as in ever and at any time truly a Bishop, literally as actually blasphemes the Holy Ghost, in light of Church teaching. Amen. Pope Paul IV deemed that this deviation from the Faith or his committing heresy, and at any time that this may occur and without any time limit, IS THE objective evidence that the Bishop never truly received his consecration. Amen. And so what’s your point again about all of the Bishops who assented to the apostate as false Pope Roncalli and the reality as it is, that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, proved by the fact of each his own willful assent to Roncalli as false Pope, that each and every one of them NEVER AS IN NEVER EVER, were Bishops in Truth and to begin with. Amen. Alleluia. This is the Authoritative and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who denies this is simply not Catholic, outside the Church therefore, where no salvation is to be found, deFide. Amen. I do pray that you are helped and receive God’s grace to see His Truth, and as contained in His inviolable, Holy Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In caritas.
They very likely do know that what they are saying makes no sense.
But the reason they will go this route is because they believe they are engaging in damage control.
By pretending to be this incredulous and by speaking in doublethink they imagine they are protecting all the silly stupid little Catholics in the pews who are so fragile and would just break at the thought that the Church is in a horrible state.
So like Leslie Nielsen standing in front of a burning house they are trying their best to put the calmest face on things. Stay in your seat. The plane is nosediving, yes, but Superman will come and rescue us before we collapse, so stop worrying, don’t jump out the window, don’t even put on the life-jacket or else you’ll scare the children and they’ll leave the Church.
This is literally the way they think. They’re probably half-right because more than half the people really are that uninformed and stupid. But the reason for this is also half the Council-followers’ fault. They won’t turn back to Tradition because it doesn’t even enter their mind. They only have the Council to fall back on and surprise-surprise, it doesn’t offer any answers, and in fact, only buttresses the arguments of the enemy, and they don’t want to ever entertain the possibility that they’ve been party to that huge mistake.
It is not just an indictment of Francis, it is an indictment on them all!
There is no such thing as a “conservative prelate”. Either one is Catholic or not.
From the Summa of St Thomas Aquinas: Those Who Have Faith
“I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. ***Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.*** Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, ***but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.*** ”
It seems that it is ultimately a matter of good will vs. bad will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, there are those who may appear (in the external forum) to lack the Supernatural Virtue of Faith, when in fact, as they are not obstinate but instead are prepared to follow the Truth in ALL things, they are only in error.
From the above:
“Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it.”
This can be applied to those who would argue that we may still lawfully access Sacraments in these times without a true Pope, yet run into a dark corner of this blog and hide when asked to provide proof.
If some commentators on this blog were capable of making intelligent distinctions, they would have noticed that the argument they lost was never about lawfulness, only validity. Proof of which was provided by Pope Leo XIII. The Church has always taught that one should avoid doubtful or illicit sacraments.
“They won’t turn back to Tradition because it doesn’t even enter their mind.”
I’ve noticed that some of the older ones get quite angry when, in trying to reason with them, I bring up the subject of pre-Vatican II Church teaching. They do their best to keep it out of their minds but it’s still there it seems.
In caritas/A Simple Beggar, kindly spare us any more of your pious nonsense for at least the rest of this thread. Consider it an act of charity by relieving us of the burden of wading through your ponderous prolixity, aka gobbledygook. Infinite thanks.
Good Thursday morning Tom A,
About whom do you speak and as you continue to swim in your prideful conundrum? You write as though, and once and again and again, this is somehow a debate, as a game, amongst human persons. Not at all poor Tom A, as this is witness to Truth. Amen. You apply the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Anglican, “orders”, as being invalid, as though it is somehow proof that the Orthodox heretics preserved theirs’, which is all mere theological speculation, on your part, or on the part of any theologian for that matter. If it is not mere speculation, demonstrate the Authoritative teaching from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which specifically proclaims the Orthodox sacraments as valid. Please Tom A. If not, simply humbly rest your position, as you continue to lead souls astray from Truth.
Ultimately, your position provides nothing more than distraction and diversion anyway, as there are no valid Sacraments today visibly present on earth. As you merely opine to the contrary, without any objective evidence to substantiate your claim, now then demonstrate one man dressed as, “Bishop”, on October 28, 1958, who did not assent to Angelo Roncalli, as so called, “Pope John XXIII”, while in reality as it is, false (and not anti) pope John XXIII. Amen. Only if you can do this, and as per the definitive as Authoritative teaching which binds all true Catholics with the assent of faith into submission, and at the pain of everlasting Hell, as found in, “Cum Ex….”, can you even demonstrate an iota of possibility that valid Sacraments would be today present. And as has been demonstrated here again and again, any validity of Sacraments today would not save the soul receiving them anyway, rather damn that soul, as it is ontologically impossible for ANY of them to be licit as publically offered, which then demonstrates the sacrilege offered to Almighty God by anyone, as all those who receive any and all of them, anywhere, and at any time, damning those souls then as consequent the pain of mortal sin. Amen.
And before you enter your next lie about no Papal Authority present now on the earth to bind any soul to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, no where is it taught by Holy Church that in the end of time, the epoch which we now live, as only once in human history is Apostolic Succession prophesied to be lost and of course, as once lost never again possible to regain (nor is it inerrantly prophesied to be regained as most importantly understood), does the Magisterium not bind mankind, and in fact quite the opposite is true. Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, definitively as Authoritatively teaches that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is, “perpetual”, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. I pray you are helped by the grace of God, Tom A. In caritas.
It is truly insightful witnessing your ever so short and malevolent screeds. Please know the First Epistle of Blessed John the Apostle, as it condemns you, for who you freely will to be. Amen. Your hatred of Truth, and as He is a divine Person, itself does speak, as what is written simply IS His Truth, as found in His Ordinary and Universal, as inviolable in its every iota, Magisterium. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray that you save your soul through a willful assent into the Catholic Faith. Amen. In caritas.
Complete and utter nonsense yet again. You’re unhinged, Ic/ASB. Seek help.
And yet again oh’ Alphonsus-junior,
Exam your rhetoric which speaks. You hurl the ad hominem and then of course there is NO substance to your claim, as you simply attack the witness of Truth, as you despise Him. I pray that you save your wretched soul. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” “…An evil tree CANNOT bear good fruit…” “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” In caritas.
Get your own blog, or better yet – get a job!
The supreme law of the Church is and always will be the salvation of souls. When a canonical law becomes an impediment to salvation instead of means of salvation, it can be assumed that it no longer meets the intent of the lawgiver and may therefore be ignored. I believe St Thomas Aquanis teaches this principle. Does this apply to our current situation (no Pope since 1958)? I do not know and neither does IC or ASB. If anyone has doubts as to the sacraments offered by the NO, avoid them, if you have doubt about FSSP/ICK, avoid them. If you have doubts about SSPX, avoid them. If you have doubts about sede sacraments, avoid them. There is no one alive who can claim any proper authority to settle these doubts one way or another. If you think there is, then follow that authority and do as he says.
Years ago, I used to tune into the USCCB Conferences televised by EWTN. Not only was it boring and embarrassing, but I started to think it was rehearsed and orchestrated. Most of those in attendance looked quite bored and fighting off sleep—a natural state especially after eating a delightful meal. In any event, I thank Louie for his usual insightful thoughts which he presents to the visitors of this blog. What is accomplished by these assemblies? Do this “powerful” men of the “church” fix anything?Impossible. How can you fix a problem when you yourself are the problem? Thank you, Louie, for sparing us the torture of listening to these men who think they are the “princes” of the “church” while they live in utter luxury. It’s a sham and a shame.
Yes, they tell us that the Salvation of souls is the highest law. It is just because the Salvation of souls is the highest law that NOBODY should have anything to do with CMRI et al and the Traditionalist Movement or the Novus Ordo. They do not have the Four Marks of the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and therefore, there is no salvation in these non-Catholic CMRI and the Traditionalist Movement or the Novus Ordo sects.
As far as I know, the law of the salvation of souls applies at all times. This law is the very reason why I do not take part in their non-Catholic services. **Canon Law 1258 forbids us to take part in non-Catholic services; and therefore, unless we can *prove* that those “clerics” offering their services are in everyway Catholic, we can have nothing to do with them if we want to save our souls.
Do you want to put the salvation of your soul in danger by calling in a non-Catholic cleric when your body and mind are weak at the hour of death; and have him do his best to convert you to his non-Catholic sect? If you are not part of his religion, why would he not try to convert you? Why should he “administer the sacraments” to someone he claims is not a part of the same church to which he belongs?
You merely follow your own opinion as evidenced by your very words (do as thou wilt), and you say that Jesus Christ, the Head of His Church, left us with no Authority to follow under these circumstances, therefore we are free to do whatever we feel is right for us. You are willing to throw out the Magisterium based on your opinion and are quite obstinate about it as well. I would say this demonstrates a complete lack of Faith not only in general, but in Jesus Christ and His promises. Don’t you know that there MUST be an Authority left to follow in these times? How on earth are we to be SAFE and as “little children” if (and at a most dangerous moment) the truth is that, as you would have it, there’s no one home to “settle the matter”? It makes no sense and really this must be blasphemy.
ASB, I was asking if the unique situation we find ourselves (no Pope since 1958) allows us to go against some canon law in order to serve the supreme law of the Church (salvation of souls). I know your position and that of IC is no. Others like the CMRI and SSPV say it does. Only a Pope can rule on this and since we don’t have one we just have to wait.
And if there is no Pope to come, and this is the end? What becomes of Tom A and his followers then?
Did you read my reply above re: Supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls? The end never justifies the means, and that is moral law. Since Canon Law tells me the exact opposite of what Tom A says is acceptable (to receive illicit and invalid sacraments from non-Catholics), I’m going to stick with Canon Law and the infallible Magisterium that has been LEFT to us – Pope or no Pope.
Canon Law and the infallible Magisterium is left to us in this time precisely so that we may save our souls, if only we will hear and OBEY it. You’re the one taking risks with the salvation of your soul, not me.
ASB/IC (whom I now believe is one person). You are very sly and dishonest in your argumentation. I mention one principle (salvation of souls) and you state another (ends justify means), but you do it in a manner inferring that somehow I am opposed to the principle you introduce. It is very clever and deceitful and extremely dishonest. Say what you will, I will not respond again. I also urge “all my followers” as you put it to ignore these two (or is it one) ultracrepidarian(s).
Poor, poor Tom A,
You remain obstinate in your profound affront to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the One True Church, as it is Jesus the Christ teaching and governing His Church through His Rock, Blessed Peter, and in his Successors. Amen. “Satis Cognitum”, definitively as Authoritatively commands that the, “Magisterium”, is, “perpetual”, Tom A, as in, “never ending or changing”. Poor, poor Tom A simply affronts the meaning of the command of the Vicar of Christ, Pope Leo XIII, as he commanded perpetual adherence to the divine Magisterium, as though The Divinity, has an end. Your blasphemy continues to precede you, as you evidence the pride of the demon himself in the Fall from Grace. Amen. Now copied and pasted for to assist in your very salvation Tom A, the title and first paragraph of the topic at hand from, “Satis Cognitum”. You deny that the Magisterium has already spoken on this Tom A, as you objectively evidence your sure as certain path to eternal Hell, as you remain objectively outside the Church. Amen.
“The Magisterium (or Teaching Authority) of the Church to be Perpetual
8. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” (John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.”
And poor, poor Tom A with his darkened mind, contradicts Jesus the Christ, suggesting that since His Vicar is now absent the world with loss of Apostolic Succession in 1958, that He has abandoned His Church, allowing then as Tom A continues to profess, “freedom as license”, to wit, “do what thou wilt”, as A Simple Beggar has now warned you of time and again, as you remain malevolent in your obstinate as profound error. Amen. God have mercy on your wretched soul, Tom A. In caritas.
You are the one who holds that because there is no Pope you then have license to ignore the infallible, perpetual Magisterium and break Canon Law in order to save your immortal soul. It’s the principle, Tom. Nothing deceitful or dishonest about that. In fact it would seem to be the other way around, as you demonstrate that you ARE opposed to “the end doesn’t justify the means”, at least in this situation.
I would say that your position is the one to ignore and is that which is dangerous, not mine. Obedience, or disobedience and license? By the Grace of God sincere seekers of Truth will eventually smell the rat you are attempting to serve them with your unsubstantiated claims.
To all my followers. Here is yet another tactic of sly clever dishonest ultracrepidarians. They state perfectly correct truths (magisterial teachings of past Popes) with the goal of the audience accepting their false assertions (that I somehow deny the Magisterium and Divine Law). Its a clever debate trick.
You said yourself that we have to wait for the next Pope to settle these matters, and therefore we don’t have to follow the perpetual, infallible Magisterium and Canon Law in these times.
ASB, I never said we could ignore Divine Law. We are always bound by it. I never said we could dissent from the Magisterium, it is perpetual and eternal. What I said was, since there is no Pope, there is no one to turn to in order to settle disputes as to matters of Canon Law. Nor is there anyone to seek dispensation from Canon Laws. So it is my opinion that therefore these laws cannot be in effect without a lawgiver to enforce or dispense. Now since God is always and eternal, His Divine Law is perpetually in force and He will judge us at the given time. You are not making the distinction between canon and Divine/moral/natural law. Not everything in canon law is magisterial. In the matter of a papal mandate needed for episcopal ordinations for instance, the supreme law of the Church may be said to be thwarted if there are no bishops. This is line of reasoning that SSPV and CMRI use to justify ordinations without a mandate. If you were paying attention to the words I chose carefully, you would have noticed that never did I state that I agreed with the CMRI or SSPV nor did I disagree with your opinion on the need for a mandate for a licit ordination. Where I firmly disagreed with you was on the sacramental validity of an ordination performed without a mandate. You claim it is invalid based on Cum Ex and I showed how Pope Leo XIII considered Anglican orders invalid due to form and not lack of a mandate. Distinctions! Learn to make them!
Ic/ASB, have a look at the following talk by +Williamson. Watch from 10:18 to 10:50.
Bishop Richard WIlliamson – Church At Present [Conference]
He also sees through your kind of pious devilry.
I can make distinctions just fine but during the day I am literally in the midst of doing 50 things at once unlike most others, however and nevertheless, the simple fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ is the Supreme Head of the Church, and as such HE IS the Lawgiver and those laws therefore STAND in the absence of a Pope (His Vicar) because JESUS CHRIST IS ULTIMATELY THE HEAD and those are HIS LAWS.
There is only one thing about these times we live in that sedevacantists all agree, there is no Pope. Since there is no Pope, no one should be acting like they are the Pope binding each other to various past canonical rules without the power to dispense. That’s the nature of sedevacantism, nobody in charge. If you want someone in charge, go back to the NO and submit to Bergoglio. If you feel like keeping Sunday holy by going to a CMRI or SSPV chapel, then who can stop you. If you want to stay home and say your Rosary, by all means be my guest. How well you honor God’s Divine Law to keep holy the Lord’s Day is up to you since there is no one in authority. If you don’t believe me, then submit to the one whom you believe has authority over you. If you think its Pope Pius XII of happy memory, then go ahead and ask him what are the Holy Days of Obligation in 2020. I am curious as to what he replies. If you think Pope Paul IV wrote Cum Ex with the intention of destroying Apostolic Succession, then ask him to affirm that fact. My point is we follow these canonical laws out of respect for tradition as best we can unless they become a hinderance to the supreme law of the Church.
ASB, lets agree on Christ being eternal head of His Church and Christ’s Divine Laws themselves being eternally binding. For the exact legal standing of canonical laws that are not matters of faith or morals, I guess we need a Pope to decide.
Poor, poor Tom A,
“Distinctions! Learn to make them!”, exclaims the malevolent one. Woe is you, Tom A, as you place distinctions where the Vicar of Christ had none. “Cum Ex….”, paragraph 6, has no distinctions, as it relates to the lack of true acceptance of the consecration of any would be, “Bishop”, dressed only as the part, should he ever, at any time, and without any time limit, be found by the faithful to have either, “deviated from the Faith” or to commit heresy, Amen. His consecration was thus null and void. Period and end. No validity of Sacraments left now in the cosmos Tom A. All of your conflation of truth with the lie, will not change this reality as it is. You continue to evidence your father, as the Father of Lies, as he is the great Accuser and he is the Liar. Amen. It really is simple enough and of course, for an humble and pious 10 year old to understand, as he must, to save his very soul. But not Tom A though, as with the pride which is legion. You are such a fool Tom A that you cannot possibly comprehend the degree of your malignant foolishness. You would be laughable as a pseudo-intellectual, if you were not bearing witness, as to a soul on his very own definitive road, to an eternity spent with others with such pride as legion. Amen. God have mercy on you soul. In caritas.
We can agree on that much, but the fact still remains that who we receive Sacraments from IS a matter of Faith. We can make distinctions all the way into hell. Follow your faulty line of reasoning at your own risk.
And you “guess”, Tom? You must place an awful lot of hope in that mere “guess”, and you also imply that the Holy Ghost had absolutely no say in those “mere” Canon Laws you are so adamant no longer apply under the circumstances because there’s no one to enforce them. It is hardly any Pope’s Church or any earthly church as you make it seem but Jesus Christ’s Church – the MYSTICAL Body of Christ.
ASB, agree. One should never receive illicit or doubtful sacraments.
Then why do you? You have yet to prove any of your opinions, especially for the benefit of the readers of this comment section, many of whom through your curt and “clever” replies may be at risk of being misled by none other than Tom A. Do you truly believe you will not have to answer for that at Judgment, should you find yourself to have been wrong and in the position of only being able to reply, “Yes, Lord.” or “No, Lord.”? Your entire premise is based on a “guess”, Tom. You said it yourself. As for me, I’m not willing to risk my very soul for Tom’s or anyone’s “guess”.
Dear Tom A. I follow your comments and, for the most part, I agree with what you say. Because of all this confusion (and yes, I did say “confusion”) there are others who will disagree and have their own thoughts on various issues. That’s to be expected in these trying times. Please do not allow yourself to be intimidated or baited. God bless.
Thus chaos and confusion reigns.
It’s all good! Just take your best guess as that’s all we got! We’re orphans even though GOD said we wouldn’t be – woo hoo! The first Mark of the Church is that it is ONE, but that doesn’t stand now either!
In the City of God there is unchangeable Law and order; in your man-made city there is only chaos as in: “Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law”, ala Satan.
Good luck to you, Tom. I do only wish the best for you. I write for others who are actually searching for Truth, not those who obstinately want to do as they will because the Truth hurts and will cost them too much (and oh does it ever…). I’ve already held at one point or another just about every position represented in this comment section. I still had confusion and doubt, and was left with many contradictions. Just like you, Tom. Just like you.
“Nobody in charge”, Tom? Tell that to THE Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, KING and Creator of All, and SUPREME Head of the Church. Go ahead and tell Him that HE’S not in charge, EVEN until the end of time, which is NOW.
Because we have no shepherd and are in complete and total disarray, we are beginning to unravel, and it’s starting to really show in a number of quarters. I feel it myself. We are battle weary friends, and there is no end in sight. One thing that becomes clear in reading comboxes such as this one today is, at least we can say we care deeply, our Catholic faith is not minor nor insignificant to us, which is a very good thing. No one here is lukewarm! God will not likely spit us out, for that anyway.
However, debate can become so hard-edged it’s no longer charitable nor even kind.
Tom A., what you say makes a lot of sense and I typically find myself agreeing with you, in fact I think it’s always. I can’t even begin to weigh in on these matters because I don’t have the depth of knowledge you and IC and ASB have on these topics. I sincerely admire you all for the zeal you have for understanding these issues. You have devoted a lot of thought to it and I haven’t.
But when it reaches the point we have lost civility and are accusing each other of being Satan, what is gained. We are none of us here Satan, I believe, we are earnest Catholics falling into some amount of panic because we see the devastating problems and there is no apparent fix. But let’s try to keep in mind our allies are in comboxes with us, these are not our enemies. And we should try to keep a cool head, so Louie doesn’t close the combox again because we have forgotten ourselves.
Lord, your children are deteriorating, help us soon, amen.
You may have misunderstood me – I never called nor would I call Tom, Satan. I was making a point regarding what he is clearly stating: that without a Shepherd, we can do whatever we please and that whatever we feel is right is okay to do, and that this attitude is comparable to the mantra of the Satanists: Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.
Also, please don’t misunderstand the intent when sometimes it becomes necessary to admonish someone. For some, it can definitely be nasty and only about being “right”, but for others true Charity may the motive. I think we can all discern who is just plain nasty around here and who, on the other hand, might truly care about the Truth and the soul of the other. As Our Lord said, He did not come to bring peace but the sword, and it is in these “battles” (ultimately with “Principalities and Powers) where Truth is exposed for those who are given eyes to see, to see.
I agree with you on this comment section and that is what drew me to it in the first place several years ago. I’ve never seen one quite like it nor do I participate in any other. There are many intelligent people here and hence I know I have learned things from others here along the way. But intelligence isn’t even really necessary. A decent intellect helps, but for me really when it came down to it I was beside myself and told myself it was ALL way over my own head, and that’s when I began – finally – to PRAY for guidance and the Light of Faith to discern these matters. Yes, you have to take the time and put in some effort and I’d be a liar if I said I didn’t – oh there were some consecutive months of very, very late nights – but despite all of that we will never see the Truth unless God first removes the blinders, and this we must ask of Him. This is why it can sometimes be so difficult to explain things to others and you end up going in circles, because it’s something you just KNOW deep down in your soul, things you didn’t “know” in that way before or even see because you now know that you were blind. It’s truly incredible, and I imagine that’s because there’s a Supernatural element to the understanding.
May God keep and guide you, Evangeline.
Thank you Evangeline for your kind comments.
Thank you for the kind words My2Cents. I think I am going to go back to ignoring those two again, or as one of them put it “hide in a dark corner of this blog.” Beware of those two. Just because someone spouts a lot of facts and can quote a lot of magisterial sources does not mean they know how to draw the logical conclusions from those facts. Nor does it mean their assertions are correct. Many people are fooled by those who are masters of using this technique.
Mr. Williamson is not even Catholic yet alone a Bishop of the Church established by the Son of God made man, as per, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, as the Authoritative teaching on such matters, requiring each his own assent of faith and at the pain of Hell. You are a poor and depraved soul Alphonsus. You seek refuge in the wolves dressed as Sheep. May God have mercy on your soul. In caritas.
Poor, poor malevolent Tom A,
Demonstrate your accusation Tom A. Demonstrate the fallen logic of which you accuse, as your errors have been demonstrated for you time and time and time again, using the Holy as Divine Magisterium as the Power which condemns you. Prove your accusation Tom A, as otherwise you prove that your father is the Father of Lies, as the great Accuser with no substance, as without objective evidence, as you write this:
“Just because someone spouts a lot of facts and can quote a lot of magisterial sources does not mean they know how to draw the logical conclusions from those facts.”
Bring your evidence Tom A or stand as the malevolent accuser. Empty and dark inside where you rest Tom A. Demonstrate your claim as any imbecilic fool as you can make accusation with no substance. That is the tactic of the Accuser after all. Yours’ is the prose of a malevolent sophomoric fool. May God have mercy on your soul as you continue to blaspheme Him. In caritas.
And again, the malevolent fool speaks,
Tom A actually as literally wrote this:
“If you think Pope Paul IV wrote Cum Ex with the intention of destroying Apostolic Succession, then ask him to affirm that fact.”
Not only do you blaspheme Christ as you blaspheme His Vicar, you actually accuse the Vicar of Christ of writing an infallible as Authoritative teaching in the divine Magisterium, established by the Son of God and protected by the Holy Ghost, as you directly then blaspheme the Holy Ghost, by suggesting that the writing of this Apostolic Constitution somehow immanently, as from the Apostolic Constitution itself, “destroys Apostolic Succession”. You are objectively to be known as a malignant fool Tom A. What you suggest is tantamount to saying that because there is a law that prohibits murder, the author of that law somehow wrote it such that people could be murdered. You have actually written that the Vicar of Christ wrote, “Cum Ex…”, such that Apostolic Succession could be broken. There isn’t a more blasphemous while at once inane commentary now available in the cosmos, for any one with eyes which can see, to see. God have mercy on your malevolent as hate riddled soul. “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. “An evil tree cannot bear good fruit…”. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” I rest. In caritas.
Why might it be that Jesus Christ, THE WORD, stated that He would be with us “EVEN unto the end of time”?
Why did He not simply state that He would be with us “unto the end of time”?
EVEN though it might APPEAR that I am NOT with you (as when I was asleep in the boat, or found to be missing from the tomb, and now the Tabernacles of the world).
EVEN though I have taken my Vicar from you as the spiritual chastisement for the sins and lukewarmness of My people Israel, and to PROVE THE ELECT.
EVEN when the time comes where it SEEMS all is lost, and that My Mystical Body is dead; buried in the tomb as it follows must happen as it was such with My Body.
EVEN THEN will I feed you… forgive you, should you come to me with a contrite and humble heart… DWELL in you.
EVEN then, so long as you follow ME as a trusting and obedient child of the Father; I will be with you EVEN then.
EVEN then, in the great hour of darkness, abomination and desolation.
Be not afraid, and KNOW that I am with you, EVEN unto the end of time.
Dearest A Simple Beggar,
Simply true and beautiful and good from an authentically Catholic heart. Amen. Alleluia. May the Peace of The Christ remain in you unto your end, as the chaos, the signature of Lucifer, swims all around us. Not as the world gives has He given it to you. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Evangeline: “And we should try to keep a cool head, so Louie doesn’t close the combox again because we have forgotten ourselves.”
It appears to me that Louie isn’t even reading his combox.
“All indications are that he (and other conservative, comfy and cowardly churchmen-of-the-council like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider) are hoping that, if only they ignore them long enough, the blasphemous heresies found in Amoris Laetitia will simply fade from everyone’s memory.”
Rather than “simply fading from everyone’s memory”, the blasphemous heresies found in Amoris Laetitia will, like the blasphemous heresies in the documents of Vatican II, find their way into the normal life and practice of every parish within the counterfeit church. It cannot be otherwise for the false religion of this counterfeit church demands constant “reform” of its own heresies to add further and greater sacrileges and blasphemes against our Lord and the true Catholic religion.
For a conciliar bishop to call for guarding the deposit of faith in the year 2019 is about 60 years too late. That barn door opened with Roncalli and the horses have all wandered off.
One of the strategies of Marxism is the (gradual) implementation of change so as to better manage the goyim and, thus, to achieve the goals of Marxism, i.e. world domination. I see an analogous process in play vis-à-vis the Vatican II religion (from its beginning, in fact). If the changes are introduced subtly and gradually then the dupes are inured to them.
What is tolerated today is dogma tomorrow.
Poor, poor malevolent Tom A,
Prove what you claim. Your words are but empty chatter. You stake no claim rooted in truth, rather it is Tom A’s pure conjecture as foundationless supposition. Define your terms Tom A and cease your pseudo-intellectual prose, as there is not a shadow of Catholic Truth to be found in it. What is a so called, “conciliar bishop”, Tom A? There is no such beast in Catholic Truth. You defy the, (sic) “deposit of faith”, continuously while you simply claim that you don’t, while you NEVER prove that you don’t, while at once it is proven for you that you do, and you simply reject it, about face, as though your caprice means one iota of anything in Truth. Who are you Tom A, apart from legion? You profane the Sacred nature of the Holy Church with your profane as foul vernacular. You have no idea who Roncalli was in Truth. You profess chaos as though it could possibly be good and righteous and demonstrative of Caritas in this world, and given us by the command of God, no less, as you claim He has abandoned His Church. The Hell that awaits you Tom A cannot be glimpsed by the human imaginative power. Cease fool. Cease and beg God for a perfect contrition. You acknowledge no Pope in “60 years” (you must have a hard time with arithmetic also) and yet you profess that there are, “valid”, Sacraments yet available, as you deny the very teaching of the unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers on the prophesy of Daniel. You are a liar as you father is the Father of Lies and as the accuser that you objectively remain. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” “An evil tree CANNOT bear good fruit”. “You will KNOW them by their fruits. Woe is Tom A. In caritas.
Good advice for all of us, Tom A. These commenters love attention. If they get it, they’ll never go away. There is one scripture, they never use: “Judge not for the judgement you judge, you shall be judged.”
Poor, poor depraved my2cents,
You follow the wide road to perdition and of course you don’t even know that you walk it. You seek the, “advice”, of a non-Catholic fool, as though it could possibly be good, while at once you as he, fully reject Magisterial teaching, as this can only remain self-evident. We are commanded by The Christ to judge the objective acts of the other, firstly to save our own soul as to protect us from the wolves He warns us of to come, and then to assist in the salvation of the other. You pervert Holy Scripture in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, and with its very opening command of The Christ, as though there could be contradiction found in the Holy Writ, as you blaspheme The Christ intoning this as you do. Woe is you my2cents. Jesus the Christ commands later in that same Gospel and chapter:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring for the good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
And so poor, poor, depraved soul as you objectively are my2cents, the one who proclaims God has abandoned His Church to the wiles of Lucifer, by objectively claiming that there now is no ruling Authority in Holy Church, thus proclaiming that everyone can either seek or avoid so called, “sacraments”, at their very own caprice, as Tom A, is the one you seek, as though Tom A could possibly be, “doing the will of My Father Who is in Heaven…” The Christ then closes His divine command with, “…he shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Holy Writ judges you as it judges Tom A. Woe are you. May God have mercy on your depraved souls. Amen. In caritas.
In caritas/A Simple Beggar, you’re a truly ridiculous figure. And deeply disturbed. Do seek help. Fast.
Poor, poor AlphonsusJr,
You too are on your very own certain path to perdition and you remain perfectly blinded to that reality as it is: “You will know them by their fruits”. You deny the teaching of the Holy as divine Magisterium, perfect in every iota, and you seek imposters who call themselves, “Bishop”, as they cannot possibly be, as per the Authoritative teaching in, “Cum Ex…”. You deny this and thus you are destined for your eternity in Hell, as the Holy Magisterium judges you. Amen. You still breathe and thus there is still hope for you. You write as a spoiled child, not as a man, yet this can be no surprise, as you are the picture of the effeminate man, while your vitriolic inner anger, objectively manifesting your fear, can only remain self-evident. Amen. I pray you save your soul. In caritas.
A “conciliar bishop” is most likely simply a layman since the conciliar false church introduced a new Ordination Rite in 1968. That is why I used a lower case “b” with the “conciliar” qualifier. These new Rites are most likely defective in form so it is prudent for us to avoid these “bishops” and those they ordain. We layman lack the authority to make a definitive ruling on this issue, but we do have an obligation to avoid doubtful sacraments. I urge all hear to read Pope Leo XIII Bull Apostolicae Curae and the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Ordination. Compare it to the traditional Rite of Ordination and you can see that the new Rite removes some key elements in the essential form.
Poor, poor Tom A,
You objectively evidence not only your lack of holding the One as true, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, but you do this in a, “luke warm”, fashion, even worse thus, as The Christ commands He would vomit you from His Holy Mouth. Amen. You deem a man who is not even Catholic, and as objectively known by the Authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, once and again, as, “Cum Ex…” definitively as Authoritatively teaches, as being, “most likely simply a layman”. How could he be anything but, Tom A, when the Holy Magisterium commands it to be so? What possible potential for power does a false church have over the Catholic Church, established by the Son of God, as to invoke the power of Order and its fulfillment as, consecration to the Bishopric? This a properly catechized 10 year old would be definitive about to save his very soul from perdition, glorifying Almighty God thus, and not, “luke warm”, as Tom A. “Cum Ex…”, commands that this so called, “conciliar bishop”, is not even Catholic, as he loses the Holy Faith, ipso facto, as he evidences never having received his consecration, dressed then only as a Sheep, while in reality as it is a, “ravening wolf”, inside as commanded by The Christ, Amen. You remain perfectly confused Tom A as you opine,
“since the conciliar false church introduced a new Ordination Rite in 1968.”
What could it possibly matter what the, “conciliar false church introduced…”? You claim it to be a, “false church”, then you concern yourself with its so called, “new Ordination Rite in 1968”. How is that even possible Tom A?
You then go on to opine this:
“These new Rites are most likely defective in form so it is prudent for us to avoid these “bishops” and those they ordain. ”
It is, “prudent for us to avoid these “bishops” and those they ordain”, exclaims Tom A. Again Tom A, you already identify what you call the, “conciliar church”, which in reality as it is, is the church of Antichrist, as being a, “false church”, thus and again I simply query, why would you possibly care about commenting on it being, “prudent for us to avoid these “bishops” and those they ordain”, when they themselves are members of what Tom A calls, “a false church”? How could you even consider going to a false church for so called, “Rites”, Tom A, while at once saving your eternal soul, as you blaspheme God in sacrilege? You write in such confused platitudes, evidencing your all but perfect blindness to Truth.
And yet again Tom A, examining what you wrote as to this part, “…These new Rites are most likely defective in form…” So Tom A deems that, “These new Rites”, these same, “new Rites”, that he has already deemed come from a false church, should be avoided in the darkened wisdom of Tom A, not because they are rites of what he already acknowledged is a “false church”, but because Tom A deems that they are, “…most likely defective in form”. So Tom A, if you deemed that they were NOT , “defective in form”, you, Tom A, would deem that although you have already acknowledged that they are rites of a, “false church”, that they would be acceptable to attend to, in the judgment of Tom A, because they don’t, “appear to be defective”?
You then write this Tom A, once again evidencing for all with eyes which see, that you simply as definitively cannot hold the Catholic Faith freely in the operation of your will:
“We layman lack the authority to make a definitive ruling on this issue,…”
“We layman”, Tom A, are not commanded by The Christ, “to make a definitive ruling on this issue,…”, as the Holy Magisterium has already made this definitive as Authoritative ruling and in 1559, commanding each his own assent of faith into submission to this same, “ruling”, as in, “Cum Ex….”, at the very pain of Hell, as the Magisterium is, “perpetual” (not changing nor ending), for any and all who do not submit to the governing Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors. Amen. Alleluia.
As the holy Saint and Angelic Doctor of Holy Mother Church definitively taught, our intellects must simply, “conform to the reality as it is”, of what the Magisterium Authoritatively teaches and thus the true Catholic knows what the true Catholic Church definitively teaches, simply as his intellect conforms to it, as Saint Thomas Aquinas taught. Amen. Alleluia. May God have mercy on your darkened soul, Tom A. In caritas.
VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
The Council of Trent said: “It is certain that the Church was instructed by Jesus Christ and His apostles and that all truth was daily taught Her by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a foundation may be laid of a new human institution, and what St. Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing may become a human church.”
Hello Everyone. I’m fairly new to this website and I’m not well versed as most of you are here, (I hope to learn a lot from all of you.) Just here to educate myself and hopefully I’ll have a more of an understanding of our Church. Please dont hesitate to offer piece of advice or a tib bit-anything you want. I’ll try my best not to seem too ignorant. Haha.
Thank you and God bless you and may our blessed Mother keep you.
Amoris Laetitia was written by Pachamama.
ASB said: ‘VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
The Council of Trent said: “It is certain that the Church was instructed by Jesus Christ and His apostles and that all truth was daily taught Her by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a foundation may be laid of a new human institution, and what St. Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing may become a human church.”’
“VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM” = TRUTH LASTS FOREVER
Didn’t the “reformers” get that? Don’t today’s Protestants get that? If it was true in AD 33 then it was true in 1517 AD, and it’s true today.
@In caritas, I can understand a time for blunt language can be necessary in the pursuit of charity (just as vinegar is needed instead of honey to clean); however, constantly prefacing people’s usernames with “poor, poor” makes it sound like you’re reading off of a script to gain purity points instead of honestly trying to convince someone of your point.
What also doesn’t help is consistently presuming someone (be it TomA, my2cents, or otherwise) to be arguing in bad faith or arguing from a position of malevolence when a simple reading of their points doesn’t indicate it in the least.
And because of that, any worthwhile points you make are lost, because – to use the words of St. Paul – you come across as a clashing cymbal.
Just some friendly advice.
Please get your own blog In Caritas. You’ve completely taken over this one.
If anyone is interested in some in depth discussion on the issues that In Caritas proposes, with plenty of references to consult, they can read more here:
Thank you mothermostforgiving
Thank you A Simple Beggar.
From the ORIGINAL and TRUE Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582:
The introduction to John Chapter 14 states the following (emphasis mine):
“Promising also to send unto them (THAT IS, TO HIS CHURCH) the HOLY GHOST to be after his departure WITH THEM FOREVER.”
From the ANNOTATIONS OF CHAPTER 14:
Margin notes: “THE HOLY GHOST IS PROMISED TO THE CHURCH FOREVER”
” 16. For ever. ] If the Holy Ghost had been promised only to the Apostles, their successors and the church after them could not have challenged it, but it was promised them for ever. Whereby we may learn, both that the privileges and promises made to the Apostles were not personal, but pertaining their offices PERPETUALLY; and also that the Church and Pastors IN ALL AGES had and have THE SAME HOLY GHOST TO GOVERN THEM, that the Apostles and primitive Church had.”
“THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH SHALL ASSIST THE CHURCH ALWAYS”
“17. The spirit of truth. ] They had many particular gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost before, and many virtues by the same, as all holy men have at times: but the HOLY GHOST HERE PROMISED to the Apostles and their successors for ever, is to this use specially promised, TO DIRECT THEM IN ALL TRUTH AND VERITY: AND IS CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF ERROR, HERESY AND FALSEHOOD. AND
THEREFORE THE CHURCH CANNOT FALL TO APOSTASY OR HERESY, OR TO NOTHING,
AS THE ADVERSARIES SAY.”
Margin notes of Chapter 15:
“IF A SCHISMATIC PRAY NEVER SO MUCH, HE IS NOT HEARD, BECAUSE HE REMAINETH NOT IN THE BODY OF CHRIST”
[Beside verses 21-25:]
“v He FORESHADOWETH THAT MANY WILL NOT OBEY THE CHURCH’S WORDS, AND NO MARVEL, BECAUSE THEY CONDEMNED CHRIST’S OWN PRECEPTS”
Annotation from the same on Matthew 24:15:
“…the abomination of desolation foretold, was partly fulfilled in diverse profanations of the Temple of Jerusalem, when the sacrifice and service of God was taken away. But specially it shall be fulfilled by Antichrist and his Precursors, when they shall ABOLISH the holy Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood, and the only sovereign worship due to God in His Church …By which it is plain that the heretics of those days will be special fore-runners of Antichrist.”
Universal Testimony of the Fathers of the Early Church on The Apostasy:
“The apostasy of the city of Rome FROM THE VICAR OF CHRIST and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the TEXT OF THEOLOGIANS OF GREATEST REPUTE. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, BELLARMINE, and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the Faith, DRIVE AWAY THE VICAR OF CHRIST and return to its ancient PAGANISM.
…Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, INVISIBLE HIDDEN IN CATACOMBS, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be SWEPT, as it were FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. SUCH IS THE UNIVERSAL TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH.” -Henry Edward CARDINAL Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90″
It’s now time for me to go. May God have mercy on us all.
~A Simple Beggar
I moved my reply above and so it should say at the beginning:
“Annotation from The ORIGINAL and TRUE Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582:”
Someone sent me this new video series last week: What has happened to the Church and what are we to do?
This website also has many resources to utilize while you PRAY for guidance and Truth:
A must read:
VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
Christus vincit! Christus REGNAT! Christus imperat!
I’ve been following this blog for some time now but just started commenting myself. My only suggestions for the time being would be to take your time in assessing the different positions presented to you and prayerfully consider them if you are unsure. Anything truthful will not be lacking in Charity and anything truly charitable cannot be in opposition to God’ revealed Truth as it is preserved in the Magisterium (i.e. the authoritative teaching body of the Church). Traditionalists tend to have very strong opinions regarding what is the most appropriate (a.k.a. Catholic) response to the crisis of our times, be mindful of that.
In my case, I grew up in the Novus Ordo assuming it was the Catholic Church; I was poorly catechized but always took my faith to heart; by university I resolved to learn more about Catholicism more deeply in order to better defend it from attacks. This private research led me to see discrepancies between what the Conciliar Church taught since Vatican II and what the Catholic Church always taught and will continue to faithfully teach until the end of time (since her teachings on Faith and Morals were revealed by God and thus unchanging, as opposed to something man-made that the Church makes up). This, and the countless scandals of the Francis “pontificate”, eventually led me to the FSSP, then the SSPX, and now into Sedevacantism as I have continued to look more deeply into what’s going on and attempt to determine the most appropriate/Catholic response to it. I’m still trying to sort out the particulars of how best to respond to this crisis (such as regarding the Sacraments), but I know the solution ought to be rational, charitable, and consistent with Church teaching. Hopefully my comments will be helpful to you in some way. If you have any particular questions, feel free to ask. I’m sure many of us here would jump at the chance to answer. That being said, I’m only a layman who takes his faith to heart, so my opinion and $1.50 will get you a coffee. (That likely applies to most here as well.)
May God bless you and keep you, and may he all men of goodwill, ever nearer to the fullness of His Truth and Charity. Amen.
Christe Rex: Adveniat regnum Tuum, in corde meum et a mari usque ad mare.
Maria, Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis.
3 But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time appointed: many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold.
10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.
For what it’s worth, the woman behind that blog – Teresa Benns – was involved with the election of “Pope Michael”, so take her advice with a grain of salt.
That was many years ago. Teresa Benns was on a journey toward Truth just as I once was and at least some readers here are currently. Teresa Benns no longer supports David Bawden and now knows that he has never been a valid Pope.
That being said, who cares one iota what Teresa Benns or anyone else’s says – it’s the presentation of what THE CHURCH teaches and instructs us to do that all who hope to save their soul need to be carefully considering.
Thank you KyleofCanada. I’m in a similar to boat as you are. I’m a convert baptized and confirmed with The SSPX, but go to a NO mass to fulfill my Sunday obligations and to participate in confession and holy communion. SSPX chappel is an over an hour drive.
I being honest here (not putting myself down in anyway). I’m fairly ignorant to our faith and I have a heavy desire to learn it. As, I’ve been reading people’s comments. I’ve realized that I’m nowhere near the level of anyone here. To be honest, I’m actually a little intimidated. I don’t know how I can contribute in anyway shape or form.
Again, I’m just trying to learn. Reading things about our Catholic Church and the confusions that it caused, made me “scrupulous.” I’m trying to figure out if my words, thought or actions are sinful or not.
I really appreciate your kind words and everyone’s welcoming me here. If I’m way over my head here. Let me know and I can go elsewhere. Thanks again.
God bless you and may our blessed Mother keep you and yours.
Thanks for the links.
Good Monday morning A Simple Man,
And she has abjured her error publically on her site. From whence do you come? Everyone in this time, the few indeed that there are who hold the One and true Catholic Faith and as commanded would be a sign of the times by The Christ, and hold the Faith without contradiction and of course, are either reverts or if born after October, 1958 converts sometime after attaining the age of reason, when all would have renounced the true Faith in their assent into the church of Antichrist, all dressed up as the Catholic Church yet desolate of all things Christ Jesus, in the grand masquerade of the summa and summit of Satanic deception. Amen.
So we nip this in the bud out of the blocks, if you will, ASM, if you profess to receive Sacraments in this time, you hold contradiction and not the Holy Catholic Faith and with apodictic certitude, as per Magisterial teaching, which is perpetual. Amen. God bless you. In caritas.
In the first paragraph of the link you provide, the non-Catholic opining as though he possibly could hold the Faith, contradicts the Credo, in his utter acknowledgement that his so called, “Bishops”, DO NOT HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. You cannot make this satanic deception up. And you believe these diabolical lies TPS. God have mercy on your depraved soul. In caritas.
ASB, Here is a sentence from the link you provide:
41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and SACRILEGIOUS.
So again, it seems that the power to confect a sacrament does not rely on a papal mandate. And before you twist my words and condemn me again, I am not saying nor ever advised anyone to go to doubtful/illicit sacraments. In the legal world there is a principle of “necessity knows no law.” Does this justify sedes to ordain and say public masses? They claim necessity dispenses them from this canonical legal requirement. You say it does not. Welcome to the Great Apostasy. I invite all the readers here to do a simple google search on “necessity knows no law” to see if I am lying or making it up. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls and it is this principle that certain bishops and priests use to ordain and say mass. Only God can judge these bishops and priests and those who approach them for sacraments, not In Caritas. But that won’t stop IC from issuing his edict of condemnation that we have all read over and over.
Yes, welcome to the Great Apostasy indeed. I already answered you re: the highest Law is the Salvation of souls, but you reject it.
As for necessity knows no law, what Church do you belong to? Only the CHURCH has the authority to suspend a law, as follows:
St. Thomas also observed that in a “state of NECESSITY”, “THE CHURCH may, for instance suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.”
Everyone should read about Epikiea in that document as well because that’s another one thrown around by the Sede clergy and it absolutely cannot be applied to anything touching on the Sacraments, as proven.
That being said, it’s irrelevant because former heretics cannot be Bishops per The HOLY GHOST, so your bishops are non-bishops, and even if they were bishops via one of your so-called loopholes, they have no jurisdiction to do anything whatsoever because there’s no Pope.
Anyone who is searching needs to understand that this issue of jurisdiction is extremely important. I asked a Sede priest about it and he got annoyed and gave me that same “party line”. Now if it’s so certain first of all why would you become annoyed with a newcomer over such a critical question? I knew instinctively -before I even knew what I know now – that this was the key to whether or not I could receive Sacraments from them (or anyone for that matter) and I wanted the TRUTH and to have MORAL CERTITUDE; if there is even one iota of doubt then we cannot receive them.
And notice how St. Thomas says: “…POSITIVE LAW LIKE some aspect of CANON LAW.”
ASB, I never rejected salvation of souls as supreme law of church. Nor do I say that the necessity clause is justified in these times. God will determine that fact. I am simply pointing out to you again the argument some use to justify their actions in these times. It is obvious you do not agree with them. God and not IC will be their ultimate judge. I am also pointing out to you again that the sacraments can be valid even if illicit. A fact that IC denies based on his erroneous reading of Cum Ex. Again I restate, no one should approach doubtful or illicit sacraments. Without a Pope or Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction to give their approval, it makes finding valid and licit sacraments extremely difficult and I admit, maybe impossible. Any doubt whatsoever, requires a Catholic to avoid.
Tom, Don’t put words in my mouth, as I said you rejected my EXPLANATION, and again, I reached my state of MORAL CERTITUDE independent of IC and prior to the time when IC did. In saying what you already know in this regard you seem to be maliciously and publicly attempting to discredit IC’s position, which is only the position of the Magisterium hence Holy Mother Church (Jesus Christ). As the videos I posted discuss, your position MUST be rejected.
Yes of course we do agree on the issue of doubt. Possible validity under these circumstances is really irrelevant, however, and as such is a diversion because even if they are valid, if illicit one would commit sacrilege by receiving them. If finding valid and licit Sacraments is “maybe impossible”, then clearly that involves doubt and therefore one may not act. Where something is impossible the obligation no longer applies. We can make Spiritual Communions and Perfect Acts of Contrition in their place. We can also baptize and be baptized and the Church even provides a procedure for weddings if a priest isn’t available. “I will not leave you orphans.” -Jesus Christ
The reason there is confusion within the ranks of sedevacantists at this time is precisely because of the lack of a Roman Pontiff to serve as Christ’s Vicar on Earth (even though He is always its invisible Head). It is because of this that people of good will may come to different conclusions regarding the limits of ecclesial law versus the never-changing promises and mandates of divine law.
Judging by your posts, you have concluded that we are in an era where the Church has returned to the proverbial catacombs, and truly valid Sacraments are no longer available (notwithstanding baptism and matrimony).
In like manner, there are those who maintain communion with those ordained by bishops under the traditional rites, thus claiming power to confer valid and licit Sacraments (albeit without the capacity to call a new papal election or to decisively settle issues in light of the Roman Pontiff’s vacancy; all that can be done is to apply the Church’s teachings per her approved catechisms and theological manuals as thoroughly as possible). That you disagree with these positions has been made obvious, but likewise you cannot “carte blanche” claim that they are not acting in good faith or with malice, precisely because you are in the same position as they are with regards to the matter of authority.
I cannot bind your conscience with regards to the solution you’ve chosen, as I lack the authority to do so.
Please extend the same courtesy to other commenters, for you presume to label such as public heretics and apostates regarding matters that is not inherently obvious (as is the case with Bergoglio). In doing so, you discredit your chosen username.
Poor, poor Tom A,
Your obstinate error continues as you accuse now and again. I am not the judge of the person, yet alone of the other, rather the Magisterium, which is, “perpetual”, as per, “Satis Cognitum”, that is, “never changing and never ending”, is definitively as Authoritatively the judge. If you deny this, as you do, you cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith as res ipsa loquitur, as you instead hold contradiction to the Church’s perennial as Magisterial teaching. Period and end. As the Angelic Doctor taught and the Magisterium received, the intellect must conform to the reality, as it is, and this is truth. Amen. Your intellect Tom A, and again as witnessed objectively, simply does not conform to the reality of what the Magisterium teaches and commands, as indeed it does teach and command what it does. And again Tom A, demonstrate where the accusation of error is that you claim I’ve made in reading, “Cum Ex….”, or stand simply as an accuser, with the Father of Lies as the first.
It has also been recently pointed out to you that none of the men who claim Orders today can actually have them, as they are invalid, as null and void, and again, per the Magisterium. As has already been demonstrated for you, The Council of Trent Authoritatively taught that for a man to actually receive the Sacrament of Order, he must be a cleric. For a man to become a cleric, as the ONLY WAY a man can become a cleric, is to be, “tonsured”. Only a valid Bishop can tonsure and he must also be licit, as the act of, “tonsure”, is the act of a true Shepherd in union with a true Pope, as it is an, “Juridical Act”, and not an act immanent to the Sacrament of Order. Amen. That is the, “reality as it is”, Tom A. No Pope, no Jurisdiction. To profess the contrary is to objectively demonstrate contradiction to Authoritative Church teaching in, “Satis Cognitum”, for starters, which objectively demonstrates that whomever holds this freely in the operation of their will, CANNOT at once hold the Catholic Faith, as that is contradiction. Amen. Jurisdiction is a Gift given by the Holy Ghost as EXCLUSIVELY to Blessed Peter and in his Successors. This is Magisterial teaching plainly Authored in, “Satis Cognitum”. Again and therefore, NO POPE, NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY, Tom A. So called, “Supplied Jurisdiction”, could only occur as canonically allowed for when Blessed Peter was present in the world and in his Successors. This is the teaching of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which your intellect must conform to as to be saved, as outside of which there is no salvation, deFide. You are correct when you say that you and all the rest will one day discover your error, and that day will be when the veil is removed, and there is no turning back. “Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Amen. Alleluia. Submit to Truth Tom A, as He is a Divine Person, as Jesus the Christ. Amen. In caritas.
IC’s position is not the Magisterium of the Church on this matter. It is simply his opinion. Same with those videos. All conjecture and assertion.
And again, ASM,
As the Angelic Doctor taught and the Magisterium has received, the intellect must conform to the reality, “as it is”, which is, “truth”, as Saint Thomas Aquinas taught. The Magisterium is the perpetual, as unending and unchanging, Authority of Holy Mother the Church. As The Christ cannot abandon His Church, as He did not abandon the Apostles in the boat during the tempest, the divine Magisterium continues to teach, govern, and bind. Period and end, just as when The Christ was asleep down below in the boat and the Apostles thought they would thus be overcome by the tempest, He of course was there and teaching and governing. Oh’ ye of little Faith, as Christ Jesus then commanded. Amen.
One either holds the Catholic Faith freely in their will or they do not, as objectively witnessed. Amen. The Vicars of Christ have taught and governed and that is the divine Magisterium, as protected by the Holy Ghost, and it remains unto the Last Day, as “perpetual”, as per, “Satis Cognitum”.
There are no valid Orders today. See the explanation below as again written for poor, poor Tom A, who has been placing an affront now to Catholic teaching for over 1.5 years, as he and I have gone back and forth on these pages. You evidence not knowing this history as objectively. Amen. Save your soul. In caritas.
Poor, poor malevolent Tom A,
Once again you simply accuse without any foundation to your accusation. Prove the, “conjecture”, as you claim it to be and use the divine Magisterium to do so, as you and every other miserable creature, with me as the first, must if it is to be truth. Demonstrate for all eyes to see Tom A, how the position that has been demonstrated here, is not the Magisterial teaching as you claim. No cleric as, “tonsured”, no man as proper ontological matter to receive the Sacrament of Order. That is the Authoritative teaching of the Holy Council of Trent. Amen. “Tonsure” is an Juridical act, not an act immanent to the Sacrament of Order. No Pope, no Jursidiction to be supplied in the cosmos. Amen. God in His infinite as divine Providence, protecting His true children from the wolves, not true Bishops, as dressed in the clothing of Sheep. Save you depraved soul Tom A. Submit to the perpetual Magisterium or suffer an eternity in Hell, as the Magisterium judges you. In caritas.
Then you must prove it. You still haven’t proven anything with your short, unsubstantiated accusations. Souls are at stake, Tom. You better be DARN SURE that what you may be leading others to believe is the absolute Truth of the matter because if you are wrong you will pay even more dearly than you would if you didn’t keep repeating the error online for many to see. Demonstrate, without ANY DOUBT, where the MAGISTERIUM states that one may receive – under any circumstances – valid but illicit Sacraments, if even there are any (which there are not), and especially in these days where the Holy Mass has been ABOLISHED (because there is no true Pope), and as the real Douay Rheims Annotations said it would be.
Could it be that you are in denial that these are in fact the last days? You have at least made statements to the effect that you are. It seems that those who are worldy to some degree have a very difficult time with that concept; they are attached to this world so much that they want it to continue as usual, and therefore are unWILLing to conform their intellect to the reality that is, i.e. the Truth.
On another related note, there are those who seem to go into a state of panic over the idea that they wouldn’t be able run to Confession, likely because they have some habit of mortal sin, typically in the area of impurity. Actually I know that is a tremendous issue because I heard a “priest” once rant about that fact and how rampant it was in our (“Latin Mass”) church.
“Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another…”
(Apostle Paul to the Galatians5)
Your taunting is sadistic, reeking with pride, it is vile.
Catholics differ in age and in many attributes, every day Catholics are learning more of the severity of the apostasy.
Your condescending and taunting of Christians, bears no fruit.
Christ Is King.
I don’t think anyone here has denied the binding nature of the papal magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary). However, I don’t think you can fully qualify ecclesial law (inasmuch as which portions deal with matters outside the purview of unchanging divine law) as being part of the perpetual magisterium, simply due to the historical fact that canon law has been subject to change and revision before regarding matters of jurisdiction, discipline, and ecclesial governance (the most recent change being the 1917 Code).
Having read your back and forth thus far with him, you both come across as having legitimate disagreements over how to interpret the implementation of the same magisterium, but **without** denying it. The key difference is that TomA has comported himself in a reasonable manner, whereas you have defaulted to condemnation of his viewpoint when it is not **inherently obvious** that either of your viewpoints are the correct one. Because, again, without a true Pontiff to be the final arbiter, certain matters are not as clear as others are in terms of how to live by them.
This is not a situation akin to the SSPX, which are publicly schismatic by virtue of their disobedience of the man they profess to be the true Pope. This is a situation where individuals are trying to implement the unchanging teaching of Christ and His Church without contradiction, and the nature of these times means that certain solutions are embraced by sedevacantists with good faith and good will. However, you do not appear willing to extend the same to others who agree with you on the nature of the problem, yet disagree on the most efficacious way to deal with reality as it stands.
And again, you preface Tom A with “poor, poor”, which does not do your argumentation with him any favors. It honestly comes as being petty by this point, regardless of any intentions to the contrary.
ASM, you are wasting your time arguing and responding to IC.
ASB, prove what? Lead souls where? You are the dogmatic ones damning those who approach sede clergy in good conscience for sacraments. I warn others to do their homework, know the issues, and if in doubt, avoid. I have proven the only issue I ever contested with you, namely bishops can validly ordain without a papal mandate.
ASB, I do agree with you that there are those who seem to think the sacraments are some right they are entitled to and spend no effort understanding whether they are valid or licit. They simply seek what is convenient.
You believe that the Magisterium of Holy MOTHER Church and Jesus Christ as left to us upon the death of Pope Pius XII holds NO authority in these times without a Pope, and I hold that it does. You hold that Canon Law does not apply and is not Positive Law and St. Thomas Aquinas held that it is. Therefore it is impossible to even hold any discussion with you regarding these matters of supreme importance.
Any sincere and honest reader can see that you have not provided any authoritative proof to substantiate your personal opinions. There are those few who will submit themselves to the Magisterium and the many who will refuse and therefore ally themselves directly or indirectly with this “Operation of Error” (2 Thess Ch. 2). It was never the “many” who are being saved.
It would be unjust of God, would it not, were He to provide Sacraments only to those “lucky” enough to have one of these so-called options of which you speak within reasonable distance. We have commenters here who have stated they do not. The Catholic Church is Universal, not confined to the rare chapel located hundreds or thousands of miles apart from the next. We either have Sacraments at this time, Universally available to all, or, WE DON’T.
“The Catholic Church is Universal, not confined to the rare chapel located hundreds or thousands of miles apart from the next. We either have Sacraments at this time, Universally available to all, or, WE DON’T.”
This is historical illiteracy. Were the sacraments universally available for those who had not yet received a missionary priest as the Church spread the Gospel from the realms of Rome and Israel? What about in situations where secular governments impeded access to the sacraments by the faithful, as was the case during the persecutions by the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan? Even if the Mass is not available to you, does the obligation to maintain the One True Faith not always and everywhere applicable, in accordance with the graces granted by God?
God does not command the impossible. To assert that a lack of sacraments on a universal scale implies professing a Church which is in itself not universal (as you seem to believe) does not follow, simply in virtue of the historical record available.
ASB, again you fail to understand what I write and the vital distinctions. I never denied any Pope’s Magisterium. I simply questioned how one can be bound by a law without a lawgiver. Obviously you do not comprehend this distinction between a magisterial teaching on faith or morals and a canonical precept. But you and IC seem to assign magisterial authority to laws on governance. It is an endless argument with you two on this simple subject and a complete waste of time. I only continue because there others here who may get a false notion of the Faith based on your erroneous interpretations of papal documents.
You are correct – thank you for pointing that out, and it’s not historical illiteracy because that I am not; I am just simply busy and in too much of a hurry.
That being said, I was speaking of our modern age where few if any corners of the world haven’t already been reached, and not of those who haven’t yet encountered a missionary (non-Catholics), and as such don’t even know about the Catholic Church (another way that we can know the church in Rome is false – no more missionaries/Antichrist only seeks to confirm in error).
I’ll have to think about this and perhaps rephrase my point but now is not the time.
As you state, you deny that the infallible Magisterium and Canon Law as it existed at the time of the death of Pope Pius II does not apply because we have no Pope (lawgiver). Then you try to restate it in a way whereby you can make it seems as though you do not deny it.
You therefore deny that Christ’s infallible and perpetual Magisterium does not apply even though HE IS the Lawgiver. When the Church speaks via these means it is CHRIST speaking through His Vicar. Thus you opine that Christ has left us orphans under these most unfortunate circumstances and thereby you implicitly call him a liar.
I don’t claim to nor do I have to be an expert on anything but what is most necessary to know in order to be Catholic. I’ve made my choice and you have made yours; one of them is wrong. Much like Pascal’s Wager, if I’m wrong I’ve lost nothing; if you’re wrong you lose your eternal soul.
You, Tom A, really believe you can outsmart Satan, who stated he would have everyone under his power (vision of Pope Leo XIII). I, on the other hand, do not think so highly of myself, and therefore I follow the Magisterium and Canon Law as it stands as of 10/9/58. I seek to follow Jesus Christ, who said, “He who hears you, hears Me.”
Suggesting 15 decades of the Most Holy Rosary every day sounds trite to some folks. Try it.
“Taunting”, Joseph a Christian,
It’s called, “truth”, the intellect conforming to the reality, “as it is”, and not as the miserable human creature, “believes” or worse yet, “feels”, it should be. Did you read that paragraph Joseph a purported Christian? The man denies the Credo, calling these men, “Bishops”, while at once acknowledging no Apostolic Succession. Joseph the purported Christian calls that , “taunting”. “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword.”, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Clarify your murky position, Joseph. Where is the, “taunting”, which you claim. Your position, merely ad hominem and of course, as you hold no substance. God have mercy on you and me. I pray you one day come to hold the Catholic Faith in the operation of your will, as freely. Amen. In caritas.
Your meds are wearing off.
“I think I am going to go back to ignoring those two again, or as one of them put it “hide in a dark corner of this blog.” ”
Poor, poor Tom A, when will you learn? 😉
Tom A affronts the Magisterium time and again as has been objectively demonstrated for him time and again and with his usual fiat, his caprice, he simply denies it, without any proof as objectively demonstrating any validity to his denial of that which is his very own objectively evident Magisterial rejection. If you also are that blind, then so be it, as the truth simply is. He has been shown, by virtue of the full Apostolic Authority and power of Pope Pius XII and as in his Encyclical, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, that the submission of the faithful to the governing Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, requires the same assent of faith as does that of his teaching on Faith and Morality. Amen. And of course, as how could it not, as to deny this Apostolic Authority is to be in schism. Amen. The Church has always taught of the so called Charism, as given by the Holy Ghost of, “negative infallibility”, in matters of discipline and governance. And with apodictic certitude this is known to be as intuitively, because we are bound to submission to the governance and discipline of the Holy Roman Pontiff, at the pain of Hell, and as taught infallibly in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”. Jesus the Christ cannot bind us to error as He commands so and of course. The discipline and governance is not infallible, per se, as indeed it can change but only by the singular Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, not any other man or collection of men in the cosmos. Reject this and you simply reject the Catholic Faith. Amen. Now for your edification, find copied and pasted the pertinent part of, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”. This is no longer done for Tom A, as he continues to prove his obstinacy in profound error, which must be corrected though for the benefit of other poor souls who may fall prey to his lies, perversions of truth, blind accusations and again with no proof to substantiate them, subtle and at times overt ad hominem attack at once proving no substance to the man and his argument, and outright affronts made to the divine Magisterium, that which is the Word teaching and governing His true children historically through His Vicars and now continuing through the static as perpetual, never ending nor changing, Holy Magisterium, to which we remain bound unto the Last Day. Amen. Whosoever denies the implicitly divine nature of the Magisterium, as divine teaching and governance, simply cannot at once hold the Catholic Faith, as that is utter contradiction. Amen.
46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”
He closes his declaration as command, that if anyone departs from this teaching, that the submission of all the faithful to the discipline and governance of the Vicar of Christ, requires the same assent of faith in submission to the Pontiff as does that of his teaching on Faith and Morals, simply CANNOT BE SAVED. Departing from this edict of his is tantamount to departing from, “Catholic Truth”, as he specifically and pristinely deems it is. Amen. Save your soul ASM and to do this you must realize, as the true Church teaches, that the entirety of Catholic Truth must be submitted to, each and every iota, at the pain of Hell in apostasy, in this time. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
In caritas/A Simple Beggar, you’re deeply sick. Every new comment thread proves this more and more. Part of this deep diabolical sickness involves progressively blinding you to its very existence the more you sink into it. Try stepping away to gain some perspective.
One more point of Catholic teaching as infallible. While the discipline and governance of the Vicar of Christ is not infallible, per se, because it can change by his Singular Apostolic Authority alone in the cosmos and no longer now here since October 9, 1958, it CANNOT CONTAIN ERROR (the Charism of, “negative infallibility”) and of course, as The Christ has bound us to it, the discipline and governance of His Vicar, at the pain of Hell, in rejection of any iota of it. A person is either Catholic or they are not. Anyone, as every single one, who holds any contradiction in the operation of their will, to the teaching Authority, discipline and governance of the Vicar of Christ in the perpetual Magisterium, unchanging while at once unending, simply is NOT CATHOLIC, as the Magisterium has commanded it so. Amen. In caritas.
Oh’ you poor and depraved soul TPS,
You are correct and as as such, I stand corrected. His affirmation of these so called, “Bishops”, of not having Apostolic Succession, thus denying the Fourth Mark as professed in the Credo, is actually contained in the 5th short paragraph and not the first paragraph as I wrote above, where the exponent of the church of Antichrist at the link which you provided above, for all eyes to see by simply clicking on it, actually believes, as do you TPS, that he as you, actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith. Find now copied and pasted his affirmation:
“Now, there are at least two key questions here. 1. Were these men lawfully consecrated, or have they breached the law in doing so? 2. Is it lawful to approach such men for the sacraments? (A third question, are they Successors of the Apostles? has been answered – they’re not, and no amount of arguing will affect the answer, I believe.)”
Now who didn’t, “take their meds”, you poor, poor depraved soul, objectively as definitively on your sure path to Hell? “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Jesus the Christ commanded there also, that those evil trees would be cut down and tossed into the everlasting fire. Amen.
A Simple Man–Thank you for your sensible comment. It is appreciated.
Oh’ and yet again AlphonsusJUNIOR,
You demonstrate a particularly malevolent childishness, time and again. Pray in earnest for your very salvation you poor and depraved soul. Your intellect simply clangs with the utterly discordant and dis-harmonic noise of the cacophony of Hell. There is never an iota of proof to the unsubstantiated accusations which you spew. The Angelic Doctor taught this chatter to be outright rejected as it holds no truth. Amen. Save you soul Alphonsus. In caritas.
Do not make personal attacks on other commenters; keep to the objective issues. Let those who love God and the Holy Faith offer up their sufferings for their sins and the repentance and conversion of the unrepentant Apostates and sinners.
The Beatitudes are edifying, strengthening and consoling in these Dark evil days of General Apostasy and depravity. Let us continually ask for the graces necessary to accept human persecution for the Glory of God and salvation of souls. God bless and protect us and preserve us in the One Holy Faith. The Holy Rosary and devotions such as the Fatima scapular, etc., will help. Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless Mr Verrechio.
That’s the sort of thing I need to hear.
Desertcat. If you’re wise, you will flee this cesspool of vipers and won’t come back. The only think you’ll learn on this website is how to become a heretic. None of these clowns, beginning with the Chief Clown, Louie Verrecchio, knows what they’re talking about. This is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. If you want to learn the Faith, read the old catechisms and encyclicals.
Mr. Verrechio is not going to be blessed by God. He will be damned by God, and the sooner the better.
Well, at least you show the others here that it’s not just the “home-alone” sedes that condemn others here. Even those so-called enlightened “former” sede’s do it.
Louie, why do you continue to allow this?
We are to learn and know our Faith and to DISCERN and recognize, in the external forum (objectively speaking, as only God knows the heart, mind and will of the person) who is with us and who is against us. We are instructed by St. Paul and the Church to avoid heretics unless we engage for the purpose of converting them, for the love of God and their own good (in charity).
The above, however, is a real and classic case of JUDGING another, which Jesus Christ forbade us to do. The above just condemned Louie to hell in saying, “He WILL be damned by God.” THIS is where the line is crossed and this person – unless he repents – WILL eat those very words.
Poor, poor as depraved 2Vermont,
You remain a fool, as you do not even know, that you no more hold the One and true as divine and Catholic Faith, than does the imbecile whom you chastise. You do this with your catty as profane vernacular, which does itself speak, about your dull and darkened intellect. Amen. The others you accuse as, “sede”, or at least some among them, and you condemn them with the malice of forethought, and yet without any substance as objective proof and of course, use the very divine as infallible and binding as, “perpetual”, Holy Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as they bear witness to It. Your language is petulant as it is glib and you consider yourself as someone who actually holds the Catholic Faith. You do not the Will of the Father in Heaven and as this itself speaks as res ipsa loquitur and is your Judge, as it is the Judge of all perfectly miserable creatures. Amen. Woe is you as 2Vermont. Save your soul. Submit to the Catholic Faith. Amen. In caritas.
“If you’re wise, you will flee this cesspool of vipers and won’t come back. The only think you’ll learn on this website is how to become a heretic.”
And you’ll also learn from FormerSede how to be uncharitable, which is most definitely NOT a trait of a true Catholic.
FormerSede now knows the mind of Almighty God.
“Judge not, that you may not be judged,  For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.  And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?  Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?  Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)
And as far as I know at least recently, NO ONE but “Former Sede” has condemned / judged anyone. Discern vs. judge: there is a distinction.
I’m going to offer some constructive criticism for you; you come across as a chatbot, repeating the same language in a manner that doesn’t actually sound like another human being trying to talk to another human being. You come across as forcefully trying to have a high and holy affectation, which renders your entire disposition as insincere (because I honestly doubt you talk like this in real life).
At best, you come across as tone deaf while talking down **at** others, with no sense of self-reflection.
I’ve seen in other comments (such as in the very first one of this thread) that you don’t type in this manner all the time; you only adapt it when lambasting others (Tom A, 2Vermont, TPS, or otherwise) who have not come to the conclusion of “home-alone sedevacantism” that you have (which, I remind you, seens to come down to honest differences of interpretation).
It’s gotten old and tiresome.
Try talking with people who disagree with you like actual human beings.
“Cum Ex…., paragraph 6, has no distinctions, as it relates to the lack of true acceptance of the consecration of any would be, “Bishop”, dressed only as the part, should he ever, at any time, and without any time limit, be found by the faithful to have either, “deviated from the Faith” or to commit heresy, Amen. ~ In caritas
In caritas, if you believe Cum ex Apostolatus is in force, how do you explain that Leo XIII made John Henry Newman a Cardinal in 1878, in spite of the undeniable fact that “prior to … his elevation as Cardinal,” Newman had “deviated from the Catholic Faith” and “fallen into … heresy”? According to Cum ex. paragraph 6, this should have caused his elevation to be “null, void and worthless.”
Do you believe Newman was a cardinal, or do you believe his election was null, void and worthless?
See this video by Fr. Hesse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lcum8xetc
The above just condemned Louie to hell in saying, “He WILL be damned by God.” ~ ASB.
I will gladly add the caveat, “unless he converts and returns to the Church.”
“He [Mr. Verrechio] will be damned by God…”
But that would mean that people can go to hell, FormerSede, and you must know—being a member of the Vatican II church—that IF there is a hell then no one is there.
Newman was a convert. Please answer this, Former Sede: did he fall into some heresy after becoming a Catholic priest?
It would also mean that one cannot be saved unless he is in union with the Bishop of Rome, but Vatican II teaches exactly the opposite: Religious sects not in full communion ARE means of salvation.
Trying to get people to come back to the Vatican II church in order to be saved is therefore logically self refuting, and a useless enterprise.
If you accept Vatican II, you’re in the Vatican II church, so you can be saved, but Vatican II says it’s not necessary to be in union with it.
Which church is that? Certainly you don’t mean the church currently confirming many in their error and leading the multitudes to hell via apostasy and idolatry.
Vatican II doesn’t teach that. Where on earth are you getting your theology?
You’re surely going to get your own serve from In Caritas for that outburst, A Simple Man. How dare you?
I agree with you completely all the same.
ASB, no, but you adding a qualifier that is not found in Cum ex Apostolatus. What the bull teaches is that the elevation of a cardinal is null and void if he has previously deviated from the faith or fell into some heresy.
Cum ex Apostolatus: “6. In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;”
No exception is made for someone who repents after falling into heresy.
Don’t you all realize by now that Cum Ex means whatever IC and ASB need it to mean to justify their home alone position. A simpler approach is to simply raise doubts as to whether sspx and sede bishops had supplied jurisdiction. Then they could justify their home aloneism without having to dogmatically claim the end of Apostolic Succession, a claim they are in now way qualified or authorized to make.
The Papal Subject: “You’re surely going to get your own serve from In Caritas for that outburst, A Simple Man. How dare you?”
Now, TPS, it’s not A Simple Man. It’s “poor, poor Simple Man”.
FormerSede: “I will gladly add the caveat, “unless he converts and returns to the Church.””
Except what you said originally doesn’t allow for such a caveat. You said, “He will be damned by God, and the sooner the better.” That doesn’t sound like someone who hopes for his “conversion”, now does it?
2Vermont and A Simple Man–Welcome to the “Poor, poor depraved wretched” Club. The membership is growing and will continue to grow as long as commenters give poor poor wretched IC the attention he so badly craves. Sad.
Oh’ and of course, Simple Man,
You have completely blushed over the truth correcting your error, now demonstrated for you as well, of the Holy as divine Magisterium, from, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, and as also from the holy as infallible Vatican Council in 1870. The profound error as objectively held by Tom A, in his rejection of submission to the governing Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors by falsely claiming no Authority is left on the earth to Judge, and as to the assent of faith required, unto the submission of the will to the Vicar of Christ in his governing and disciplining Authority in the divine and, “perpetual”, Magisterium, which he Authoritatively taught is the same assent as with his teaching on the Faith and Morality, and at the pain of Hell, you also now objectively demonstrate holding, as you wrote this:
I don’t think anyone here has denied the binding nature of the papal magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary). However, I don’t think you can fully qualify ecclesial law (inasmuch as which portions deal with matters outside the purview of unchanging divine law) as being part of the perpetual magisterium, simply due to the historical fact that canon law has been subject to change and revision before regarding matters of jurisdiction, discipline, and ecclesial governance (the most recent change being the 1917 Code).”
The Authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XII was provided for you and of interest, it’s the only place where you failed to respond to me beneath what was written. You place an affront to the Magisterium when you claim that because Blessed Peter in his Successors hold the keys to bind and loose, and as thus his governing and disciplinary law, which binds with the required assent of faith, can change, that this somehow does not belong in the divine as perpetual Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. As you wrote this, “However, I don’t think you can fully qualify ecclesial law as being part of the perpetual magisterium, simply due to the historical fact that canon law has been subject to change and revision before regarding matters of jurisdiction, discipline, and ecclesial governance.”
The Vatican Council, as Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, binds the faithful in his governing and disciplining Authority, with the same assent of faith, as when the Vicar of Christ is teaching on Faith and Morality and at the pain of Hell. Period and end. This is Magisterial teaching, which if you deny, you cannot at once hold the holy, divine and Catholic Faith, as that is contradiction. Amen. The assent of faith is what is required of Magisterial teaching, the canons are Magisterial, as they hold the divine protection of being free from error, as explained previously, and we are bound to submit to them, in the same way as to the Vicar’s teaching on Faith and Morality, and at the pain of Hell. Amen. You also err in your slicing and dicing of the Singular as divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This idea of greater and lesser truth has been condemned in the Magisterium and of course as Truth is One, as it is Universal. The diabolical deception of, “ordinary”, versus, “extra-ordinary”, levels of Magisterial teaching is just that, diabolical deception, offered by false popes and theologians of the church of Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic, while desolate of all things Christ Jesus. Amen. Truth is Truth and as it all binds with the assent of faith and at the pain of Hell, that is the Vicar of Christ’s teaching, governing, and discipline, all part then of the perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This is Catholic Church teaching, which if rejected in the operation of the will, that person cannot hold the Catholic Faith, while at the same time rejecting any iota of Her Church teaching. Amen.
And so Simple Man, all you come back with is glib chatter about another’s style of writing. So once and again, as this thing itself does speak as res ipsa loquitur, you have no substantial argument to offer, and as thus you freely choose to reduce yourself to the attack of the other as in his person, not in admonition evidencing caritas, rather in a petulant as demeaning mode of attacking the other for style of writing. I pray that you submit one day to the One, True Faith. Amen. In caritas.
ASB: “And as far as I know at least recently, NO ONE but “Former Sede” has condemned / judged anyone. Discern vs. judge: there is a distinction.”
IC continuously tells others here that they do not hold the Catholic Faith. Then he goes on to say that they need to save their souls. He is condemning them. It’s much like the transitive property in math: If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
If you want me to believe that you aren’t also condemning us, then I await your condemnation of these sorts of comments in IC’s posts in the future.
I won’t hold my breath though.
And again 2Vermont,
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Judges you, yet you reject it and of course, as you objectively evidence you cannot hold the Catholic Faith. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” The Christ commanded that we will know the other by their fruits, as the good tree cannot produce evil fruit and the evil tree cannot produce good fruit. Do you deny The Christ 2Vermont? Of course you do, as this thing again itself speaks in your overt rejection of Magisterial teaching. Amen. You poor, poor soul. It’s all right there before your eyes and you remain blind to Truth. You cannot at once deny the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and hold the Catholic Faith. As you believe that you are receiving valid and licit Sacraments anywhere on the planet today, you deny the Holy and perpetual Magisterial teaching which God in His Providence, and of course, has prepared His true children for. His true children submit to Him, as He teaches and governs them, in His perpetual as never changing and never ending Magisterium. “My sheep hear My voice and they know Me.” I do pray that you save your soul. Amen. In caritas.
Your false sect, as a sect of the church of Antichrist, teaches that, “Bishops”, do not have to possess Apostolic Succession, and again as per the link you provided above, as you accused me of having my medication wear off. Oh’ the childish fool as he toys with his salvation. And yet again for your and anyone else’s perusal, now copied and pasted again from your link, paragraph 5:
““Now, there are at least two key questions here. 1. Were these men lawfully consecrated, or have they breached the law in doing so? 2. Is it lawful to approach such men for the sacraments? (A third question, are they Successors of the Apostles? has been answered – they’re not, and no amount of arguing will affect the answer, I believe.)”
And so what is your point about so called, “Vatican II”, and its false teaching? In caritas.
2Vermont: Although it has not been my personal approach, I cannot possibly contradict him without denying my Faith and what I know to be Truth.
He did not condemn (judge) anyone as in state that they are definitively going to hell. Only God knows our present status and our destiny, and if anyone actually READS anything with a mind to learn anything (despite who posts it), I have posted several times what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches regarding who has Faith and who has merely an opinion in accord with their own will.
That being said and again, Catholics MUST discern and we only have that which anyone demonstrates in the EXTERNAL FORUM to go on. St. Paul instructs that heretics must be avoided after the first and second admonition. In another place we are told that if anyone does not possess the very same Faith, we are to shake the dust off our feet, and even to not even let such as those set foot in our home. “Yawn…how mean! He’s telling us to judge!” Tell that to St. Paul, then.
The decision to take such an action involves discernment – is someone or some group WITH or AGAINST us? My goodness – that doesn’t involve damning someone to hell; the root of the action is actually CHARITY: love of God first, love of ourselves, and love of our neighbor for God’s sake. If you need to ask how and why that is then I don’t know what else to say.
Finally, “The Truth only hurts those living in error.” When I read or hear something here that I have determined to be false or a lie or a misconception with respect to the Faith, I don’t get angry about it because it doesn’t hurt me one bit. SOLO DIOS BASTA.
I know. They (conciliarists) are not big on logic and consistency.
Let me rephrase that last bit: I don’t get angry as in take it personally because it doesn’t hurt me one bit; any anger or emotion I may feel arises only out of hatred of heresy, error and ultimately LIES.
I want only to save my soul and I desire just the same for everyone else here. However, if we aren’t as passionate about exposing the LIES that can damn us as we are about our own will, our pride and our opinions, then we might just end up in the wrong place afterall.
Not sure whom you are addressing here. If it’s me, regarding my comment that “…you must know—being a member of the Vatican II church—that IF there is a hell then no one is there…” then I would have to say that John Paul II’s teaching on universal salvation (among his many other evil words and actions) teaches just that. After all, HE was Mr. Vatican II. He rammed the poison of that “council” down the throats of those who didn’t get it that he was doing Satan’s work in undermining the Faith—and those who “didn’t get it” comprised most of the laity. Only a relative few saw what was going on and condemned it outright.
If you don’t believe that there was a deliberate no-one-goes-to-hell component in the “Springtime of Vatican II” then take a survey of Novus Ordo clerics on the subject and see what you get. Vatican II was all about destroying the Faith as it had been known for 2000 years. It was Satan’s masterpiece. What better way to have souls fall into eternal hell than by telling them that the place doesn’t even exist, that it’s a fairy tale? If you convince someone that hell doesn’t exist, then they do not ALSO have to be told that they can do whatever they please here on earth with no consequences.
As I suspected.
Yup. We all need to put him and those that condone him on permanent ignore. Perhaps they’ll dust their feet and move along.
Okay, here I go: Get over yourSELF. I DID NOT, NOR WILL I, JUDGE OR CONDEMN YOU, 2Vermont, TO HELL. To say otherwise is a LIE. If anything condemns you – aside from your sins – it will be The Truth, not pathetic little ol’ me. Give me and yourSELF a break…
I only give your posts a cursory glance through these days. I was not talking to you, but you obviously think this is your blog, and this comment section belongs to you, so you jump on every post as if you own the joint.Such condescending arrogance. Period and End. I gather you missed the point of what I wrote entirely, and to whom it was addressed. You can figure it out of you want, but it’s nothing to do with you.
Two questions for one or both of you:
A) Are you in the State of Grace?
B) IF you were to die within the next 5 minutes , where would you go?
Notwithstanding that Pius XII’s encyclical was addressing a situation in Communist China that was of a rather different nature and circumstance than what is currently facing the Church post-V2, I don’t agree with your interpretation of it that implies each and every aspect of Canon law is perpetual and unchanging (simply because of the fact that certain ecclesial laws and disciplines have, in fact, changed over time; to deny this is to deny history).
Furthermore, there are aspects of Canon law that are flatly impossible to apply **today** as a result of the extended papal vacancy, and it goes without saying that a law which is impossible to enforce is no law at all. If episcopal consecrations are necessary to pass along Apostolic Succession, can such traditional bishops who did so truly be said to act in **defiance** of the Apostolic See if said See is vacant? Do you think they acted out of arrogance or willful blindness? You may argue so, but I would contend that to be an extremely uncharitable view of their actions.
Because you have chosen to maintain your obtuse and longwinded style (and by the way, criticizing said style as being detrimental to your arguments is in no way an ad hominem, despite what you apparently believe), there is only one more thing I’d like to comment on:
“You also err in your slicing and dicing of the Singular as divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This idea of greater and lesser truth has been condemned in the Magisterium and of course as Truth is One, as it is Universal. The diabolical deception of, “ordinary”, versus, “extra-ordinary”, levels of Magisterial teaching is just that, diabolical deception”
Now you’re just being unreasonable. Vatican I itself differentiates between the extraordinary and ordinary, universal magisterium. It did not differentiate in terms of truth, but in terms of certain traits of authoritative power; to imply I was differentiating between the two in regards to their level of truth (as though the ordinary magisterium were lesser than the extraordinary magisterium, which is a preposterous notion, I’m sure you’ll agree) is just being silly, and not supported by any kind of context whatsoever.
But, based on past performance, I’m sure you’ll respond to this post with yet more of your “admonitions”, denigrating me as yet another who lacks the One True Faith simply because we disagree on matters of interpretation. I don’t doubt that you’re motivated by good intentions, but your demeanor is quite simply a turn-off, rendering almost everything you say an exercise in futility.
Have a good evening!
Why don’t you answer those two questions first?
I am the one asking the questions. Would you like to be the first to answer? As I suspected, they will not. Interesting.
Oh my, FormerSede. You have to be kidding me, right? It is obviously implied that this pertains to a member of the Church – for as long as he has been a member of the Church. Obviously a convert was in heresy prior to abdjuring and joining the Church. It speaks of one “deviating from the Catholic Faith” WHILE A MEMBER and the same applies with “fallen into….heresy.” How can one “fall” or “deviate” FROM something they do not belong to in the first place?
This is Protestantism at its very best. Pray for the Truth of these matters before it’s too late.
The Church is the the place where we are seeking to be judged, by Christ, in this life before our death. We want to know truth and where we stand before it’s too late to do anything about it. All of the Church teachings are judgments in themselves; now, if we believe them, and apply them in reality first to ourselves, then inevitably, we must in all charity teach and share it with others.
IC cannot be personally condemning anyone when he’s pointing out errors according to Church teaching. If he’s wrong about some Church teaching, then where’s the rebuttal? People are constantly attacking and mocking him, but never seem to point out exactly where he is in error. They even claim he needs to “seek help”, but don’t offer any advice where to find it. It certainly isn’t forthcoming.
What’s really “getting old” in this forum is those people who typically and constantly must reduce everything written down to “personal opinion”. Too much freaking Facebook. You could be quoting Popes and Councils and Scripture, in all charity, but it really doesn’t matter, if it’s coming from someone personally, then it must be just their “personal” opinion and judgment or interpretation. No objective discernment considered.
If IC is wrong or in error or heresy, then point it out clearly; if you don’t like his style, then keep your peace. Man up and thank God that everyone and everything isn’t run through that worldly PC meat grinder, that cranks out everything and everyone catatonic; nice and flat and mediocre to the current and common modern tastes and feelings, all living on a make-believe spinning ball, flying though empty space, to no purpose.
In all charity, leave IC to be and express himself as he will, and be more concerned with what he is actually saying. Catholics are few and far between, and hated enough by the world.
Do you DARE to imply that God (and the Saints) failed to answer my months-long desperate and agonizing pleas for the Truth of these matters; and that instead he gave me moral certitude regardng a lie? Do you know what happened to me during the Consecration at the last Sede chapel mass I attended, after having told God that I’d rather DIE than to commit idolatry with a mere piece of bread, and asked Him not to allow me to do so ever again? No, you do not. Do you have ANY idea whatsoever, how much I suffered during that time while I was in the final stages of seeking the TRUTH? No, you do not. Furthermore what all this has cost me, and still is to cost me? No, you don’t. No – to all of it. So therefore STOP. Stop with the derogatory term. It’s called Catholicism. It’s called obedience, and not license. It’s called putting Truth above all things, and following Christ to the humiliation and DESOLATION of the CROSS during this ECLIPSE of the CHURCH.
At least stop being a tool of the devil.
I already explored supplied jurisdiction and rejected it, and it’s not my opinion but the Truth which you reject. I am finished with opinions. I’ve already heard and even believed for at least a moment ALL of the so-called loopholes stated here, including yours. “Yawn”, as someone here likes to say. When I think on “where could I possibly receive valid and licit Sacraments, without committing sacrilege, without ONE iota of doubt?”, and I revisit each of the existing positions or sects in my head, the answer is always NOWHERE. I know what you’ll say to this as you’ve said it ad nauseum so don’t bother. Call it what you will; has Truth ever been popular? NO. NEVER, and especially not now.
I’ll leave you with this: if Apostolic Succession is still on the earth, then how did we end up with a Francis (Antichrist) sitting in Peter’s Chair? If you don’t think that this situation in which we find ourselves now and since 1958 isn’t EXACTLY what Cum ex was trying to thwart, then you can’t be helped. How else would we get to “the abomination of desolation” before our very eyes? Where are these so-called successors to the Apostles of which you speak? Are they shouting from the rooftops? No. They are dead silent! And when you approach one of their so-called priests, politely, with a valid and critical question re: Jurisdiction, you get a short, annoyed and impatient “party-line” response. Very, very suspicious. “By their fruits you will know them.”
I suffer and I fight for the Truth under the Standard of Christ the King. What are you suffering and fighting for, Tom A, but your own comfort, your questionable “successors” and your doubtful sacraments?
“Let us fight, hoping against hope itself, which is what I wish to tell faint-hearted Christians, slaves to popularity, worshippers of success and shaken by the least advance of evil. Given how they feel, please God they will be spared the agonies of the world’s final trial. Is that trial close or is it still far off? Nobody knows, and I will not dare to make a guess. But one thing is certain, namely that the closer we come to the end of the world, the more and more it is wicked and deceitful men who will gain the upper hand. The Faith will hardly be found on earth, meaning that it will almost have disappeared from earthly institutions. Believers themselves will hardly dare to profess their belief in public, or in society.
“The splitting, separating and divorcing of States from God which was for St Paul a sign foretelling the end, will advance day by day. The Church, while remaining always a visible society, will be reduced more and more to dimensions of the individual and the home. When she started out she said she was being shut in, and she called for more room to breathe, but as she approaches her end on earth, so she will have to fight a rearguard action every inch of the way, being surrounded and hemmed in on all sides. The more widely she spread out in previous ages, the greater the effort will now be made to cut her down to size. Finally the Church will undergo what looks like a veritable defeat, and the Beast will be given to make war on the Saints and to overwhelm them. The insolence of evil will be at its peak.”
~Cardinal Pie, France,1815-1880
Lastly, with respect to the approach taken by In caritas, read and LEARN the Haydock Bible Commentary on the Epistle of of the Apostle Jude verse 22, “curiously” placed as the last Epistle before the Apocalypse:
 “Reprove, being judged”: He gives them another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three sorts of persons: 1 st, With persons obstinate in their errors and sins; these may be said to be already judged and condemned; they are to be sharply reprehended, reproved, and if possible convinced of their error. 2 d, As to others you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great danger of. 3 d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt manners, that defile both the soul and body.
Now, I REST.
Thank you – that was all very well said and thought-provoking (and I appreciate the “spinning ball” part ;).
Hello again james__o,
Wonderful to, “hear your voice”, again. God be with you. It is true and beautiful and good, what you have written, as it relates Truth. Amen. Alleluia. Personal opinion, as the Angelic Doctor taught, not worth much, as in the very opinion rests doubt about one’s own position, while thinking it is likely correct, while at once not certain if the opposing position is wrong. That is, “opinion”, and all that it is worth…..less. It is apodictic certitude which the truly non-Catholic, while dressing the part, despises, and as The Christ commanded: They will hate you for the Name you choose to bear. Amen. Alleluia. They despise caritas as an infinitely lesser reflection of Caritas, as they substitute a malignant rancor for it, deceived from within their deepest interiority, into believing that the privation of charity, the good which is in justice truly due the other, indeed is charity. It is sorrowful and ever so, bearing witness to, as the holy Magisterium Judges them, as it Judges all, while they remain as perfectly blind to Truth. Amen. May Almighty God continue to bless you and yours’, james__o. In caritas.
And yes again A Simple Man,
What you may, “agree on”, has no bearing whatsoever on Truth as it is, as per the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. What is truth according to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas? The absolute conforming of one’s intellect to the, “reality as it is”, the thing as it is, and not how A Simple Man or In caritas may think it to be. Thus, save your comments about what you may agree or disagree with, to paper your wall with perhaps, because that is all your opinion or mine is worth. You are about to see why this becomes, “long winded”, in your vernacular as the demonstration of the errors and the correction of same is tedious. Now to begin thus.
Your first profound, yes profound error, is your framing the Magisterium now into a geographically confined context, while in Truth, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (and yes again there is only one and that correction is forthcoming) is just that, Universal, as though A Simple Man can alter the Universality of the Holy Faith by geographical location. That is a profoundly distorted understanding of what the Singular Magisterium is. When the Vicar of Christ taught and governed, he always as without exception, taught and governed both the locality in specific case and the Universal Church, as Truth is Universal. Amen. The authentic Catholic, “both/and”, concept of understanding. Now for the infallible proof A Simple Man. Firstly know, that Pope Pius XII essentially quoted the Vatican Council’s teaching, in that paragraph which I copied and pasted from, “Ad Apostolorum Principis” (“AAP”), about the same assent of faith required in submission for governing and discipline, as in the teaching on Faith and Morals and the pain of Hell as a consequence. Now from, “AAP”, as it relates the Universal nature of this teaching and governing, as all Papal teaching’s application, to not just China and of course, but the Universal Church.
“44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.”
Now and yet again, your opinion, as that is all it is, as stated by you here:
“I don’t agree with your interpretation of it that implies each and every aspect of Canon law is perpetual and unchanging (simply because of the fact that certain ecclesial laws and disciplines have, in fact, changed over time; to deny this is to deny history).”
While it is intuitively understood and as history speaks, that by the very nature of the, “keys to bind and loose”, that the governance of Holy Church could be changed, the Holy Magisterium where this governing Authority rests, as the governing Authority requires the assent of faith of every member of the Church, as definitively and Authoritatively taught by the Vatican Council and “AAP”, is perpetual, as in itself it is unchanging and unending. An analogical description might be as the locked safe does not change, the contents within it can. The fact that the contents within the safe can be changed does not alter the nature of the safe as remaining as it is, regardless of its contents.
You see A Simple Man, this Authoritative and binding teaching of Pope Pius XII, given about 3 months before his death, does apply specifically to this as our time and now. You must know that where the Holy Roman Pontiff makes no distinctions, there simply CANNOT BE ANY EXCEPTIONS HAD and this is Authoritative teaching from Pope Leo XIII, in, “Satis Cognitum”. Pope Pius XII definitively applied his, “discipline”, as he even codifies it, as applying to the, “whole Church”, as copied and pasted for your edification. There is and of course, NO TIME LIMIT, on Magisterial teaching as perpetual. Amen. It applies as specifically in our time as it did then in 1958. There simply cannot be any licit Bishops without Papal Mandate as anywhere or ever thus, as he did not make any distinctions in this edict, thus no exceptions to the law allowed. The ramifications of this are of course spectacular, as no licit Bishops means NO JURISDICTION for them as illicit and without the Vicar of Christ present for 61 years and Apostolic Succession lost, there simply cannot be Jurisdiction present in the cosmos, in any event, as you simply CANNOT SUPPLY THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE. This pure conjecture of, “supplied Jurisdiction”, is pure absurdity, as it is heresy, as the divine Gift of Jurisdiction was, “episcopal and immediate”, as given to Blessed Peter in his Successors alone. Denying that, one then denies the Catholic Faith. Amen. This known, there cannot be any VALID priests, as to be valid, they must first be, “clerics”, to be the proper ontological matter to receive the Sacrament of Order, as Holy Trent Authoritatively taught. “Tonsure” is NOT a power of Order, rather it is a power of Jurisdiction. Amen. No possible Jurisdiction in the cosmos without the Vicar of Christ present, no Jurisdiction to supply therefore, as it is an absurdity to suggest that you can supply that which you do not have, yet alone damnable heresy. No Jurisdiction, absolutely no ability to, “tonsure”, a cleric, thus no ontological matter to receive the Sacrament of Order, thus no priests, thus no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, thus the prophesy of Daniel 9:27 is fulfilled. Amen.
Lastly for now, there are NO DISTINCTIONS given for the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. This is utterly important to know and hold as true. Lucifer and his human slaves have created all kinds of lies and perversions of truth by suggesting the Magisterium is anything other than ONE as UNIVERSAL and WITHOUT distinction. The, “Ex Cathedra”, proclamation of the Vatican Council is not some element of the Magisterium, no, it is a Charism again as given exclusively to Blessed Peter in his Successors. It is that power that only the Vicar of Christ possesses to define infallibly any doctrine he wishes and whenever he wishes to define it, without any approval from any man or men in the cosmos needed, as his exclusive power. Whatever he may define with that power, then rests in the same Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as anything defined at an Ecumenical Council or as any ordinary teaching that may be present as well. One Magisterium, several ways of getting infallible teaching as part of it. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray this helps. In caritas.
TPS: Join me in the permanent ignore. ASB and his home-alone cohorts thrive on us continuing to respond to them. These questions were clearly meant to keep me/us from ignoring them. And now, he’s insinuating that we’re not answering them because of some other reason than….because we just said we were putting him on ignore! It’s actually quite comical.
You just can’t help your poor self now can you 2Vermont? What would be laughable, was it not for the objective evidence of the witness of your sure and personal path to eternal damnation, as you objectively remain outside the Holy Church where there is no salvation to be found, deFide, would be your utter childish foolishness, demonstrating a dull while implacable intellect, you poor fool. You think, as does Tom A, that this is a game of cat and mouse. You think ASB, who is she by the way, enjoys engaging fools like you, toying with your very salvation, when you are deceived into believing that you are playing a game, of toying with the other in your midst? Poor, poor as objectively ridiculous fool. The Holy Writ Judge you 2Vermont, as the Holy Writ Judges all, as now from Matthew 7:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring for the good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Are you doing the Will of Jesus the Christ’s Father in Heaven, 2Vermont? I’m just askin’. In caritas.
” Vatican II teaches exactly the opposite: Religious sects not in full communion ARE means of salvation.” ~ TPS.
Is this the teaching you are referring to? “Unitatis redintegratio (# 3): “It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
There are tens of thousands of souls who were baptized in “separated churches and communities” as infants, died before reaching the age of reason, and are in heaven right now. These souls attest to the fact that God did not refrain from using “separated churches and communities” in the mystery of salvation. Understood in this sense, the teaching of Vatican II is true.
And the Truth is, that if those heretics don’t baptize with the proper intent, which is to do as THE Church does as in remove original sin (most do not, including the Vatican II church), then in reality the baptism is not valid but only a symbol of the joining of one to their heretical sect.
“And the Truth is, that if those heretics don’t baptize with the proper intent, which is to do as THE Church does as in remove original sin (most do not, including the Vatican II church), then in reality the baptism is not valid” ~ ASB
The Orthodox believe baptism washes away Original Sin, and they have baptized countless infants who died before the age of reason. That being said, your underlying argument is false. The minister of baptism does not have to intend to wash away Original Sin, nor is it requisite for him to believe it does so. The Holy Office cleared this up in the 19th century.
The Holy Office, December 18, 1872: “In some places, heretics baptize with the proper matter and the form simultaneously applied, but they expressly warn those to be baptized not to believe that baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is merely the external sign of aggregation of the sects. And so often the Catholics in their crowd turn around their belief about the effects of Baptism, and call it superstitious.
“Question: 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul?
“Question 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?”
“Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church is not excluded.
“Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first.” (Dubium quoad Baptisma administratam ab haereticis.” Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV)
Council of Trent
If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema. (Denz. 860)
Former Sede and ASB, you are both mistaken about Baptism. If ANYONE pours water over another’s head and uses the correct trinitarian formula, they are externally presumed to have proper intention, regardless of whatever sect they may or may not belong too. The sacrament is therefore conferred. This is all basic sacramental theology.
ASB, you are wrong to infer that the validity of baptism somehow resides with the internal intention on the baptizer or the sect he belongs too. The Church has always taught that intention derives from the performance of the ritual as prescribed by the Church, not the minister’s intention or understanding of the sacrament.
Formersede, you are wrong when you infer that a heretic validly baptizing an infant means that sect is the means of salvation. That sect stole the Sacraments from the Catholic Church. That sect is not nor ever a means of salvation.
“Council of Trent: If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema. (Denz. 860)” ~ ASB.
And your point is? What you don’t understand is that the intention of “doing what the Church does,” does not require the intention to wash away Original Sin. That is the effect of the sacrament, and intending the effect is not required. In truth, very little is required for a valid intention. With a few exceptions, the general intention to baptize is all it takes.
Earlier you said “the Vatican II Church” does not believe baptism washes away Original Sin. Here’s what the Catechism of “the Vatican II Church” teaches:
“1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.”
“Former Sede and ASB, you are both mistaken about Baptism. If ANYONE pours water over another’s head and uses the correct trinitarian formula, they are externally presumed to have proper intention, regardless of whatever sect they may or may not belong too. The sacrament is therefore conferred. This is all basic sacramental theology.” ~ Tom A
Not if the “anyone” is a Mormon. Mormons baptize using the trinitarian formula, yet their baptisms are invalid.
“Formersede, you are wrong when you infer that a heretic validly baptizing an infant means that sect is the means of salvation. That sect stole the Sacraments from the Catholic Church. That sect is not nor ever a means of salvation.” ~ Tom A
If a sedevacantist priest baptizes an infant in his sect, it is true that the heretic would have stolen the Sacrament from the Catholic Church and administered it illicitly, but in spite of that, if the child were to die before reaching the age of reason, the actions of the priest, which he performed in his capacity as minister of his sect, would have been an instrumental means of salvation. Understood in this sense, it would be true to say God did not refrain from using his sect, and his actions specifically, as a means (instrumental means) of salvation. The same would be true if the child had been baptized in any other heretical sect.
The Vatican II rite itself contradicts what they state there. I’m rusty with respect to the arguments on why there is doubt, but nevertheless I know enough to know that I must wholeheartedly reject the church to which you belong, and I do. The Vatican II church has anathemetized itself.
Recognize and Reject – it’s called being a Catholic.
FormerSede, that is the problem with Vatican2, you need the qualifier “understood in this sense” to explain away the contradictions. As regards to Mormon baptisms, I believe they were considered valid prior to 1958. I believe theNO conciliar false church changed it, which is so ironic. The NO was actually were concerned with doctrinal differences. That’s a laugh.
It was not the “sect” itself that was the means of salvation, it was Baptism that was the means, which is and always was the rite of the Holy Catholic Church. That’s what saves/saved that child, not the sect. You didn’t understand what Tom A was saying.
Baptism brings one under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, not heretics, schismatics or apostates. That’s why we baptize babies.
Also by the same logic, that makes you wrong above when you applied it to
“Unitatis redintegratio”, when the statement you made to “explain” away how heretical sects are a means of salvation; is busted at best, ridiculous to say the least.
Sorry, that won’t fly.
“FormerSede, that is the problem with Vatican2, you need the qualifier “understood in this sense” to explain away the contradictions.” ~ Tom A
There’s no contradiction. Everyone knows the battle between the organized modernists at Vatican II, and the truly Catholic bishops, who were caught-off-guard, resulted in ambiguous language, but the teaching in question is not objectionable. It could have been worded better, but that’s no reason to leave the Church.
“It was not the “sect” itself that was the means of salvation, it was Baptism that was the means…you didn’t understand what Tom A. was saying.” ~ James O.
I understood what he was saying but you didn’t understand what I was saying.
The instrumental means, or instrumental cause, is the person who administers the sacrament, and if he does so as a religious ceremony in his sect, as a representative of the sect, and if the child died before the age of reason and is saved, it is not objectionable to say God did not refrain from using the sect in the mystery of salvation.
“The Vatican II rite itself contradicts what they state there.” ~ ABS
No it doesn’t.
“I know enough to know that I must wholeheartedly reject the church to which you belong, and I do.” ~ ABS.
Where’s the Church you belong to?
Refresh my memory then: why do some say that N.O. baptisms are doubtful?
It is Trent that adds to the requirement of validity: “with the intention of doing what the (Catholic) Church does”. Again, I’m rusty in this area and very busy, so I have no issue with any errors being pointed out. I just don’t want anything at all to do with that Beast thing posing as the Catholic Church.
Yes it is objectionable, because the logic is inverted. God could save the child through His Rite of Baptism, in spite of “the one who administered it” and in spite of his sect.
“No man can find salvation save in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic
Church he can find everything except salvation. He can have dignities, he can have the Sacraments, can sing ‘Alleluia,’ answer ‘Amen,’ accept the Gospels, have faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too, but NEVER except in the Catholic Church can he find salvation.”
From the moment that child is baptized he is now Catholic and under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, until the age of reason.
Sorry for any confusion, I was saying that the NO considers mormon baptisms invalid. I have never heard of any reasoning as to why NO baptisms could be invalid. It is also my understanding, if memory serves me correctly, that prior to 1958, the Church considered mormon baptisms valid.
“Yes it is objectionable, because the logic is inverted. God could save the child through His Rite of Baptism, in spite of “the one who administered it” and in spite of his sect.” ~ James O
But if God didn’t chose to save the child through His Rite of Baptism in spite of “the one who administered it,” and in spite of his sect, the one who administered, as the representative of his sect, was the instrumental means of salvation that God used in the mystery of salvation.
The effect of the baptism administered by the heretic was the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul and the washing away of original sin, and incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, which made the child a member of the Catholic Church and a subject of the Pope. All this was accomplished in a non-Catholic sect by the efforts of a heretic, who “God did not refrain from using in the mystery of salvation.”
ST. AUGUSTINE: “No man can find salvation save in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can find everything except salvation. He can have dignities, he can have the Sacraments, can sing ‘Alleluia,’ answer ‘Amen,’ accept the Gospels, have faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too, but NEVER except in the Catholic Church can he find salvation.” ~ James_O
The Catholic Church is a juridical society, infallible and indefectible, constituted with a divinely established hierarchy, consistng of legitimate successors of the apostles – bishops with authority to teach and govern – under the the visible headship of the Pope.
If that doesn’t describe the church you belong to, you don’t belong to the Catholic Church, and if you don’t belong to the Catholic Church, you can “sing ‘Alleluia’, and answer ‘Amen,’” you can ” have faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too,” but never will you find salvation.
Council of Florence: “[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and 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 (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).
I gather from what I’ve read so far, that the NO “rite” of Baptism could be considered “valid”, in the same way that all baptisms can be done by most anyone and considered valid with the right form and intent.
However as far as the pseudo-church is concerned, like all their other so-called “sacraments” they radically changed the rite itself, “promulgated” on May 15, 1969, omitting pretty much all of the old Rite content, including the exorcism.
But of course, in the end we are always left with, “a doubtful Sacrament is no Sacrament”. A conditional baptism would always be necessary when in doubt, just like the protestant baptisms.
That was my line of thinking, and yes it’s frightening how they removed the Rite of Exorcism. I have to wonder how God views baptisms performed in the false church. What I mean is that this isn’t your ordinary, heretical sect. This is THE antithesis of the Catholic Church, the church of the Antichrist. If it IS valid – and whatever the definitive answer is I assent to that – then where is the evidence of Grace at work within the vast majority of its members?
Mormon baptism valid…now that’s interesting.
Remembering that as God’s grace perfects our miserably fallen human nature, that grace is a Gift, both freely given and completely undeserved. Like any gift, it must be first, “opened”, and then used in accordance with God’s commands, otherwise it remains unopened and unknown to the receiver thus, “almost” as though it had never been received. The Christ commanded, He who knows My commands and follows them, loves Me, and as I Am in the Father, you are in Me, and I in you. Amen. Alleluia. His commands of course and as you well know, are found in His Holy, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
A fraudulent “catholic” anti-church performing baptisms?!
That’s in a frightening category unto itself. I’m sorry I compared it with the protestants, now that you mentioned it.
“But of course, in the end we are always left with, “a doubtful Sacrament is no Sacrament”.” – James_O
They are only doubtful for those who allow the heretics to sow subjective doubt in their mind. If you disagree, and believe the Sacraments are objectively doubtful, in se, pick any Sacrament you like – the most doubtful of all – and I bet you can’t make a cogent argument in favor of its doubtful validity.
The doubtful Sacraments (at best) are those administered by sedevacantist “priests”. Their absolutions are all invalid, except perhaps in the case of death; all the marriages they perform are invalid, and many of the priests ordinations, and most of the bishops consecrations, are highly suspect.
Maybe the pre 1958 Church considered mormon baptisms doubtful and required conditional baptism. It makes sense since they have a different intention and do not intend to do what the Catholic Church does when they “baptize.” The NO did rule they were invalid, but the NO is no more the Catholic Church than the mormons. Just heretics of a different flavor.
Thank you and I had been thinking along those lines in the back of my mind. Essentially it was changed (addressing James as well) into a Protestant baptism. I suppose it’s much like everything else: where there is no distinction, no distinction can be made (if I even have that right – I think I’m suffering a bit of “burnout”.) God bless and keep you both.
There is plenty of doubt in the NO 1968 new Rites of Ordination. Especially the vernacular translations. Read them for yourself and then read Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis.
“Oh my, FormerSede. You have to be kidding me, right? It is obviously implied that this pertains to a member of the Church – for as long as he has been a member of the Church. Obviously a convert was in heresy prior to abdjuring and joining the Church. It speaks of one “deviating from the Catholic Faith” WHILE A MEMBER and the same applies with “fallen into….heresy.” How can one “fall” or “deviate” FROM something they do not belong to in the first place?” ~ ASB
You’re wrong for a number of reasons. First, Cardinal Newman had been a member of the Church prior to falling into heresy. He became a member when he was baptized in the Anglican church as a child, since the effect of the baptism of children, regardless of who administers it, is incorporation into the Church. Newman ceased to be a member when he reached his early teens and willingly embraced the Anglican sect, of which he later became a priest.
Second, no where does Cum ex Apostolatus say the election of a Cardinal who had previously deviated from the faith, and later repented and returned to the Faith, is valid. That exception is no where to be found, nor is it logically implied. Quite the contrary.
Prior to the 1917 Code of Canon law, the Church considered it an impediment to the reception of Holy Orders if the candidate’s mother or father were heretics, even if the candidate himself had never fallen into heresy.
MacKenzie explains the reason for this impediment in his book, The Delict of Heresy (1932): “This seeming injustice is explained away by the fact that simple impediments are not punishments, but simply the result of certain facts which render promotion to Orders improper. The heretical status of parents is such a fact. It creates a justified fear that the children are not of the proper type, and have not lived in the proper environment to be suitable candidates for the high dignity and grave responsibilities of the clergy, especially in the primary duty of guiding the faithful in the knowledge and practice of Catholic faith.”
If heretical parents are an impediment to the reception of Holy Orders for a Catholic who had never personally fallen into heresy, how much more of an impediment would it be for someone that had been a full blown heretic himself, trained in a heretical seminary, and having served as a heretical priest for most of his adult life, to be appointed to the exalted office of Cardinal?
So, I return to my original question. If Cum ex Apostolatus is still in force, how could Newman have obtain the office of Cardinal?
“There is plenty of doubt in the NO 1968 new Rites of Ordination. Especially the vernacular translations. Read them for yourself and then read Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis.” ~ Tom A.
I’ve spent years researching and studying the new rites of ordination and consecration, and there is no objective doubt due to a deficiency in the form of either. And the form is what the heretics point to as the alleged cause of doubt.
If the new rites were objectively clear in the Form and the intention, there would be no dispute on the matter. But there is dispute.
You see them as clearly valid, some see reason for objective and positive doubt, while others see them as objectively and positively invalid.
So you formerly believed the See of Peter was vacant and now you believe that it’s occupied by the Vicar of Jesus the Christ, yes? “Lumen Gentium”–“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, paragraph 16, “Solemnly Promulgated”, by, “His Holiness Pope Paul VI”, “November 21, 1964”, yes. That which is, “solemnly promulgated”, by a Vicar of Christ in Union with his Bishops at Ecumenical Council, a “Dogmatic Constitution” by name and no less, requires the assent of faith, at the pain of Hell if rejected. Anyone who rejects that deFide command simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as to suggest the contrary is utter contradiction, as to claim that one can both hold and reject the One True Faith in the operation of their will, at one and the same time, which is patent absurdity, yes.
Exam now Lumen Gentium 16, the principal part of it:
” But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”
Now the question for you, FormerSede. Do you assent to this dogmatic teaching, and at the pain of Hell in rejection of it, from the, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, “Lumen Gentium”, as “Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul IV”, on November 21, 1964?
God have mercy on you. In caritas.
Oh’, and then there’s TPS and Tom A to the rescue,
TPS opines this:
“You see them as clearly valid, some see reason for objective and positive doubt, while others see them as objectively and positively invalid.”
Poor, poor TPS. What difference could any of that gibberish of yours’ possibly make? How could the, “reality as it is”, the truth of the matter, ever be affected by any miserable creature’s opinion? You might hold the opinion that a quarter is more valuable than a dollar. Does that opinion of yours in any iota of any way affect the, “reality as it is”, the truth that is, that the dollar is actually worth more than the quarter? Your worthless opinions have no impact, none, on the substantial reality as it is. Period and end. You have no idea just how foolish you are do you? The Angelic Doctor taught that opinion is worth nothing in matters deFide. He taught that the intellect must perfectly conform to the, “reality as it is”, and that is, “truth”. How could you possibly give a damn about human opinion in matters deFide? Then there’s Tom A who proffers the claim that this thing that calls itself the, “Catholic Church”, since the death of Pope Pius XII, simply cannot be, and yet he wastes his time in the diabolical conundrum, as do you TPS, with this imbecilic fool, as FormerSede, sucking you both into the false church of Antichrist. That creature beast thing from Hell is either the Catholic Church or it is not, as it CANNOT BOTH BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT BE, at the same time. If its not the Catholic Church, why the hell would you care what, “sacraments”, it offers? You utter fools. How could any of that beast’s sacraments be valid, but for Baptism, when its not the Catholic Church that offers those, “sacraments”, and you have acknowledged that you believe it’s not the Catholic Church. Wake up you fools. You hold contradictions the likes of which would cause a pious and properly catechized 10 year old to shudder in terror. God have mercy on you. In caritas.
FormerSede said, with regard to Cardinal Newman’s entry into the Catholic Church: “… the effect of the baptism of children, regardless of who administers it, is incorporation into the Church.”
Wrong. Baptism removes original sin, allowing one to then enter Heaven IF one embraces Christ’s Holy religion, i.e. the Catholic religion.
(See Council of Trent, Session VI, Decrees on Justification and on Reformation.)
Well, it’s painfully obvious that without a true and valid Pope, you FormerSede, can have no way of verifying/knowing that those so-called “sacraments” of your pseudo-church are valid, and yes, it’s because as you pointed out, that “church” is crawling with heretics that do nothing but objectively sow “subjective doubt” in the minds of those who seek truth. And because of this, there is no way of verifying the validity of any bishop or priest, period.
No Pope, no deal. Is that cogent enough for you?
You will first have to argue that Francis is a “pope” and all his predecessors from Roncalli. Good luck. And that’s where I suppose we’ll hear some more of your strange doctrines, like heretics being “instruments of salvation”, as you mentioned above concerning baptism.
So, get busy typing and twist us all up with some more of your sophistry.
“Wrong. Baptism removes original sin, allowing one to then enter Heaven IF one embraces Christ’s Holy religion, i.e. the Catholic religion. (See Council of Trent, Session VI, Decrees on Justification and on Reformation.)” ~ MMF
Heretics always affirm one truth, to deny another. The removal of Original Sin is one of the effects of baptism, incorporation into the Church as a member is another.
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: “Nature and Effects of Baptism
“1 Question. What is the sacrament of Baptism?
“Answer. Baptism is a sacrament by which we are born again to the grace of God, and become Christians.
“2 Question. What are the effects of the sacrament of Baptism?
“Answer. The sacrament of Baptism confers first sanctifying grace by which original sin is washed away, as well as all actual sin if any such exists; it remits all punishment due on account of such sins; it imprints the character of a Christian; it makes us children of God, MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH Church, and heirs to Paradise, and enables us to receive the other sacraments.”
“That which is, “solemnly promulgated”, by a Vicar of Christ in Union with his Bishops at Ecumenical Council, a “Dogmatic Constitution” by name and no less, requires the assent of faith, at the pain of Hell if rejected.” ~ In caritas.
In caritas, like all other sedevacantists, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just because a document has been solemnly promulgated does not mean everything contained therein requires the assent of faith. NOTHING in Vatican II requires the assent of faith by virtue of being promulgated by Pope Paul VI. The only teachings of Vatican II that require the assent of faith, are those that were de fide before the council repeated them.
FormerSede, and where did you learn your doctrine that the faithful can simply ignore a Council. Have you ever read the document that the Heresiarch Montini used to promulgate V2? Why are some of the documents called Dogmatic Constitutions? Since when do Catholics get to dismiss Papal teachings? Has any Pope or real Catechism ever taught the faithful that they could decide what was de fide or not? Before you were defending V2 saying there was nothing wrong with it, now you are saying we don’t have to pay attention to V2. Well, if there’s nothing wrong with V2, then why don’t you assent?
“If the new rites were objectively clear in the Form and the intention, there would be no dispute on the matter. But there is dispute.” ~ TPS.
But TPS, schismatics always cast doubt on the validity of sacraments administered by the Catholic Church. This is a common trait of schismatics, even before they fall into heresy. The Donatists doubted or positively denied the validity of the Sacraments, the Fraticelli did the same, as did Wycliffe and Huss and the Waldensians.
The existence of subjective doubt does not prove that objective doubt exists. If it did, the millions of educated people throughout the world who doubt or deny the existence of God would prove that God’s existence is doubtful. The only thing that it really proves is how easily men are led into doubt.
FormerSede said: “Heretics always affirm one truth, to deny another.”
I did no such thing. Dishonesty is a no no, FormerSede. You do want to go to Heaven, don’t you?
“FormerSede, and where did you learn your doctrine that the faithful can simply ignore a Council.” ~ Tom A.
Tom, when’s the last time you read all the documents of the Council of Chalcedon or the Third Council of Constantinople? Or have you been ignoring them all your life? What percentage of lay Catholic peasants during the 14th century do you think read those all documents of those councils? Probably .001%, if that. Did they sin by ignoring these councils?
“Have you ever read the document that the Heresiarch Montini used to promulgate V2?” ~ Tom A.
Yes. But what you don’t understand is that promulgation is only one of the conditions for infallibility. Nothing in Vatican II was taught infallibly.
“Since when do Catholics get to dismiss Papal teachings?” ~ Tom A.
Do you accept this papal teaching: “You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jew, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.”
Accidental post above. Continuing below.
“Since when do Catholics get to dismiss Papal teachings?” ~ Tom A.
Do you accept this papal teaching of Pope Nicholas: “You assert that in your fatherland many have been baptized by a certain Jew, you do not know whether Christian or pagan, and you consult us as to what should be done about them. If indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity OR ONLY IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles [cf.Acts 2:38;19:5], (surely it is one and the same, as Saint Ambrose * sets forth) it is established that they should not be baptized again.” (Pope Nicholas, Denz. 334).
Or do you accept this one from Pope Zachary: “In that (synod of the Angles) it is distinctly recognized that such a decree and judgment is very firmly commanded and diligently demonstrated, so that whoever had been washed WITHOUT THE INVOCATION OF THE TRINITY, he has not been perfected, unless he shall have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Denz. 297)
Pope Nicholas said baptism in the name of Christ is valid. Pope Zachary said “without the invocation of the Trinity,” it is not. Which do you believe?
Pope Pelagius II also contradicted Pope Nicholas when he taught this: “If any people living in your Worship’s neighborhood, avow that they have been baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD ONLY, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith.”
Pelagius does not say they are to be conditionally baptized, which shows that he did not believe baptism “in the name of the Lord only” was even of possible validity.
“Before you were defending V2 saying there was nothing wrong with it…” Tom A
I never said there’s nothing wrong with Vatican II. I said there was nothing wrong with saying “God has not refrained” from using non-Catholic churches, and their ministers, “in the mystery of salvation.”
“FormerSede said: ‘Heretics always affirm one truth, to deny another.’ I did no such thing. Dishonesty is a no no, FormerSede.” ~ MMF.
Let’s see who is guilty of the “no no”.
I wrote this: “… the effect of the baptism of children, regardless of who administers it, is incorporation into the Church.”
You replied by saying: “WRONG. Baptism removes original sin, allowing one to then enter Heaven IF one embraces Christ’s Holy religion, i.e. the Catholic religion.”
My statement was true. If you were not using one truth to deny another, why did you say my statement was “wrong,” and then affirm another truth in an attempt to prove it?
The Catholic Church recognizes baptism administered by Protestants. The Catholic Church does NOT recognize baptized Prots as members of the One True Church, i.e. the Catholic Church. If they die without embracing the Catholic Faith then they cannot enter Heaven.
MMF. There is a reason I qualified my statement by referring to children who are baptized. Any child below the age of reason who is validly baptized is incorporated into the Body of the Church. If the child is baptized outside the Church, they remain united to the Church until at least the early teens. At that point, if they are not in external union with the visible Church they incur excommunication in the external forum, even if they are not personally guilty of heresy.
The same is true for former Catholics who left the Church adults, like the sedevacantists heretics have done. Every sedevacantist that has separated from the Church has incurred excommunication in the external forum. And if they were right that “the Vatican II Church” is a false Church, they incurred excommunication in the external forum for previously belonging to it. Either way, sedes are excommunicated, and it cannot be lifted if there’s no Pope.
FormerSede wrote: “If the child is baptized outside the Church, they remain united to the Church until at least the early teens. At that point, if they are not in external union with the visible Church they incur excommunication in the external forum, even if they are not personally guilty of heresy.”
It has dawned on me that you don’t understand something crucial to this whole debate: The church which emerged from the “Second Vatican Council” is NOT the Catholic Church. It’s a fraud spawned by Satan’s little workers, the conciliarists. You include statements and documents generated by the enemies of Christ in your arguments. Catholics condemn the statements, documents and actions of the conciliarists because they choose to remain faithful to Our Blessed Lord and His shepherds.
So called, FormerSede,
And again you miscreant fool, as james_o has properly witnessed of you, your, “sophistry”, is about as diabolical as I for one have ever borne witness to. Amen. You are so great a fool, that you cannot possibly begin to understand just what a slave of Satan that you are. Demonstrate now you miscreant fool, where in the Magisterium is it taught that Magisterial teaching and governing, can be picked and chosen from, a’ la carte, as it were, by ANYONE? Where is it taught in the divine Magisterium that the teaching of the Vicar of Christ in Union with his Bishops, as in Ecumenical Council, is not protected by the Charism of Ecclesial Infallibility in its entirety, as in its universality, as in every iota of every iota that is taught, proclaimed, commanded of the faithful, and printed, as Truth is Universal? As the Council is protected by the Charism of Ecclesial Infallibility and as with the Pope in Union with his Bishops, they CANNOT ERR in one iota of any iota of what they teach in that same Ecumenical Council. Not simply what they define BUT WHATEVER AS ANYTHING THEY TEACH OR UTTER in the language of the Council, and in its utter totality. To suggest ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY is UTTER ANATHEMA, placing that fool outside the Church where NO SALVATION is to be found as deFide. Period and end you miserable fool. You place the most hideous as profound affront to the teaching of the ONE AND ONLY VATICAN COUNCIL OF 1870, that I have ever seen. See it here, assent to it, or spend your miserable eternity in Hell. Amen.
Do you assent to this teaching freely and completely, so called, FormerSede?
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
This holy see has always maintained this,
the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church  , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion  .
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” 
Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
“The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” 
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.[Custom]
It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing  .[Holy See]
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
summoning ecumenical councils or
consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
special synods, sometimes by
taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
sacred scripture and
the apostolic traditions.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren  .
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
May the Blessed Virgin Mother of God have mercy on your putrid soul. In caritas.
“It has dawned on me that you don’t understand something crucial to this whole debate: The church which emerged from the “Second Vatican Council” is NOT the Catholic Church.” ~ MMF
That’s one of the heresies of sedevacantism. The Catholic Church is indefectible. If you knew what the Catholic Church is, and what indefectibility means, you would not have fallen for that idiotic heresy. The only new “church” that emerged after Vatican II is the sedevacantist sect, which was founded by Antipope Hadrian VII.
“Source, please.” ~ MMF
The Delict of Heresy: “The juridical infamy here spoken of is incurred by all baptized persons who become members of non-Catholic sects. This legislation therefore includes all lay persons and all clerics who previously were members of the Church. In addition, it applies to all those who were validly baptized but were brought up in sectarian belief. In other words, Protestants, Nestorians, etc., must be presumed responsible for their external acts in violation of the law of the Church, unless and until the contrary is proved. Consequently, when they formally joined their sect, or publicly lived in accordance with its tenets and its practices they are presumed to have incurred this juridical infamy, along with the general excommunication for heresy.” (MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 1932).
FormerSede, you recommend reading “old” encyclicals and catechisms to learn the Faith.
Can one learn the Faith from reading the “new” catechisms and encyclicals?
“As the Council is protected by the Charism of Ecclesial Infallibility and as with the Pope in Union with his Bishops, they CANNOT ERR in one iota of any iota of what they teach in that same Ecumenical Council. Not simply what they define BUT WHATEVER AS ANYTHING THEY TEACH OR UTTER in the language of the Council, and in its utter totality.” ~ In caritas.
You only reveal your profound ignorance with such stupid comments. Only the definitions of councils are infallible, not everything contained in a council document.
Fr. Berry: “Bishops assembled in a council are infallible only when exercising supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed.”
This is basic Catholic doctrine. If you spent more time learning the faith and less time pontificating, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself by making such idiotic statements.
Aren’t you the same buffoon that thinks Pastor Aeternus teaches that a Pope cannot fall into personal heresy?
“If you knew what the Catholic Church is, and what indefectibility means, you would not have fallen for that idiotic heresy [sedevacantism].”
I’ve never said that I am a sedevacantist. When you hurl accusations at your opponent you must define your terms if you want to have any chance of being credible.
Please define sedevacantism, FormerSede.
In your Delict of Heresy, you were not clear as to whom you were referring: those who, after baptism, “…publicly lived in accordance with its tenets and its practices…” or sedevacantists.
Please clarify, FormerSede.
What need for a Church if the laity have to sift what a council and Pope promulgate? If you can prove that the Church can teach a false doctrine, then you also prove that there is no need for a Church. You can’t win FormerSede. To avoid the above trap you have to then prove V2 is in line with tradition and nothing in it is harmful to our faith. Its the same game R&Rers like Michael Davies played. If I attack V2 as heretical, you claim its not binding. If I attack V2 as binding, you claim theres nothing in there that is heretical. That is the basic tactic of all gallican R&R types. At least die hard Novus Ordites stick to their illusion that nothing has changed.
Or is it, “J. Peters, et. al”, as the non-Catholic R&R, Lefebvre sect, who are forever morphing your monikers, as you lurk in the darkness, hiding from the Light of Truth, ever blinding you. Amen. You are the darkened intellect/s as utter fool/s on your way to eternal perdition, and as objectively witnessed in your hideous distortion of divine Magisterial teaching, as you, “pontificate”, with, “your version”, of perfectly fallible, “theological speculation”, as that is ALL THAT IT IS. “Fr. Berry”, is a deceased, fallible man, God rest his soul, who surely is cursing you from his life now eternal, for the utter and implacable distortion which you imbecilic blasphemers continue to parlay, of theological speculation as his. The Holy Magisterium is, “perpetual”, unchanging and unending, deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”. The perfectly fallible teaching of a singular Church theologian is, simply as ONLY, PURE SPECULATION, thus NOTHING deFide about it, fool. You slice and dice their words to manufacture the image you freely will as apostate, changing Fr. Berry’s actual meaning. Period and end.
Again, you blasphemous buffoon, DEMONSTRATE FROM THE HOLY MAGISTERIUM, AS PER SE, your miscreant gibberish. You CANNOT do this, as that would place contradiction in the Holy Magisterium, you blasphemous miscreant. The Vicar of Christ in Union with his Bishops, in true Ecumenical Council ,carries with them the so called, “negative infallibility”, as, “Ecclesial Infallibility”. A properly catechized 10 year old would understand this, you pseudo-intellectual buffoon, as FormerSede. Amen. What is this Charism? It is the Gift as Charism which the Holy Ghost offers Holy Church, such that nothing that the Council Fathers teach can contradict, ANYTHING AS EVERYTHING that has ever before been taught, and is therefore held in the divine Magisterium. If this were not true, that same 10 year old would then know and with apodictic certitude, that there would then be placed, CONTRADICTION, in the Magisterium, which is blasphemy to even suggest the possibility of, and a denial of infallible teaching, at the pain of Hell. Amen. That singular denial alone, will send you to your eternity in Hell, you miscreant fool. Whether they teach anew or they refresh of old, NOTHING CAN CONTRADICT THE MAGISTERIUM. Amen. Alleluia.
So called, “Lumen Gentium”, the, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, is a vile work of Antichrist, as in LG 16, where literally as actually, the Divinity of The Christ is tacitly denied there, as the Blessed Triune Godhead is equated to the demonic as false god, Allah. In that denial, The Christ in His very Divinity is denied and of course, as the Mohammedan miscreants deny the divinity of The Christ. Amen. The Greater must be reduced to the lesser, as the infinitely lesser cannot become the Greater, you bumbling idiot, as FormerSede. You hideous miscreant, who dares to parlay the claim that there is, “nothing dogmatic”, about the false, “second vatican council”, which is utter DISTRACTION AND DIVERSION FROM TRUTH, as while it is a false council of the church of Antichrist, and so of course, this thing itself speaks as res ipsa loquitur, that it is not an infallible Council of the Catholic Church, as it was not called by the Catholic Church, as by the Vicar of Christ, and as thus NOTHING THAT IT TEACHES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH teaching. What is your point, you blasphemous miscreant as FormerSede? NOTHING COULD EVER BE DOGMATIC FROM THE FALSE VATICAN COUNCIL II OF THE church of Antichrist. You malevolent apostate, as you rest deFide, outside the Church and on your way to your own personal eternity in Hell. Amen.
You are such a blind, pseudo-intellectual fool, that you actually believe that an Ecumenical Council is not protected with the Divine Charism of Infallibility, as if the Fathers of the Council, willy nilly, could contradict prior Authoritative teaching. Next, even if your hideously blasphemous as heretical suggestions were true about limited infallibility in an Ecumenical Council, you then posit that the, “Catholic Church”, could actually have language anywhere at anytime in the history of the true Church, that DENIES THE VERY DIVINITY OF THE CHRIST, thus denies the Blessed Triune Godhead, as he who denies the Son, denies the One Who sent Him as divinely revealed, you blasphemous fool? The Christ commanded: “He who denies Me, denies the One Who sent Me.”, and “Anyone Who denies Me, I will deny before My Father.” Amen. Alleluia. You deny The Christ Formersede, as do all of your ilk, by assenting to the church of Antichrist, as though it could possibly be the Church which the Anointed One of God, established His supernatural Society as, here on earth. Amen. Alleluia. Blessed John the Apostle warned us of who Antichrist would be in his First Epistle to the Universal Church. He would be the one who denied The Christ’s divinity. Amen. Save your putrid soul. Beg Almighty God for perfect contrition. I do pray this admonition somehow touches your darkened will and intellect. Amen. In caritas.
Now find copied and pasted divine Magisterial as infallible teaching with the full Jurisdictional as Apostolic power of Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, from section 9:
“And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend” (Comment. in Matt. xiii., n. I). Rufinus praises Gregory of Nazianzum and Basil because “they studied the text of Holy Scripture alone, and took the interpretation of its meaning not from their own inner consciousness, but from the writings and on the authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as it is clear, took their rule for understanding the meaning from the Apostolic succession” (Hist. Eccl., lib. ii., cap. 9).
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
Pope Leo XII, Epistola Tua (1885):
“To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.”
I wouldn’t recommend it.
FormerSede, I’m still waiting for that clarification regarding the The Delict of Heresy, and I’m still waiting for your definition of “sedevacantist.” BTW, you hurled that accusation my way a month or so ago and I asked you for a definition then, too. I still haven’t gotten your response to THAT one either. C’mon, you can do it. Don’t give in to trepidation.
Would the Pope recommend it though?
Between your recommendation and the Pope’s, which one is a Catholic bound to choose?
Can a Papal encyclical ever present a danger to Faith?
Sorry for three questions, but this is important, and I’m not here to antagonize anyone for sport.
“FormerSede, and where did you learn your doctrine that the faithful can simply ignore a Council?” ~ Tom A.
” What percentage of lay Catholic peasants during the 14th century do you think read those all documents of those councils? Probably .001%, if that. Did they sin by ignoring these councils?” ~ FormerSede
Oh yeah, for sure. Every one of them had their cell phones, computers and Amazon accounts, and they could have read those documents anytime they pleased.
But they chose not to, and feigned ignorance .
Based upon the Vatican II church’s declaration on the invalidity of Mormon baptism, it appears that the change is due to obtaining more information and a better understanding of Mormon beliefs about what they call “the Trinity”. Their Trinity is not the same as Christian Trinity…which, as you know, is what makes up the form of the sacrament of baptism:
“The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372).”
My sentiments exactly, James_o.
To IC and ASB,
Regarding the matter of supplied jurisdiction:
First, such is all that the Church needs to function in a time of emergency, as we have now. We have at least two historical precedents for this fact: The Great Western Schism when the true Pope was unrecognizable, yet bishops continued to be consecrated and act; and the interregnum from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months) between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the Pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction (only supplying the sacraments) until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted (by consecrating those priests) thereby giving the people access to bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
It therefore follows that your apparent interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s “Ad Apostolorum Principis” – namely, that the immediate nature of the Roman Pontiff’s power of jurisdiction thus contradicts “supplied jurisdiction” as a concept – is in some manner erroneous, simply because we have historical magisterial precedent to the contrary.
Second, literally holding to every jot and tittle of ecclesial law in these times would render even Baptism inaccessible. Without the ordinary mechanisms of governance in place during this extended interregnum, the principles of equity and prudence should be considered, as argued here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=14&catname=1