In January, Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register reported that plans were underway for a “major international conference to examine ways to resolve the current crisis of division in the Church,” with additional focus on “papal infallibility.”
Ever since, it seems, hope and expectations have been running high about the mysterious event, and in some surprising quarters.
Pentin recently provided some additional details, writing:
The April 7 meeting will be on the theme: “Catholic Church: Where Are You Heading?” Its subtitle, “Only a blind man can deny that there is great confusion in the Church,” is taken from comments Cardinal Caffarra made in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Foglio in January 2017.
Yes, and only a neo-conservative fool expects this conference to be anything other than an ineffectual dog-n-pony show; yet one more gathering of handwringing clerical eunuchs who haven’t the guts to actually defend their flock from the Bergoglian wolf; much less identify the blasphemous heretic by name.
In fact, a better subtitle would be: Hell in a handbasket
And this in spite of having its very own Patron Saint, whom Michael Matt at the Remnant identified as “a powerful heavenly ally in Cardinal Caffarra.”
Don’t laugh. I think he’s serious.
Mr. Matt went on to say:
Perhaps His Eminence—one of the original “dubia cardinals”—is still working in Rome even now, trying to save the Church from the Modernists who have her by the throat. Let us pray that whatever it is, this conference will be imbued with the spirit of Carlo Cardinal Caffarra.
And here you thought the conciliarists in the church-of-man were the only ones engaging in fake canonizations!
On a more serious note – pray for Cardinal Caffarra, a neo-conservative at heart who, in spite of showing signs of genuine holiness, was a man-of-the-council who did precious little to actually oppose the modernists when he was alive.
In any case, when the conference was first announced back in January, our take was a little different than that of America’s oldest traditional Catholic newspaper. (Perhaps it is time for some new blood. More on that soon, I promise. Stay tuned.)
When the big conference was first announced, it seemed clear enough to me even then that the organizers of the event, in spite of any good intentions, are among the most gravely disoriented of all.
If there was ever even a shred of doubt on this point, Pentin’s latest report removes it.
The organizers say the afternoon conference will explore the limits of papal authority as well as seek ways to overcome the division in the Church, exacerbated by what many see as pastoral and doctrinal confusion on key moral issues largely emanating from differing interpretations of Chapter VIII of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Ah, yes… it’s all about those rascally differing interpretations; i.e., we must come to agreement on what it really means to say that God asks us to persist in mortal sin, that Christian marriage is just an ideal, and that the Divine Law is much too difficult for some of us to keep amid the concrete circumstances of our daily lives.
And how might that agreement be achieved?
Pentin further reported:
Also discussed will be the leadership roles of the “People of God,” and how the faithful should be consulted on matters of doctrine.
We’ll take a straw poll!
Petnin closed his report with the following hopeful news:
The conference will end with a declaration —a profession of faith on points of doctrine and morality that are most controversial today. It will be proposed for the whole Church and be issued as coming from the voice of “baptized and confirmed members of the People of God.”
So there you have it, folks:
The Catholic Church is daily being led further and further away from Christ by a raging heretic posing as the Roman Pontiff, and rather than simply relying upon such things as the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent that plainly anathematize the man, a bunch of conservatives, imbued with the spirit of Cardinal Caffarra, are going to “propose to the whole Church” a declaration in the name of the peanut gallery.
Saint Carlo of Bologna, pray for us!
Well we can save them some time.
Limits on Papal authority: None.
Next question?
Ok, Louie, so the Council of Trent plainly anathamizes Francis I, let’s have it, what happens next??? We know Francis I is a heretic, we anathamize him. And….
Did you see The Black Panther? If you didn’t go see it. T’challa, the Black Panther and king of Wakanda, is challenged for his throne by his cousin, Erik Killmonger, a guy with an axe to grind. This dude’s out to kill as his name implies. The Black Panther wants his throne back and peace for his people. So, he seeks help from a neighboring king, M’Baku, who previously challenged him for the throne of Wakanda. T’Challa seeks an army from M”Baku to overthrow the usurper Erik Killmonger. M”Baku refuses T”Challa, but in the end he comes through with troops for the fight and The Black Panther triumphs.
In 1571 Pope Pius V sought a miitary alliance and promoted a rosary crusade to defeat the threatening Turks. Sts. Bernard and Norbert sought military support and preached to the people of Europe in order to evict Anacletus II from his throne. I know if I research enough, I would be able to provide a hundred examples of the very same diplomatic and spiritual combination. Yes, a wrong has to be condemned, anathamized, but then it requires both prayer and military might to successfully implement a moral policy.
Unfortunately, I think the gist here is that this Remnant crew, instead of seeking to overthrow a usurper to the throne wants to just claim that too much authority lies with the throne; we can rule ourselves. Wherever the Catholic Church is right now, she doesn’t seem to have a friend on earth.
I hope the chefs for the conference are preparing a gigantic pot of polenta without salt, without herbs, without cheese or marinara, without vegetables and especially without meat. These Catholics seem to love their pablum. I can’t imagine a more boring say-nothing, do-nothing conference. It’s all been said already!!! Now is the time for bold action.
I agree that Bergoglio is a Heretic indeed.Pray for the end of this filth which is in The Church-and has been for a long time.Outside of Praying for The Church Louie i will support you as you get to the base of The Filth-The Devil.
The term “People of God” is a dead give away. It puts Man above God. Anyone who has hopes for this conference is living in “la la land”. The Catholic world does not need another conference, another dubia, another correction. It needs Crusaders who are true Soldiers of Christ. I doubt these Crusaders will come from the murky world of Vatican II no matter how well intentioned they appear to be. So what is the answer? I’m all ears.
This truly should be a very short meeting. All they have to do is to state categorically that PF is a heretic & call for the entire Hierarchy to demand his resignation forthwith.
Tom A you described a very compelling scenario in another comment:
“Here’s just one scenario I can think of to fulfill Fatima’s promise that a Pope will consecrate Russia. The SSPX wises up and goes sede. The SSPX along with all the other sede clergy gather and elect a true Pope. The new Pope in union with the small number of true Bishops consecrates Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. There is no rub.”
To this day, there are still “Sedes” within the SSPX. Father Cekada has even made the case that Archbishop Lefebvre held Sedevacantist sympathies. Based on your assessment, what do you think the chances are that your scenario would come to pass?
One influential obstacle that needs to be removed is the work of Salza and Siscoe.
Then there would be division among people regarding whether or not they have authority to make such a declaration. Who decides that issue? Another group making another declaration?
Would a declaration be the cause of Francis’ removal, or just a statement that he is already, by his own doing, not the Pope?
Francis is already, here and now, either the pope or he’s not, and one doesn’t need “authority” to judge that. He just needs the facts.
Dear LennyB,
Know that the “scenario” which you quote, defies the command of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, 15-23: “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 forth 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 everyone 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. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.”
You see LennyB, TomA is allowing for intrinsic evil for the sake of the good, which is always as everywhere in the cosmos, patently evil. It blasphemes Saints John Fisher and Thomas Moore for instance, who gave their lives in red Martyrdom to stand fast in defiance of the King, who demanded they allow an evil (his divorce) for the sake of a good, preventing the separation of all of the British empire from the Catholic Church. God allowed this separation to occur thus, over the blood of those two Holy Martyrs. The SSPX was founded by a man, Lefebvre, who dealt in absurdities and who blatantly acknowledged that he defied the man who he errantly professed to be the pope. Had he truly been the Pope, he would have placed himself in schism by the very act of his defiance itself, outside the Church therefore, as the Orthodox, where there is no salvation, deFide. At the same time that he “resisted” the man he professed to be the pope, he appealed to him for the acceptance of his “Society” into the false church, that same church which Lefebvre acknowledged taught heresy in the so called, “Second Vatican Council”. Thus, while at once he acknowledged that it taught heresy from its purported “Ecumenical Council”, he still deemed it to be the Catholic Church, when it is not possible that the Catholic Church can teach heresy, as commanded by the Son of God Himself, period and end, and thus Lefebvre defied Almighty God. This stuff cannot be made up, LennyB. Lefebvre was either schizophrenic (utterly doubtful) or he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, playing the part of so called, “controlled opposition”. As our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ commanded, “by their fruits you shall know them”. The fruits of Lefebvre were the defiance of the man he falsely identified as pope, whose church he falsely identified as Catholic. Therefore he embraced dual iniquity, the defiance of the man he called “pope”, and falsely proclaiming that same man to be “pope” and his church, Catholic. Vatican Council II teaches heresy in the objective realm of reality, Lumen Gentium 16 being the worst possible example of that, as it defies the very Triune Personhood of the One, True, God, and equates Him to the demon god, Allah of the Musloid, Satanic religion. As thus, LG 16 is not only utterly heretical, it blasphemes as it directly attacks, Almighty God in His Triune divinity.
You see LennyB, we cannot have Lefebvre both ways, as to have him both ways, denies Christ, who commanded that we would know them by their fruits. Lefebvre’s fruits were proclaiming the false church of the Antichrist to be the Church of Jesus Christ, while at once he proclaimed that church taught heresy and as such he knew it could not be the Catholic Church. But then he actually deepened his blasphemy by then appealing to that same church, which he objectively proclaimed taught heresy at VCII, for acceptance of his Society into it. There is no escaping the objective reality thus, that he was pleading with the church he professed to be heretical to accept his society into it. It being the false church of the Antichrist as it professes a false gospel, which blasphemes God. You simply cannot make this stuff up. As the tree of the SSPX is evil, its fruit can only ever be evil because that is the command of Jesus the Christ, and thus it will never proclaim the truth about the church of the Antichrist, which calls itself Catholic and controls the temporal edifice of the Church, while at once it serves Satan, leading countless souls into Hell. It is the “pious deception” of Lucifer, while the novus ordo or conciliar church is the “profane deception”, both then can only deceive, leading souls to an eternity in Hell. In the end, the SSPX will be cast into the fire along with all the souls who hold it as being a member of the Catholic Church, which Christ our Lord established, because Christ commanded it to be so. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Intrinsic evil is evil fruit LennyB and as thus it can never, ever, be reconciled in Truth. Lefebvre embraced intrinsic evil, thus he embraced iniquity. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
LennyB, while most of the time I agree with In Caritas, he seems to have fallen into Donatism on this one. The Donatist taught that sinful clergy could not confect sacraments. The character of Abp Lefebrve is not the issue. My scenario was simply a hypothetical that could solve the sede impasse that some Fatimists use to discredit sedevacantism. There is no requirement that the moral character of of papal electors be virtuous. One could come up with other scenarios that do not involve the SSPX at all. That would be my preference.
Ana, the entire hierarchy are just as much heretics as PF. They are all modernists. It does no good get rid of one modernist heretic only to install another.
Thank you for the reply.
Here’s a good topic for the conference:
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2018/03/police_raiding_saginaw_diocese.html
Good 5th Friday of Holy Lent morning, TomA,
You continue to choose to be blind to the reality of the act of Lefebvre, while you now reach into your entrails, lowering yourself into your passions thus, as you degenerate your argument into the ad hominem, labeling me a “Donatist”, that in lieu of being able to truly see into the argument that is proffered and you label ever so “gently” TomA. Once again, at best, Lefebvre separated himself from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and in schism thus, latae sententiae, in his very act of consecrating bishops, without the authority of the singular man in the cosmos who can give approval for any consecration of bishops, the true Vicar of Christ Jesus, as the Holy Roman Pontiff, period and end. Not because I say so, but because the Holy See says so. See, “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, by Pius XII in 1958, shortly before he died. According to the Holy See, each of the men that he consecrated, if he would have consecrated as the Church has always consecrated since the Apostolic time and according to Tradition, as the Council of Trent and its Roman Catechism commanded, would also be excommunicated latae sententiae, separated thus from Holy Mother Church in schism, where there is no salvation, deFide. Although they would have been validly consecrated, just as the Orthodox. You see, this is the intrinsically evil act TomA, which can NEVER yield good fruit, and this according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, period and end. Here is where you degenerate your argument into the ad hominem attack of my person in lieu of my argument. You falsely see me as speaking to the character of Lefebvre, when in truth I am speaking to his immoral as illicit act of consecration, but as you know, it is my position that he simply did not, as a virtuous 12 year old would see, consecrate as Trent commanded the Church has always consecrated Her Bishops, period and end. But to continue with your line of errant reasoning, any ordinations that any of those 6 bishops would EVER accomplish then, would be illicit, as they are all illicit, out outside the Church thus. The ordinations would be valid and the priests, excommunicated in the act of their illicit ordinations. Any laity who would then attend any Mass by those ordinates or bishops would then be guilty of the sin of sacrilege, as is the priest each and every time he would offer the Mass, which is mortal, as it separates the soul from God, leading the soul not to eternal life thus but to perdition, at once consuming their judgment and not their salvation, according to Saint Paul.
Do you really think Lucifer hasn’t figured all this all out from the beginning, TomA and led his useful slaves right into his sinister trap, taking them into an eternity with him? As any miserable human creature as me can, Lucifer knew this from time immemorial. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In Caritas, I do not contest your assertion about Lefebrve. I simply state that papal electors need not be saints or holy. If I am not mistaken, even excommunicates can be part of a conclave. I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you assessment and conclusions about the SSPX, it just seems to me that you are saying that because of the errors and crimes of Lefebrve, that this makes him and those he ordains ineligible to be participants in a papal conclave. That is false. Also, I stated that IF the SSPX were to participate, that they first state that the See is vacant. For no conclave is possible unless the See is vacant. I used the term “Donatist” simply to show and teach others in this forum that sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the minister of the sacrament. You will never hear me defend Abp Lefebrve for his disobedient act to the man he considered Christ’s Vicar. But his episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations are valid nonetheless according to my understanding of sacramental theology. If I am mistaken, I would be eager to reconsider. For like you In Caritas, I seek only Truth and have no axes to grind or turf to protect. If the Truth is inconvenient and leads to great suffering and temporal suffering, I pray I am strong enough to persevere.
Archbishop Lefevbre was never in schism. So, if the SSPX bishops will not issue a formal, public declaration that Francis is not the pope, then who will do it? Who else has the authority? What current cardinal is acceptable (if one even exists)? Folks, the Catholic Church is in dire straights with no prior pope or Council to guide us. Even theologians cannot agree on whether or not Pope Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Cum Officio is actually infallible teaching on heretical popes. No layman can make this declaration. What prelate is acceptable to even the Sede’s?
In caritas, Don’t you think that it’s reasonable that Archbishop Lefebvre could have been honestly mistaken? I don’t understand what your position is. Do you say that there are now no Catholic Bishops or Priests, no Masses? What exactly is your position on the state of the Church, I wish you’d just say that. How can you say that all these Catholics could be Hell bound just because they were fooled? That doesn’t seem just. I think you make a couple good points but some not good at all. I’d like to know your base premise here.
Hello again TomA,
Please seek and discern “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, particularly sections 36-53. Pope Pius XII made the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church patently clear, as it pertains to the consecration of any Bishop under any and all circumstance, relying on the Providence of Almighty God in all human suffrage. The Holy Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Blessed Peter, is the singular man in the cosmos who can licitly appoint any Bishop, anywhere, anytime, and under any circumstance, period. No true Pope, no licit Bishops, no licit priests. Again, what a pious 12 year old would understand, receiving God’s intellective Light. What he deemed to be, is that any Bishop who consecrates and any priest who then confers the consecration, although valid, as Pope Pius XII said– only if done as the Church has always done the consecrations–, are illicit and thus gravely sinful and as thus they all are excommunicated by the very act of illicit consecration. By virtue of their excommunications, they are placed outside Holy Mother Church and they have no powers of teaching nor jurisdiction, as these powers flow directly from the Successor of Peter who receives them into his immanence and then they flow from him to those whom he exclusively deems worthy of the episcopate, period and end. For you to suggest that these same bishops, who are excommunicated by the very act of their valid consecration, had they been validly consecrated, could then participate in the election of an Holy Roman Pontiff, is to suggest that the Orthodox Bishops, who are validly but illicitly consecrated, could do the same. There is no difference as “excommunication is excommunication” as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. That assertion of yours is patently false TomA, as this stands res ipsa loquitur.
For the record, your “Donatist” claim of my argument is patently false, as my argument was not speaking to the character of Lefebvre, rather the fruits of his illicit act, should it have been valid, period and end. A prelate who is in the state of mortal sin, apart from any mortal sin which excommunicates him, could participate, as he could consecrate both Bishops and the Blessed Sacrament, etc. That was not my argument at all. Thus, your tangent, as it pertains to a “Donatist” claim of my position, is a logical fallacy as a straw-man. Nothing personal. As it relates to the selection of an Holy Roman Pontiff, that has always been done by the leaders of the Church of Rome, period. The conclave of Cardinals has acted as the “leaders of the Church of Rome”, which could be priests, by the way. Therefore, it would seem that a Pope would have to be selected validly by only those prelates in Rome, not anywhere on the planet. As Our Lady of LaSalette prophesied, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist”, which has happened, as this again rests in the realm of objective reality, requiring willful blindness, and the reception of the “operation of error to believe lying”, as Saint Paul taught in 2 Thes 2, not to be able to see in this, our time. Rome cannot both be the See of Peter and the Seat of the Antichrist, at the same time, as that places an affront to the law of non-contradiction. It all and always distills down to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, properly understood TomA, in potency and act, as any other understanding leads to profound error in Ecclesiology, not because this miserable wretch as me says so, but because Saint Pope Pius X did. I entertain your ongoing dialogue. We are in the valley of tears, as you know TomA, and it only continues to degenerate into chaos, and as thus worsen from here, this side the veil. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear Melanie,
In Christ Jesus, I do share your suffering. Please know that. Please just continue to read and discern, especially and infinitely most importantly, Holy Scripture and true Holy Tradition, to always guide you into Truth Himself, as we are all commanded by Jesus the Christ our Lord and our God, to know Him, as He is infinitely knowable, yet only infinitely known unto Himself as our Triune Godhead. Seek the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, the Book of Daniel, chapter 9, the Gospel of Saint John, chapter 14, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 7. There is more there than one could know in infinite lifetimes, as is all of the Holy Writ, the Word, the Logos, of Almighty God. Amen. Pray the Holy Rosary daily and it must be prayed from your heart, as our Blessed Lady, our Mother, our Love, our Queen, as the Mother of the One Who simply is Love, promised us that we would have it unto the consummation of the world, Amen, and that prayed from the heart, we would never fall into heresy, and we would save our souls through the reception of all grace, that she alone is the Mediatrix of. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In Caritas,
The Constitution of Pope Pius XII that establishes the rules for a papal conclave says the following:
“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
Of course, this only applies to clerics excommunicated for ecclesial crimes like ordaining Bishops without papal mandate. Heretics and schismatics, while also excommunicated, are still barred from participation and election by Divine Law.
Hello TomA,
Thank you. I did not know this Constitution which allowed for an ex-communicant to demonstrate ecclesial power of office. That understood, we are still living in the reality that we probably have no true Cardinals, as they by now, would have all been appointed by the false popes of the church of the Antichrist or so called “conciliar church”. Are there any appointees left, even alive in retirement, who would have been appointed by the last true Pontiff, prior to his death in 1958? If we simply do the math, that would make him minimally 100 years old, if appointed in 1958 and at the age of 40. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
Melanie,
I too am curious about an answer to your question about the “state of the Church.” The best answer I could find was from Griff Ruby: “What are your opinions regarding the issues that divide traditional Catholics today? Are you Indult, SSPX, sedevacantist, or what?
I do not believe that I belong properly into any of those categories. I am an enthusiast for the Catholic Faith who rejoices in the gathering strength of all present groups within the Church. Each of these groups represent an attempt to interpret the present day crisis in the Church which has been made in the absence of the specific knowledge I possess. For whatever reason, I have been granted to see the overarching truth which unites all true Catholics. I am merely one who has the peace which comes from knowing.
This whole Church crisis reminds me of a magic trick where a perfectly ordinary duck is placed in a box which the magician showed to be “perfectly ordinary” by holding it up and showing us the inside and tapping on its walls. We all see the duck go into that box, and at some point later on, we all see him pull a rabbit out of that box. The box is too small for both animals, and it was in plain view all the time. The magician was trying to make it seem that he was changing a duck into a rabbit.
Let the Church be compared to that duck. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Just as we know that duck cannot really be changed into another animal, the Church cannot be changed into anything other than what Christ created it to be (otherwise known as indefectibility). Just as we know that the duck will not be killed (if only so as to have the use of his trained duck for the next performance), the Church cannot be done away with because God promised it wouldn’t be. And yet, at the end of the trick, the magician pulled a rabbit out of that box.
A conservative of the Novus Ordo religion is like someone who tries to convince himself that the rabbit is really still a duck. He twists his brain into a pretzel trying to rationalize to himself that this is just a duck with an unusually large head, unusually long ears, an unusually short and thick neck, unusually hairy feathers, unusually leg-like wings, an unusually small and hard-to-see bill, and maybe if you give it enough time you might hear it quack. A liberal would be someone who says he likes rabbits better than ducks anyway.
A sedevacantist is someone who admits that the animal is obviously a rabbit. What he can’t figure out is how the duck got changed into a rabbit, or if the duck might have been destroyed and replaced with a rabbit, or if the duck might have been driven into some ghostly, phantasmal invisible existence. All he knows for sure is that the animal coming out of the box is far too much unlike a duck, to be the duck. The SSPX just says, “Ducks don’t change into rabbits, and that’s all I’m going to say.”
A conservative says what he says out of a pious belief that the duck must always be a duck (the Church is indefectible). He calls the sedevacantist a heretic because the sedevacantist seems to be saying that the duck has been changed into a rabbit (the Church has defected), or that the duck has been done away with (the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church), or that the duck has been driven into some ghostly, phantasmal invisible existence (the Church is no longer visible).
A sedevacantist says what he says as a result of his highly detailed and accurate knowledge of ducks and their nature, and also his knowledge of rabbits. He calls the conservative a blind lunatic who is out of touch with reality, because he can plainly see that the animal in question is obviously a rabbit, not a duck. Both sides fault the SSPX for not siding with them or taking a stand one way or the other. The SSPX returns the complement.
Where do I fit into all of this? Like G. K. Chesterton’s Fr. Brown, I know that ducks do not change into rabbits, nor disappear, nor turn invisible. I also know how to tell a duck from a rabbit, and that the animal in question is a rabbit. Knowing all this, I proceeded look for the point at which the duck was being smuggled out of the box and the rabbit smuggled into the box. By rolling back the film and studying it carefully, I have found the exact point at which the substitution took place, and if one looks carefully, they can see it for themselves. Finally I have traced the whereabouts of the duck and found it hidden in the magician’s pocket. In this book, I have reached into that magician’s pocket and pulled out the duck for all to see, alive and well, and every bit as much like a duck as it ever was.
In retrospect, it all seems so obvious. The rabbit is obviously not a duck. The duck cannot be killed, made to disappear, or made invisible. Therefore the duck must be somewhere else, alive and well. Q. E. D. I then proceed to look for the duck, and find it, since it is not hard to find, once one knows to start looking for it. One just has to wonder how so many Catholics could get caught up in such pointless activities as examining the hairs of the rabbit for traces of duck ancestry, or speculating on the life of an invisible duck, when all along the duck was simply somewhere else alive and well.”
GR sums it up as follows:
“With all of that in mind, I now introduce the startling and shocking but true thesis which resides at the heart of the remainder of this book and is to be demonstrated throughout it:
THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MOVEMENT
IS
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!
When we of the traditional Catholic movement use such words as “traditional” to describe ourselves or “tridentine” to describe our worship, these terms are strictly descriptive adjectives, on par with “short” or “tall.” We are simply Roman Catholics. Our right, and indeed our duty before God, to cling tenaciously to that title is absolute and irrefutable! It may take a large number of martyrs to prove this, but if that is necessary then so be it! God forbid that we should ever become a “Traditional Catholic” Church created in opposition or rivalry to the “Roman Catholic” Church. We are the Church; it is the Modernists who have set up a brand new rival Church and we must not allow them to continue using the name of “Catholic” to describe themselves.” http://www.the-pope.com/church01.html
No, there are probably no Cardinals left. But the office of Cardinal is of human origin and a matter of ecclesial law and temporal governance. The Church does not need Cardinals at all. They simply exist at the will of the Pope. Popes can make Cardinals and Popes can unmake Cardinals. The next true Pope can decree that the conclave electors will be three Roman clergy picked by lots. That is an exaggerated scenario, but not impossible by any Divine Law. And once the Pope dies, there is no authority binding the electors to follow any rules of the previous Pope. The fact that they generally do is because it adds legitimacy to the process.
Nothing they do can be truly CATHOLIC, until they sweepoutthefilth.
Here is the proof.
http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/
We live in a world where acts of sodomy are considered loving and perfectly okay and safe to teach to little children.
We live in a world of politics and PR, where it’s perfectly fine to dance around the obvious. Wouldn’t want to rock any boats now… someone might fall off! We have to consider the safety standards and that no-one panic and make a run for the life boats until the water is at the level of our nostrils.
Louie is right. Absolutely nothing of worth will be accomplished at this meeting. It’s no different than the global warming cult who a-priori ruled out the Sun as ever being any sort of factor with regards to the temperatures on Earth. It’s stupidity at its finest.
King Saul went to a spirit medium when God wasn’t answering him. And this conference is turning to conjuring up the “People of God” because they aren’t heeding what God told them several times about the punishment due to us.
One hopes that God sends the spirit of Cardinal Caffarra from wherever he is as an apparition to warn them during the conference, like God sent the ghost of Samuel to warn King Saul of his folly.
When the true Pope finally performs the Consecration God demanded, the Pope will have Russia as a military ally.
When Russia conquers most of the world in our time, perhaps the blessings extended to their conversion will also convert most of the world under their control. Thus a greater miracle is brought forth from a greater disaster.
Lenny B,
I would guess that the solution will be much much simpler.
The Chastisement triggers the next stage. War and a divine method of annihilation will occur. A great part of mankind will be wiped out. This includes a great number of the clergy.
What does this mean?
It means that the question of who is the true Pope or what when and how it happened very quickly becomes entirely irrelevant.
The remaining clergy, whoever they are and under whatever confusion they possess will recognize one thing – this is an act of God – and that they have to make reparation for it and do what God said – Consecrate Russia with a Pope. With all alleged Popes and much of the upper hierarchy wiped out and the Vatican a smoking crater, by God’s providence this remnant few will gather and elect a Pontiff and as a desperate act of pure faith inspired by the Holy Spirit finally do the Consecration.
A miracle will occur, and by this miracle, the remainder of Earth’s survivors will know the True Religion and the True Pope.
This is of course the worst case scenario, but frankly I don’t see us getting out of it any time soon. Things can very quickly escalate out of control. Already we have the Russians warning of a potential U.S. false flag event in Syria and have warned that if the Americans set this up and use it as a pretext to bomb Syria, Russia will fire back upon their ships and aircraft. Once this occurs, it’s pretty much a race to the end.
“In caritas, I don’t understand what your position is. Do you say that there are now no Catholic Bishops or Priests, no Masses? What exactly is your position on the state of the Church?”
I, too, am confused. I don’t understand what many/most posters on AKACatholic believe about the Church. It seems this coming conference on the Church is an honest effort to call attention to problems in the Church. Why are posters here deriding the efforts of people behind the conference?
Louie, thank you for once again summing up the situation so nicely.
Um, Cardinal Caffara, if we are pinning our hopes on recently deceased VII Cardinals, we’re toast, eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, Amen.
The SSPX, to me, they have been no help at all. Where have they been. Crickets. Sorry but if you can’t do more than silence, you’re pretty useless. And irrelevant. Nice way to stay out of the line of fire, just whistle past that graveyard, looking at the sky. But don’t let me rain on anyone’s parade.
The Church is in apostasy. Not just this pope. Not just his henchmen. The Church. The faith has been hijacked. Some very great power has infiltrated and seized control.
Only God can do anything about this. I’m sorry friends. Whatever council or pagan put-on they want to have, what’s the difference at this point. Honestly I could care less now.
Very well said, Evangeline!
Tom A: “The next true Pope can decree that the conclave electors will be three Roman clergy picked by lots. That is an exaggerated scenario, but not impossible by any Divine Law.”
My Take: Absolutely true, as long as the papal electoral process does not violate moral law, Divine law or any other law.
Tom A: “And once the Pope dies, there is no authority binding the electors to follow any rules of the previous Pope. The fact that they generally do is because it adds legitimacy to the process.”
My Take: Oh, yeah, prove it. What canon law prior to 1914 allows the arbitrary abrogation of the Apostolic Constitution governing the conclave following the pope’s death, or even oral rules governing the future conclave with out just cause!!! If such rules can be arbitrarily ignored then the pope’s power to bind and loose only lasts as long as he is alive. I realize an the rules governing conclaves can be changed by the next pope, but as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 says on papal conclaves: “It may be noted at once, with Wernz, that a papal election held outside of a properly organized conclave is canonically null and void.” Got that Tom A? A conclave that doesn’t follow the rules is null and void. Oh, and by way, Fr. Wernz, have you heard me speak of him? He was the Superior General of the Jesuits. He literally wrote the book on the operation of the papacy and of conclaves. He was the black pope. He died on August 19, 1914 , not 24 hours before Pius X died.
If you are going to make statements regarding the operation of conclaves you need to prove your sources. I’ve shown mine. All you have is BS.
Good evening TomA,
Of course the catch simply is, “The next true Pope”, as to “fill the Chair”, invoking human power, in accordance with Holy Tradition, the Pope is humanly chosen, while at once divinely instituted. Chicken and egg, as you know, TomA. In caritas.
To quote Homer Simpson: “Mmmmm…Donatism…”
Y’all seriously think that the Church has ceased to exist everywhere except for….where? apparently this combox? and that y’all are making your way to heaven by telling people not to attend Mass.
You do realize this can’t possibly be what a good and loving God would do. Unless he’s actually Loki. Is that what you’re arguing?
Mary, all you have is a theologian’s opinion. The onus is on you to prove how the electors are bound to a dead Pope’s law. A Pope can only bind on matters of faith and morals, not law. You prove me wrong. You can’t and all you have is a theological opinion and nothing from the magesterium. The Pope is the lawgiver and highest authority. When there is no pope, there is no lawgiver nor authority. Bishops may retain their authority over their dioceses, but the electors are representatives of the clergy of Rome who have no Bishop. Thats why they gather and pick a new one. Study the various conclaves over the centuries. There is no Divine Law that demands a certain formula or process.
What Blunderbuss said.
Blunder, do you simply believe you can repeal the law of non contradiction? Yes, the Church is much smaller than we think. For the Church is the mystical Body of Christ made up of those who are baptised and profess the Catholic faith. How many trads do you think are alive today? Maybe a million world wide. Maybe less. I don’t know. And of the Novus Ordo group, there may be one or two percent that believe birth control is immoral. On this issue alone, practically every one in the NO sect is not in the Church. Please explain to me how they are not excluded when they deny a moral teaching of the faith? How can someone who does not believe birth control is evil be a Catholic? Now add ecumenism and religious liberty to the mix and the Church is much smaller than you think. Jesus Christ wondered out loud whether He would find any faith left when He returned. Why is the notion of a faithless world so incomprehensible to you? Yes, the notion is so scary that I shutter to think of the souls that will be damned. I wish the situation wasn’t so. But objectively, how can you deny this conclusion?
Tom A: “Mary, all you have is a theologian’s opinion. The onus is on you to prove how the electors are bound to a dead Pope’s law. A Pope can only bind on matters of faith and morals, not law. ”
My Take: As I have previously said, Fr. Wernz was not just any theologian. He was probably the greatest theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas. One of the reasons why he would be murdered would be because he would have cried foul on the conclave following Pius X’s death. He knew what the process should be. If dead popes can only bind on faith and morals then why did Gratian produce the colossol Decretum Gratiani in 1140 and Raymond of Penafort, the Liber Extra, both of which were compendiums of church laws, Apostolic Constitutions and other decrees of “dead popes”. Believe me they weren’t just legislating your narrow definition of faith and morals. Canon law ideally should be a blend of theology and law, rather than simply legal categories at the service of the clergy. And yes, the dead popes laws were binding on the faithful and clergy alike.
Tom A.: “You prove me wrong. You can’t and all you have is a theological opinion and nothing from the magesterium. The Pope is the lawgiver and highest authority. When there is no pope, there is no lawgiver nor authority.”
My Take: The previously mentioned compendiums of canon law were recognized by succeeding centuries of popes, and yes, they were binding on the faithful and the clergy. Just because the pope is dead doesn’t mean his apostolic constitutions can be ignored. An interegnum is no excuse to ignore the previous popes Apostolic Constitution governing a conclave.
Tom A.: “Bishops may retain their authority over their dioceses, but the electors are representatives of the clergy of Rome who have no Bishop. Thats why they gather and pick a new one. Study the various conclaves over the centuries. There is no Divine Law that demands a certain formula or process.”
My Take: Who the electors represent is irrelevant. You yourself said all the cardinals could be dissolved tomorrow at the whim of a new pope. There is no Divine Law requiring a certain set of procedures, BUT the previous pope has an obligation to set up the conclave rules for the conclave after his death and usually does so in an Apostolic Constitution. Conclaves of previous centuries followed all kinds of norms from a show of hands of the people of Rome to the formal enclosure of Cardinals that popes started to insist on. Suggesting that they don’t have to follow any rules? Well, then why did all those popes of the 20th century, particularly the ones I believe were heretic freemasons insist that the cardinal electors follow procedures spelled out in the Apostolic Constitutions and most especially they insisted on secrecy, before, during and after conclaves.
Good late evening TomA,
Just a reminder: the willful acceptance of an intrinsic evil, re: “birth control”, although mortally sinful and as thus taking a soul into an eternity in Hell, while dying without perfect contrition, does not remove them from the Catholic Church. They spend an eternity in Hell as a Catholic. One must reject a tenet or tenets of the Faith, passively or actively, knowingly or not (re: the free acceptance into one’s will of the, “operation of error to believe lying”, which Saint Paul writes of in 2 Thes 2, which leads into the great apostasy), to be an heretic or an apostate and outside the Church thus where there is no salvation, deFide.
That 98% of Catholics that you suggest accept contraception as a moral good, likely becomes–all but all–of the baptized the world over, who are in frank as utter apostasy and all but all don’t even know that they are, as they receive the, “operation of error”, freely into their wills to believe the lie as the Truth, as God sends it to them, in response to their willful desire. Those apostates are all as everyone who accepts the church of the Antichrist, aka: conciliar church or post VCII church, as though it could actually be the Church which Jesus the Christ commanded into being ex nihilo, and further commanded would prevail unto the consummation of the world, period and end, Amen. They actually believe that, Christ’s Church is somehow still alive there and well in spite of teaching utter heresy, which tells all who are not intellectively as willfully blinded that, that church is dead and as such CANNOT be Christ’s Church; as though Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God, could experience internal contradiction within His Mystical Body and Bride, His Church, as Her supernatural Head. The simple reality that such an absurdity is believed by all but all of the baptized as being true, is literally as actually causing the cosmos to shudder in fear, trepidation, and utter anguish, as we bear witness to the existential manifestations of that reality everywhere, and in every created being, the world over, in the now.
All but all of the baptized never knew or never understood the command of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7 (Douay-Rheims copy): “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Almighty God is plainly commanding there that most souls spend an eternity in Hell and few get to Heaven and the world simply goes on as though this command of the One Who IS, was simply never made. It is beyond breathtaking to read those words, causing one to weep in anguish at the thought of that reality. Amen. In caritas.
Bishop Fellay signed the letter of correction which directly addresses this anti-pope’s heretical rantings. Crickets? How many in the entire Church—or what passes for it today— can say the same? More is to come after the General Session this summer. Reading this site, there is apparently only one person who know all regarding the crisis in the Church and how to resolve it. Diabolical narcicism.
The issue is not that complicated Al. If you believe Bergolio is Christ’s Vicar on Earth then you have a duty to submit to his magesterium. Same thing applies to V2 and the other conciliar popes. If you believe that V2 and the conciliar popes teach a faith that contradicts the Catholic faith as taught prior to the disasters of the 1960s, then the only logical conclusion is sedevacantism.
Been reading through some of the post…what’s the state of the church we find ourselves in is a great question. Where are we?… simply put, we are in a chaistisement from Almighty God. The worst punishment God can invoke on the church. Vat II poison, NO Mass posion. And everything else is inflected by it, this posion. SSPX was founded to preserve the catholic priesthood in this chaistisement. If every bad pope , every bad bishop , priest, deacon , religious and every crisis the church has coped with in the past bring the church out to be a false church then common sense should tell that the Lutherans were right about her all along. But they are not right, sure the Good God muddies the bride from time to time to do what exactly….perfect her. Make her worthy to live in his house. She always overcomes the evil thrown at her. After all she was created by God to help redeem sinners n help them on their journey to get to heaven. Outside of her there is no salvation even in the worst of times. So what choices do we have here ? Accept Gods just punishment n get on our knees begging is the only one I see.
Food for taught question : why do God send bad bishops n priest to the flock?
When asked on a survey, “Do you accept the Church’s teaching prohibiting artificial birth control?” Ninety eight percent respond, “No.” I think that is a willfull rejection of one of the moral tenants of the Catholic faith. Their culpability in these errors is known to God alone. Objectively, we must take them at face value and accept their denial of the faith. We could also ask them about salvation outside the Church and would also find the vast majority again denying the Catholic faith. My point was to express to Blunder that the notion of a very small Church left on Earth is not far fetched.
“The good God muddies the Bride..” Really?? Man desecrates Holy Mother Church, not Her Groom. I think the question you are really asking is why does God permit man to do such evil blaphemous things. I don’t know why people have to come up with reasons why we are being “punished.” Man has been punished since the Fall. Our time is no different than any other in this regard. God simply allows the natural consequences of our actions. When we disobey His Law we suffer the effects of our bad decisions. At some point He promises a super natural intervention. I for one would fear that more than any natural or man made calamity. His supernatural intervention will have eternal consequences.
Kellyann–I find it difficult to believe that an All-Knowing God would muddy the Church jeopardizing countless souls in the process. As you say, the Church was created by God to redeem sinner not to confuse sinners and make them collateral damage.
I forgot to mention that the rules of the conclaves are part of canon law. If the canon law regarding conclaves is abrogated on the death of the previous pontiff, then so is all of canon law, not to mention the moral law.
The Vatican and the parish pulpits are filled with COWARDS who refuse to speak out against this filth. This is horrendous and prophetic !
Even Kindergarten children are sodomizing each other ! If THIS doesn’t cry out to Heaven for vengeance , nothing does. shame on the so called New Evangelizers for hell.
http://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/grandville/child-sodomized-by-classmates-assaults-recorded-on-school-issued-ipads-lawsuit-claims/69-531027866
Long past time. Lord, have mercy.
Mary, I did not say it was abrogated, but seeing how there is no lawgiver and court of last appeal (ie the Pope), there is no one to enforce the law and thus the electors are not bound by the law. Upon election of a new Pope, the Pope can then deal with those electors who violated the law as he sees fit. But if their violoation of the law resulted in the election of the new Pope, I do not envision him prosecuting those who got him elected. In essence, the new Pope is free to abrogate all canon law and start afresh. He is also free to enforce any law in any manner he sees fit. He can punish trads for disobedience and let progressives off the hook. He can favor one order over another. He can apply the law in a blantantly lopsided manner. The Pope is a supreme monarch and is not bound by canon law since there is no one to appeal to other than the Pope. But during interregnums, there is no lawmaker or enforcer.
Good Saturday afternoon TomA,
Again, mortal sin, in the defiance of a tenet of the Faith, in and of itself, does not equate to heresy. A “Catholic” who commits murder, knows that it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepts that reality, and commits the act of murder anyway. That doesn’t make him an heretic. One who is asked what their opinion is about “contraception” may say, “Well, I think it’s okay, it’s not that big of a deal. It’s not like I’ve murdered someone, so God will excuse it.” This can be purely deception and not a frank denial of a tenet of the Church’s moral teaching, with a full assent of the will, after it is informed by the intellect, in opposition to the teaching of the Church. The person remains culpable for their sinful act, as there is no excuse, as to suggest there is, is a denial of grace, which alone allows each and every miserable human creature to choose the good over the evil, according to the Angelic Doctor. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In Caritas, while I totally agree that committing a mortal sin does not seperate one from the Church, my point was that a person who says it is no big deal to contracept objectively denies the faith. Objectively this person has seperated himself from the Church. We cannot know his level of ignorance on the matter.
God does not send us anything bad or evil.
Hello again TomA,
In the objective realm of reality, one must make their free will assent into acknowledging what the Church teaches definitively firstly and then in the act of acknowledging their full free will assent into the understanding that the True Church– One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic– teaches that it is an intrinsically evil act, which can find no remedy from within the immanence of the act itself to ever be other than the privation of the due good in the act, and after this they continue to obstinately deny the Church’s teaching, specifically desiring to “deny the Church’s teaching”, then they have separated by virtue of their active denial of the Faith in Her moral teaching. You see TomA, there is a much higher standard in the acknowledgement of heresy than the objective realization of the commission of a mortal sin by violating the Church’s moral authority, which in this case persons may do a thousand times and yet they may not have actively denied the Faith. Another scenario: “I want the pleasure of the act without the “pain” of a child. I know the Church teaches the contrary, yet it seems a small matter to me in the broad scope of things with a world gone mad. I don’t want to bring a child into this mad world.”
The free assent of the will must be specific to intone heresy. The assent must be in knowing the Church teaching, while at once having a willful desire to reject that same teaching and not to simply continue to commit the mortal sin, which is vastly different then, “I know the Church teaches thus but I know “God is merciful” and He has many bigger fish to fry than me.” My willful assent must be to leave the Church, not just to contracept. There are two distinct acts here TomA and they don’t by necessity follow in tandem. It always reduces to potency and act, in each act, whatever each act may be. I pray this helps. In caritas.
During an interregnum and during conclave the jurisdiction of the Church rests with the entire body of Cardinals. Law doesn’t disappear because a pope dies. If true popes acted with such disregard for canon law they wouldn’t be elected in the first place (before 1914). Before 1914 the body of Cardinals acted diplomatically and militarily all the time. Canon law was enforced. You are judging conclaves by present circumstances , by the circumstances of the 20th century when we have had one heretic freemason elected after another. Yes, under present “conclave rules”, simony, conspiracies, interference by national governments and intelligence services of every powerful group and interest worldwide, have tremendous influence on who is chosen pope. The choice is probably made in a boardroom in the City of London by the bankers there. Your scenario is correct, the rule is, there are no rules. But that is not because this is good Catholic traditional practice. It’s not. This is canon law distorted and bent to the ends of evil men. Before 1914 there was an openness, a transparency to the conclaves. And rightly so, because we laity had a right to know whether canon law was followed at the conclaves in order to elect a good Catholic man as pope. We have an obligation to follow a true pope, as you would readily acknowledge. You don’t achieve that by violating the laws of God and/or of the Church.
Mary, where on earth did you get the idea that the body of cardinals has any authority whatsoever? In the pratical order, during interregnums its a pure power politics free for all. There is no one alive to the enforce the law nor is there anyone alive to appeal to. If you lived in Rome during an interregnum and you publically declared yourself in schism, who can excommunicate you? No one. Not until a Pope is elected. Why can’t some Cardinal do it? Because he has no authority to do so. All the authority of every cardinal in the Curia is suspended until there is a new Pope. Cardinals in the Curia govern in the name of the Roman Pontiff. They have no authority apart from him. The innovation of giving authority to the body of bishops or cardinals apart from the Pope is a Vatican 2 error.
Melanie asks In Caritas: “I don’t understand what your position is. Do you say that there are now no Catholic Bishops or Priests, no Masses? What exactly is your position on the state of the Church, I wish you’d just say that.”
In Caritas writes a lot in his/her posts, but I’m still unsure whether he/she actually answers this question. In Caritas?
“When asked on a survey, “Do you accept the Church’s teaching prohibiting artificial birth control?” Ninety eight percent respond, “No.” I think that is a willful rejection of one of the moral tenants of the Catholic faith. Their culpability in these errors is known to God alone. Objectively, we must take them at face value and accept their denial of the faith. ”
Exactly. Even the Novus Ordo sect still teaches that artificial birth control is against the will of God (at least for now).
PS… Tom? It is “tenet”, not “tenant”. A common mistake by the way. 🙂
“In caritas, Don’t you think that it’s reasonable that Archbishop Lefebvre could have been honestly mistaken?”
Another good question Melanie. It appears from In caritas’ posts that the Novus Ordites that contracept and deny the Catholic teaching on artificial contraception are afforded the the benefit of the doubt, but not Archbishop Lefebrve. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding In caritas, but he sure does seem to go out of his way to keep the Novus Ordites in the Catholic Church, but is quick to cast out Archbishop Lefebrve .. man who actually held and professed the True Faith.
Thanks 2VT. I will not “resist” your fraternal correcrion. There are elements of truth in them.
Just so that everyone understands where Conclaves get their instructions…
The College of Cardinals must follow papal law which comes in the form of an Apostolic Constitution- NOT CANON LAW. Canon Law does NOT govern conclaves.
tradprofessor–Bishop Fellay does not refer to Francis as anti-pope nor does he say Francis is a heretic–only promotes heresy. The results of the General Session will be very telling, especially if the Vatican must approve of the result. Stay tuned.
@In caritas – you have found scripture passages and used your interpretation of them to validate your personal opinions. Congratulations. You have invented Protestantism.
@Tom A – you have just anathamatized well over a billion Catholic people. That is Medieval-style Poping at a graduate level. With a world population of 7 billion, using your number of 1 million Trads and assuming all are saved, you are at a save rate of 0.014% if my math is right. But then you need to remove all of those Trads who claim loyalty to Pope Francis and are sinners. Now you are probably closer to 0.0014%. So you are several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed in a plane crash or by lightning or a polar bear or penguin (look it up) than get to heaven. That sound like a loving God to you? It’s like he created heaven and then said “now, because someone a billion years ago disobeyed me, I’m going to make it virtually impossible for anyone to get in. Oh, btw, here’s a fake Catholic Church. Oops, you followed them and not Pope Tom. It’s hell for you for all eternity LOL”. Sounds more like a Roman pagan god’d mischief or Loki than the God I worship.
http://saintsquotes.net/selection%20-%20fewness.html
I guess they, including Our Lord Himself, didn’t believe in a loving God either.
Actually, God does allow it by his passive providence.
See the Book of Job. Along with this doozy From Ezekiel 20:23-26
“”Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;
and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD.”‘
So likewise for Vatican II – a bad council God allowed to take place for our punishment.
Or do you deny this?
What’s the matter little Blunder?
According to you, the Jews don’t need to convert to be saved, which means they don’t need the Mass.
Only those people who are ISIS militants with a gun in their hand go to Hell. Otherwise, everyone outside of the Church goes to Heaven.
So what’s wrong if people don’t attend Mass according to the heretic Blunderbuss?
And how do you know what a good and loving God would do? Ever read the Old testament Blunder?
Do you know the history of the Catholics in Japan, Blunder?
Do you actually know anything or think logically about anything you’ve ever posted in the comboxes here Blunder?
Ever hear of that guy called the Anti-Christ, Blunder? You know… one that is coming who will fool a great many, even many of the elect?
Given you ‘obviously’ (wa-hah) know so much about Scripture, did you ever hear Christ speak aloud that He wondered that when He returned, whether or not He’d find faith on Earth?
How many people got on the Ark of Noah, Blunder. Was God being mean then? Or do you consider that account a work of fiction, Blunder?
How many people of the old generation of Hebrews who left Egypt finally entered the Promised Land, Blunder?
Ever read that sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice who outlines correct Catholic Teaching on the fewness of the saved and why the Catholic Church has a long reputation of being so very mean and always talking about Hell and scaring little children or something that the modernists and Vatican-Two-ites like you are usually chastising the ‘old’ Church for being behind the times and not being ‘merciful’ enough like Pope Francis?
I’m not a sede, Blunder. But you don’t need to be a non-Catholic to go to Hell. Many Catholics go there because they don’t care. Or rather they imagine that God will just give ’em a free pass, because life is so hard don’t you know?
Should God continue to waste the Sacraments on these people, Blunder? Or just as He did to Israel, would God not punish and remind us of their importance by depriving us of them? Will God continue to cast pearls before swine?
Do you read the Bible, Blunder? Or any commentaries or Papal and saintly writings before 1960, Blunder?
Blunder?
We should also likewise remember how King Saul got anointed.
In prior eras ,that is, prior to 1914, it is a fact that rebellions in the papal states were put down by cardinals during interregnums. You seem to revel in the lawlessness of current conclaves. You seem to believe that is as it is meant to be. But that is not how conclaves were conducted in the past. And when abuses creapt in: simony, conspiracies, choosing popes outside of conclave, then the pope proscribed those abuses in canon law. The Catholic Church did not celebrate or encourage lawlessness. That was the reason why conclave rules were prescribed first, in Apostolic Constitutions, then in canon law.
I have to agree here w/Blunderbuss. Catholicism is not some arcane mystery cult. There is something terribly wrong and I don’t know how it is to be rectified. It is not at all clear what the teaching of the Church is and it is supposed to be clear. What was always believed is being denied by the man claiming to be Pope and even by the claimants before him. The Church teaching changed w/Vatican II and this is clear. It’s a problem..how does one know, love and serve God, right now? I don’t know.
Mary, the Church is not an institution on man made laws like the U.S. It is an absolute monarchy. During an interregnum, it is the duty of the Roman clergy to elect a new Pope. This can be accomplished in any manner they choose. There is nothing in Divine Law that prohibts one method and promotes another. I am astounded that a traditional Catholic such as yourself believes a body of cardinals without a Pope has any authority whatsover. That notion has been condemned. Its only in Gallicanism and Vatican 2 that it rears its ugly head. I fear you have been effected by modernism or Americanism in equating the Church to some sort of constitutional federation governed by laws. The Church does not live by the rule of law, it lives by the rule of faith.
Blunder, do you know the meaning of the word objectively. If I say someone is objectively outside the Church, I am making an observation based on facts. I am not making a judgment on a subjective matter. Those who you think I have condemned will be judged by God alone as to their culpability in not knowing the faith. But if these people are never told they are in error, then I may be culpable for their ignorance for prefferring human respect over the salvation of souls. You seem to believe it is best to keep the 99.9% in ignorance and that God will be merciful to their ignornace. Maybe He will, but then again, maybe He won’t. Wide is the road to perdition and many take it. Small is the gate to salvation and few find it. If that is too exclusive for you, I suggest you take it up with the author of that quote.
Ok, let’s take the St. Leonard of Port Maurice number in your document. 3 of 60,000 get to Purgatory, zero to heaven. 0.005%. There are 156,000 people who die each day on earth these days. So of these 8 get into Purgatory. The only thing this shows is that Extreme Unction, the Sacraments, Scapulars, and everything else is effectively completely useless. Do you believe that? Or were these quotes perhaps used for effect vs. to show hard numbers?
No, I agree that He allows it to happen. That is different than actually sending it.
Ok, let’s take the St. Leonard of Port Maurice number in your document. 3 of 60,000 get to Purgatory, zero to heaven. 0.005%. There are 156,000 people who die each day on earth these days. So of these 8 get into Purgatory. The only thing this shows is that Extreme Unction, the Sacraments, Scapulars, and everything else is effectively completely useless. Do you believe that? Or were these quotes perhaps used for effect vs. to show hard numbers?
You clearly do read the Bible. You also clearly then interpret it to match your own ideas. This is called Protestantism.
Do you think you’re going to be one of the 8? Or will your angry god send you to hell when you die? I’m guessing the latter, since there are at least 8 people who are martyred every day, and they’re ahead of you in line.
But I guess we’ll meet there, since I went to a very reverent Novus Ordo Mass in a thriving parish and heard an excellent sermon on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death this morning.
“I’m not a sede, Blunder.”
Why do you feel the need to point this out? You and I, a sede, agree regarding Blunder’s non-Catholic views.
Exactly what do you agree with Blunder about Melanie?
2Vermont, I agree w/this, “‘Oh, btw, here’s a fake Catholic Church. Oops, you followed them and not Pope Tom. It’s hell for you for all eternity LOL’. Sounds more like a Roman pagan god’d mischief or Loki than the God I worship.” I don’t agree that TomA is saying he’s the Pope but I agree that Catholics should be able to follow the teachings of the Church faithfully and get to Heaven. I think there is a big problem when the teachings of the Pope are so different from what Church teaching has always been that Catholics are confused about what Church teaching is, wonder if the man really is the Pope, wonder if they are supposed to learn new teaching, wonder if the Church was true then but not now, was it even true before? If we are really completely on our own to decide all of this, I have to imagine this is a very unique time in history that I did not wish to experience. I just wonder if we were supposed to be left w/out a pope why wasn’t he just martyred for all to know, okay we have no Pope and we’ll carry on as well as we can. This Pope of a new religion just seems like a deception that we were set up for, it seems kind of tricky and mischievous, like Blunderbuss says. If it’s God will it is, it just feels weird, like “I’m really supposed to figure this out? Okay, I’m trying.”
Tom A.: the Church is not an institution on man made laws like the U.S. It is an absolute monarchy. During an interregnum, it is the duty of the Roman clergy to elect a new Pope. This can be accomplished in any manner they choose.
My Rebuttal: NO,NO. There is canon law. It is not meant to be suggestions. The Catholic Church may be based on the rule of the Pope, but he has to follow, Divine Law, the Moral Law, Ecclesiatial Law, and yes Canon Law, which is based on God’s Laws. He is NOT a law unto himself. He is NOT GOD. Check the story of Adam and Eve with the serpent. He is as restrained by the moral law and Divine Law as any of us are. Jews were known for using interpretations of the law, to violate God’s laws. It was called Pharisticalism.
Tom A: There is nothing in Divine Law that prohibts one method and promotes another. I am astounded that a traditional Catholic such as yourself believes a body of cardinals without a Pope has any authority whatsover. That notion has been condemned. Its only in Gallicanism and Vatican 2 that it rears its ugly head. I fear you have been effected by modernism or Americanism in equating the Church to some sort of constitutional federation governed by laws. The Church does not live by the rule of law, it lives by the rule of faith.
My Rebuttal: Your characterization of the conclaves of the past is historically inaccurate. Cardinals did wield authority as a group. They did make decisions, in accord with canon law. Gallicanism advocated the autonomy of the French church against the authority of the pope. It had it’s roots in the Council of Constance and the desire of the cardinals gathered there to determine DOCTRINE and Discipline. It was fully repudiated at Vatican Council I but had been condemned by many pontiffs beginning with Martin V. You are mischaracterizing the limited authority of the cardinals during an interegnum, and I believe deliberately so. I have implied before that I believe you are a troll. You’re attempting to sow disinformation concerning the Catholic Church and division.
Making faith appear to be in opposition to canon law is ridiculous. Canon Law has to be based on our faith. It’s faith in action. It’s faith applied to the life of man. It’s not opposed to man, but man’s friend. Saying faith and law are opposed is like accusing God and His 10 Commandments of being a killjoy of life. It’s like saying we could only live better if we didn’t have these silly rules telling us not to kill, lie, cheat, steal, rape or betray and most importantly they tell us we must worship Him and only Him. Those commandments are the boundries within which life with God is possible and I would contend they make life possible. Canon law is merely an adjunct of the moral law but with the input of the popes of 2 millenia.
Good Sunday afternoon Al….,
Thank you. What you write makes intuitive sense. Please give us an Apostolic Constitution which provides direction regarding Conclaves, such that I/we may learn. In caritas.
Blunder: “Ok, let’s take the St. Leonard of Port Maurice number in your document. 3 of 60,000 get to Purgatory, zero to heaven. 0.005%. There are 156,000 people who die each day on earth these days. So of these 8 get into Purgatory. The only thing this shows is that Extreme Unction, the Sacraments, Scapulars, and everything else is effectively completely useless. Do you believe that? Or were these quotes perhaps used for effect vs. to show hard numbers?”
(1) Those who go to Purgatory go to heaven
(2) The fewness of the saved in no way show that the Sacraments are completely useless.
(3) The issue has never been about “hard numbers”. The point is that the CATHOLIC FAITH (and its most faithful adherents) teaches the fewness of the saved, the narrow gate. Perhaps if more Catholics believed that, more would be saved.
Good Fifth Sunday of Lent evening Blunderbuss,
As can only be understood as fact in the objective sphere of reality, and as you simply have no rightly reasoned argument, and therefore no correct logical construction, that which can only flow from right reason, and which exists in the Mind of God Himself, while taught as thus by the Angelic Doctor of the true Church our Holy Mother, you reach into your entrails and place your passions in the ordinate position, while at once God commanded them to be in the subordinate position, as it is the intellective power of the human soul which knows, not the passions. Thus, you attack the person in the textbook ad hominem fashion, which Lucifer’s emissary, Saul Alinsky perfected. This of course can only be expected, as you simply do not know, that you do not know, and yet you remain fully culpable, as do we all, and it is your anger thus that drives you.
As you simply do not have an understanding of the teaching of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, as this thing speaks as res ipsa loquitur from that which you continue to write, and as thus you let your inner self be known, for all those with eyes to see, indeed then to see, just who you are. You are a member of the church of the Antichrist, which is the abomination of desolation, as it is completely void of all things Christ Jesus from its very immanence, the wellspring from which it flows, as so called “Vatican II”. As any 12 year old receiving the intellective Light of the Holy Ghost would know, that council, again in the objective sphere of reality, teaches utter heresy, and as that same 12 year old would know, the true Church established by the Son of God made true Man cannot teach heresy, as Christ cannot be opposed to Himself. Heresy is in opposition to the Faith, period and end. No argument can be proffered to the contrary, as to do so, denies the Faith. Understand Lumen Gentium 16 and you will see that Vatican II denies the very Triune Personhood of Almighty God, in the objective realm of reality, for all those with eyes which see.
You stake a claim about what it is to be Catholic tacitly, as you claim and to quote you from above,
” you have found scripture passages and used your interpretation of them to validate your personal opinions. Congratulations. You have invented Protestantism.”
Now lets compare your claim against the command of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, as He speaks from one of the passages that I suggested above. This from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 24; 15: “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”
Thus, the Son of God commands, “he that readeth let him understand.”, and Blunderbuss, a mere, miserable creature, as are we all, brought into existence ex nihilo by the One Who simply IS, defies Him and didn’t even know that he did. You see Blunderbuss, Holy Mother, the Church, which Christ Jesus established and not Lucifer, whose church is the one called “Catholic” since 1958, has never commanded that Catholics shall not “interpret” Holy Scripture and in fact our Lord Jesus the Christ has commanded the contrary. What a true Catholic cannot do, is to have his own interpretation which contradicts defined teaching, period and end. I pray you wake up soon Blunderbuss and save your soul, as time is running out in the understanding of motus infine’ velocior. Amen. In caritas.
I’m not angry, I’m not sure how anything I said is ad hominem. I’m most certainly not reaching into my own entrails. And where Saul Alinsky comes into this I can’t even begin to fathom. But since I guess we’re randomly throwing out random names, I’ll go with “Rutherford B. Hayes”? That’s a good name.
You believe that “Lucifer established” the “church of the Antichrist, the abomination of desolation” in 1958 and that I’m a member of it. I’m quite sure I’m a member of the Catholic Church, established by Jesus in 33 AD. If you really believe what you wrote, there’s no point in discussing it. You believe I and the other 1.1 billion Catholics are going to hell and you are not because you figured out some secret knowledge that the rest of us have not. Gnosticism much?
Blunder, its no secret nor is it gnostic. Simply do some research on your own and discover what the Church taught prior to 1958 and compare it to what has been taught since 1958. If you are honest and seek the truth you will come to only one conclusion. You must do this for yourself, do not take my word for it nor the word of anyone else.
A simple review of past papal conclaves illustrates that practically no two conclaves were conducted under the same set of rules. Some conclaves, out of respect for the deceased Pope, followed the rules set forth and other conclaves totally ignored those rules. None of the departures from the “rules” ever invalidated a papal election. Yes many elections in the past were contested for many reasons. These controveries were resolved by human power politics and not by any Divine Law. Once accepted as Pope (by whatever manner), the man chosen assumed the Divine charism of the office. Until 1958 of course when invalid matter was chosen (ie non-Catholics were elected).
Dear Blunderbuss,
Again, this is very simple, that which a 12 year old, who is virtuous and receiving God’s Intellective Light would know, as it is deFide. Vatican II teaches heresy in the objective realm of reality, for all eyes who can see, to see. Lumen Gentium 16 tacitly denies the Triune Godhead as being the God which the Catholic Church professes in Her Creed. Heresy is in opposition to the Faith, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, cannot be in opposition to Himself as there can be no contradiction in Truth Himself, as contradiction is in opposition to truth. Because all of the so called “Popes” since 1958 enjoin themselves, through their own free will assents, to the Second Vatican Council, as though it is a Council of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, while at once in the objective realm of reality that same council teaches heresy, they simply CANNOT be “Popes” of the Catholic Church because Vatican II simply CANNOT be of the Catholic Church, properly understood. Period and end. You freely choose therefore, to be a member of the church of the Antichrist, as its teaching is fully antichrist, period and end. It is that simple. You either reject objective reality and go to Hell, when that objective reality clearly speaks as res ipsa loquitur, and when dealing with matters deFide, or you reject the lie which all but all of the baptized on the planet now and for the past 60 years have falsely believed. As our Blessed Lord commanded in Matthew 24, when He comes again, it will be as the times of Noah. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear 2Vermont,
Please go below and read the exchange between TomA and me. TomA chose not to respond to the last rebuttal. There simply is no response along his errant line of reasoning which he can now offer. When one commits sin mortally, from within that very act of the person’s free will assent into sin, and for the sake of this discussion, the intrinsic evil of contraception, they are freely choosing to disobey the Church. When a child disobeys his father, he simply does not in that act of disobedience, and whether it is once or a thousand times, abandon his father, necessarily, now does he? In order to abandon his father, this requires another free assent of his will. He must freely choose to abandon his father and therefore to disown him and disavow himself from his command. That is a very different act than simply continuing to disobey him, because he chooses to disobey him. In order for any of the baptized to freely leave the Church, just as the Protestant who is baptized as an infant, and is thus Catholic by the very nature of participating in the Church’s Sacrament of Baptism as She baptizes and then he freely leaves the Church at the age of reason, because his parents are “Baptist” and he then deems that he is also, the person contracepting, has to freely decide something like this: “I know that the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is an intrinsic evil, gravely evil, and I don’t care what She teaches. I am Catholic and because I choose to deny that one little teaching cannot matter, but I do deny that teaching because I believe that teaching is in error.” Now that, 2Vermont, is the free assent into heresy and that Catholic could commit that heresy after the first time he chooses to invoke contraception, whereas the sinner who simply continues to mortally sin by contracepting 3,000+ times, has not left the Church because he didn’t freely will to do so, which I hope you now see is an entirely different act. These two ontological realities are apples and oranges in truth. As I mentioned to TomA, every act must reduce to potency and act, as Almighty God alone is Pure Act. I pray this helps. In caritas.
PS. 2Vermont,
Perfectly miserable me did not somehow, “out”, so called Archbishop Lefebvre, he excommunicated himself, latae sententiae, by virtue of the very act of his “consecrating” bishops without Apostolic approval from the Vicar of Christ, as the only man in the cosmos who can appoint his Bishops, under any and all circumstances. Not only was he excommunicated in the act, but had he consecrated validly, the priests receiving the consecration would also be excommunicated although validly consecrated as Bishops, and it would follow then that any as all of their ordinates would be excommunicated as well. No Pope, no licit Bishops, no licit priests, no licit Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and thus if a Catholic is going to a valid Mass, somewhere on the planet today, as in the Greek Catholic Church for instance, they are partaking in the consumption of their eternal judgment and not their salvation, as Saint Paul proclaimed, when the Blessed Sacrament is consumed unworthily. When the Blessed Sacrament is consecrated validly but illicitly, as it has been in the Orthodox church for hundreds of years now, the grave and mortal sin of sacrilege is committed each time the priest consecrates and by each of the laity who partake in that same sacrilegious consecration, as sacrilege cannot both be sacrilege and not be sacrilege, at the same time, and under the same respect. There is no excuse as to suggest there is, is a tacit denial of grace and it is only by virtue of receiving God’s grace freely into one’s operation of the will, that the good can be chosen over the evil, everywhere and always, period and end. Saint Thomas taught this. That is perennial Catholic Church teaching (see “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, Pope Pius XII, months before he died in 1958). I pray this helps. In caritas.
2Vt and In Caritas, I did not rebut since there is nothing left to say. There is a distinction between the willfull commission of an act one knows to be sinful and the denial of an article of faith. Why In Caritas ventures to cause confusion where none exists is something you will have to ask him. I would think all the readers here would unanimously agree that In Caritas is the master of saying in 1000 words what could be said in a dozen. His excessive verbiage is not a sign of high intellect, in fact it is just the opposite. While I do not for one minute believe In Caritas is a modernist, he does use their tactic of expounding profusely in order to convince the reader of a profound meaning which simply isnt there. Please accept my criticism and fraternal correction as offered in charity.
Al, I would say, ” the College of Cardinals ARE OBLIGED to follow papal DECREES which come in the form of an Apostolic Constitution.” I think that statement more accurately reflects reality.
In caritas, Are you claiming that every single Mass said around the world by any Priest on Earth is illicit and that any Catholic who receives Holy Communion today partakes in the cunsumption of their eternal judgment? That there is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered but only sacrilege? If this is what you claim could you just say, “Yes.”
Dear Tom A,
Philosophical inquiry is a very precise science. In order for precision to be understood, each movement must be clearly stated, which is at once clarifying the argument plainly stated, and recognizing the miserable creatureliness of the one proffering the argument. We are not preternatural Tom A and as thus we must move slowly and precisely to the truth using reasoning, properly understood. Once again Tom A, not only do you freely choose to degenerate your argument into the ad hominem, you now also seek “public approval” for your ad hominem, as is clearly witnessed in your current response. Who was speaking of so called “high intellect” here, until you have done so? Your anger is now evident and particularly in the reality that you still did not address the objective nature of the reality, that mortally sinning through defiance of God’s Law and mortally sinning by freely rejecting what the Church teaches, as She teaches it, are two distinct movements of the will, each as independent of the other, and therefore not necessary entwined.
You then had the audacity to stake this claim Tom A:
“There is a distinction between the willfull commission of an act one knows to be sinful and the denial of an article of faith.”
That was not your argument at all Tom A. Your premise was that because all but one or two percent of Catholics choose to contracept and the Church has a moral teaching that contraception is an intrinsic evil, that by virtue of their defiance in using contraception, that is a defacto recognition that they have “left the Church”. That is precisely what your argument was and now you attempt to cover that truth in deception. Here are your very own words copied and pasted from below Tom A, for all to bear witness to:
“On this issue alone, practically every one in the NO sect is not in the Church. Please explain to me how they are not excluded when they deny a moral teaching of the faith? How can someone who does not believe birth control is evil be a Catholic?”
Then you have the unmitigated audacity of associating the word, “Modernist” with me Tom A. Who are you really? The “fraternal correction” is yours to receive Tom A. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear Melanie,
We each must come to our own free will assent, after the will is informed by the intellect, and then only by virtue of the reception of grace into the will, can we choose the good over the evil. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that truth in his Summa Theologiae. The Church’s teaching has been plainly stated several times now, below this same article. No true Holy Roman Pontiff, no licit Bishops, no licit priests, no licit Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as the Pope is the only man in the cosmos who can approve the appointment of any priest as Bishop, period and end. No licit Bishops, then by rightly reasoned conclusion, no licit ordinations, thus no licit priests, as Pope Pius XII deemed that the illicit Bishops as they are excommunicated, loose all powers of teaching and jurisdiction. See “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, taught by Pope Pius XII in 1958, shortly before his death. That is infallible Church teaching. He recognized what the Church has taught for centuries and claimed it as his own. He commanded that any Bishop who consecrates any priest without specific Apostolic Approval from the Roman Pontiff, is excommunicated from the Church in the very act of the consecration, although valid, but valid only if done as the Church has always done the consecrations. Further, as it would only be rightly reasoned, each of the consecrated, although now valid Bishops if consecrated as the Church has always consecrated, also are excommunicated by virtue of accepting the valid but illicit consecrations. Their Masses then, each and every one of them, are sacrilegious and as thus mortally sinful. That sacrilege then flows to the laity who partake in the liturgy and the reception of the Blessed Sacrament.
Now simply do the math Melanie. Valid and licit Bishops were last consecrated by the Apostolic authority of Pius XII and he died in 1958. Why did licity end with Pope Pius XII? Simply because Vatican Council II proffers heresy and therefore it cannot be the language of the Catholic Church. As it is not the Catholic Church which holds Vatican II as truth, the men who claim the papacy of the church which stakes its claim to Vatican II, cannot be the Holy Roman Pontiffs of the Catholic Church, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect. Do you think there remains alive today a Bishop then who is both valid and licit? If Pope Pius XII approved of the consecration of a 40 year old priest in 1958, he would be a 100 year old Bishop today. Again, read and discern Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 9:27, Amen. May Almighty God shower us with His true as infinite mercy. Amen. In caritas.
In caritas, I really wish I thought that you were completely insane. How could this be, though? So, the Church is supposed to follow in the Passion of Christ but Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. I know God is not bound by time but we are. What about us, what about our children? Didn’t He say He would shorten this time or we’d all be lost? What the heck is short? 1958 was a long time ago. This is insane, it can’t be, I don’t understand this at all. If this was to be, wouldn’t we have been warned by the Popes? If I were a Pope I would alert me that this would happen, I mean this should have been made clear to us in advance, no? This isn’t very clear, don’t you think it is expecting quite a lot from us to see if this is actually what’s happening? I mean you’ve gotta be pretty danged certain to not attend Mass, which is a MORTAL sin, what the heck?
If it’s not about hard numbers, 2Vermont, don’t send something that says that only a statistically insignificant number of people get to heaven. If my chances of hell are 99.99995%, why not have 80 good years of debauchery before the eternity of misery instead of 80 years of self-denial in the hope that I win the salvation lottery?
See, remarks like “Ever read the Old Testament?” from Trads who hate Jews (note: I don’t think the majority do, but there are too many regardless) are funny. “Perfidious Jews”, except when their story agrees with whatever position I hold. Alrightythen.
Hello again Melanie,
To be insane would make this a lot easier, I would venture to speculate. Our Holy Mother, the Church, provides the Sacraments if and when She does, as She can. Remember, although divinely instituted, She is also human, in her membership, as the glorious Society of Heaven on earth, all those few who hold the True Faith, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, here on earth, the Church Militant. Remember that our time now is not the only time in history when the Sacraments have not been available. We as the occupants of this divine Society here on earth, are merely miserable human creatures, utterly vulnerable in the flesh. Think of the U.S.S.R. Think of Red China. For decades Catholics went without the external signs of the Sacraments, but fore Baptism, which can be accomplished by anyone, thanks and praise be to Almighty God. God, in His infinite mercy and gentleness, gave us the entry into His divine Society on earth, the Church Militant, vis a vis the one Sacrament which does not require a priest.
This taste of the Antichrist, in the existential reality of Communism, which is Lucifer’s religion, the religion of man, was a foretaste of what was to come for the entire world. Our Blessed Lady of LaSalette foretold in 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” That was a forewarning that you were wanting only from the Mother of God, not a Pope. If my memory serves, Pope Saint Pius X wondered if the person of the Antichrist was already alive in his time. Our Lady of LaSalette also proclaimed, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” “Eclipse”–one cosmic body juxtaposed in front of another and either mostly or completely blocking the view of the one. The Church is all but invisible now. Our Lady foretold this reality to two peasant shepherd children. Everyone speaks of Fatima but most either don’t know or have forgotten the prophecy of LaSalette, as the church of the Antichrist has done its best to suppress it, as Our Lady speaks directly of the Antichrist and the all but invisible Church in that time, as our time. The Truth just Is Melanie, as He is the divine Person of the Son of God. He commanded, “If any man is to come after Me, he must first deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me.” Those are very, very, very hard words for the ears of the perfectly miserable human creature to receive, as were the words that caused most of His disciples (all but the Twelve) to leave Him, in John 6. Christ Jesus commanded that–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. He then commanded that over this Truth, brother would turn against brother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, son against father, etc. We must be prepared, through the reception of grace alone, to forfeit all we have in this world, including our very life, for Christ, with Christ, in Christ. Amen. He never commanded that the Sacraments will prevail against the gates of Hell, as we know objectively, as mentioned above, the external signs of the Sacraments have already vanished for decades for countless millions. Amen. The Church prevails unto the consummation of the world as Christ the King commanded this reality into being. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
My eyes crossed at reading all the back and forths above. I will just go by what St Vincent of Lerins advised and maintain the Catholicism coming down from antiquity and the understandings and interpretations of the Early Church Fathers.Everything since can build upon it, but cannot be called “Catholic” if the original understandings are denied.
My only concern is that we pew people fall into what was called ecclesial deitism , something that I fear others will do with AL or some other things this Papacy seems to eschew.
Vatican Two did much to teach error to seminarians and priests when some even argued that evil is not an entity in itself but only in the heart of man.
To answer someone question here as to why God allows us to have bad Bishops, St Vincent explains this is a trying God allows to perfect our Faith by cleaving to what the Church has always taught.
We are all being tried sorely especially when we see and hear our clergy introducing novelties regarding sin rather than speaking out clearly and addressing what we all should know here, is or isn’t a sin.
As far as the legalisms concerning the election of a Pope , I fall back in horror remembering what Cardinal McCarrick let slip at Villanova University regarding Jorje Borgolio. Who was the influential Italian man and how and why did he think he could or should “reform” the Church?
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/cardinal-mccarrick-confesses-that-he-was-lobbied-to-support-cardinal-bergoglio/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7OW07u-pRI
Yes Mary, the Pope is restrained by Divine Law and Natural Law. He is not restrained by Canon Law since he is the source of Canon Law. A perfect example was that first Holy Thursday where Bergolio washed the feet of non catholics, thus violating Canon Law. Who was going to challenge him? I know its a poor example since Bergolio isnt a Pope at all, but many believe the charade.
In Caritas, my intention was never to imply that commission of a mortal sin seperates one from the Church. The denial of any article of the faith separates one from the Church. Yes of course there are contracepting Catholics who know its a sin, yet still commit the sin. And there are contracepting ex Catholics who were told it was wrong yet do not believe the Church teaching. That is a denial of a moral teaching of the Church and a denial of Her authority to instruct the flock and a denial of the flocks duty to assent to the teaching of the Church.
Good Monday morning Tom A,
While you persist in your error, your lack of humility speaks. Once again, allow your own words, hence the form, hence your intent, as language speaks to intent as Holy Mother Church teaches, themselves to speak, as they do speak as res ipsa loquitur:
“On this issue alone, practically every one in the NO sect is not in the Church. Please explain to me how they are not excluded when they deny a moral teaching of the faith? How can someone who does not believe birth control is evil be a Catholic?”
Let’s break it down now, very tedious Tom A, but you persist:
““On this issue alone, practically every one in the NO sect is not in the Church.”
So here Tom A, your pure conjecture itself speaks. “On this issue alone…”. What “issue”, Tom A? The so called “issue” of which you speak is the use of the immoral act of contraception. You then, Tom A, not the sinner, choose to draw the conclusion that the person mortally sinning by invoking contraception is also, and how you somehow know is anyone’s guess, specifically as definitively removing themselves from the Catholic Church because you claim that they deny a moral teaching of the Church. Anyone who is sinning mortally is denying a moral teaching of the Church by contradicting the teaching in their sin, Tom A. And your point? They deny the moral teaching of the Church by the very nature of acting contrary to the teaching. They can know that it is a moral teaching of the Church, they can agree that it is a moral teaching of the Church, and they can still deny the teaching and commit the mortal sin again and again, without freely choosing to leave the Church and her teaching. A child’s father orders him to perform a certain task. The child chooses again and again to deny his father’s command. The child, while freely choosing to deny his father’s command, is not in that act, also choosing to deny his father in relationship and separate himself from his father, thus. That act is specific unto itself and thus requires a specific movement of the will, apart from the choice of repeatedly denying his father’s request. Again, we are dealing with two very distinct acts here. Each act has its own potency. One is the tacit denial of the teaching of the Church by committing the mortal sin and in this case, likely hundreds if not thousands of times per individual sinner. That repeated denial of the moral teaching simply does not, as it cannot, in and of itself mean, that the person sinning has also freely chosen to leave the Church. I will stop here, as if you do not acknowledge your error now, it would seem unlike that you will. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Pope John Paul II wrote an apostolic constitution which governed the rules for a valid and licit conclave to elect his successor. The document is: Universi Dominici Gregis, released on 22 February 1996 (and left unchanged by Pope Benedict). Here is the link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html
And after he died, who was there to enforce it?
I have a theory: Is Blunderbluss a SPLC combox “troll bot”? He refuses to address any questions and is fixated on virtue signaling with respect to Talmudic Judaism. For example, Blunderbuss, if the rich young man in Matthew 19 refused to acknowledge Jesus the Christ as God for the rest of his mortal existence (continued violation of the 1st commandment), is it likely his immortal soul is now tormented in hell? YES or NO, just choose one and prove you are not a “bot”.
McCarrick is an inveterate deceiver like his infernal father. He was pushing Bergoglio in 2005 — see the last page for the whole Team B: http://ojs.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/article/view/2/4
I mean no disrespect but you clearly don’t know what a bot is.
Neither you nor I not anyone living can or should answer your question. Firstly, it’s not our place to pass judgment on the souls of others. Especially those who died 2000 years ago. Secondly, if Jesus came up to you in the next 10 minutes and told you to give away everything and follow Him, how confident are you that you would believe it was Jesus and not dismiss Him as some nut? Because for the past 1,985 years since Jesus died, every single person who said this was a phony. If the young man died saying “yes, I knew this Jesus guy was the Messiah and God and I choose to reject Him and keep my stuff” and never changed his tune, there is a reasonable chance he’s in hell. But you don’t know anything about the rest of his life or whether he actually believed that Jesus was God.
You like to throw around the phrase “virtue signaling”. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m reminding you that the Catholic faith forbids you to hate and persecute Jews. I’m also not the one bringing up Jews as the source of all problems in comments on articles that have nothing to do with Jews – that’s what y’all are doing. I do think that bigotry is a major issue among Tradtionalists and that the movement will not progress until it’s rooted out.
Listen carefully to what Canon Lawyer Count Neri Caponi told Fr John O Conner decades ago about the Vatican Curia. now does anyone genuinely believe that the Holy Ghost is guiding these men in any way?
you can argue canon law till your blue in the face but without Extraordinary Divine Intervention ( which we should be storming heaven for) they will continue with the agenda to install the antichrist on the Chair of Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OB77m4PJOY
You’re right, not a bot, but “likely” a troll. Thanks for the reminder on how trads can “progress.” May you lead us to victory!
No disagreement. It is evident that the cardinals violated many of the provisions of UDG laid down by JPII by electing a known heretic- Bergoglio.
To sweepourthefilth and anyone else who is interested: one of the readings in Matins for the feast of St. Gabriel this past Saturday was from the book of Daniel, chapter 9. The Holy Ghost inspires him to write about the abomination of desolation, which, he writes, will last until the end of time. Since some of the ancient Fathers interpret this ‘abomination of desolation’ as the loss of faith, things are not going to get much better, only worse. May Our Lady of Sorrows watch over us. A blessed Holy Week to all.
Make no mistake. These Marxist communist sodomite clerics , as Fr John O’Conner states, do not hold the Faith. They are where they are to destroy it.
Contemplate the Resurrection this week and pray for the Resurrection of the True Faith in the institutional church. The darkness that enveloped Calvary during the Crucifixion is covering the earth.
In caritas, I really believe that you may be mistaken and this is a pretty big deal to mistake. I thought the following provided some decent insight into supplied jurisdiction: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html
I appreciate your thoughts on this but I just don’t know that you are quite correct on this.
Melanie, the key word there is CAN. The debate is whether it does and under what circumstances. And since there is no Catholic Pope, there is no one to answer the question definitively. So we are stuck with each soul having to figure out what to do and what not to do based on the Magesterium prior to 1958 since all that has come after that time is corrupted with modernism. Without authority we are scattered sheep bleating and running, searching in vain for safe haven. We are awaiting the voice of our shepherd.
Dearest Melanie,
It remains clear to this miserable human creature that you are sincere, that your heart is in your search, as Christ Jesus commanded: “You shall know them by their fruits.” May Almighty God bless and keep you and yours’. I implore your read and deep discernment, as can be only truly accomplished by the reception of the grace of the Holy Ghost by virtue of His intellective Light, of the encyclical of Pope Pius XII, which I believe to be his final before his death no less, “Ad Apostolorum Principus” (find it at the Vatican archives here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html ). Pope Pius XII made it exquisitely clear that “obedience” is the summa and summit of the truly Catholic life. The Carmelite Saints, as Saint Theresa of Avila, have made it clear that obedience is the segue to true Caritas. Without obedience through submission of our will freely, we cannot achieve the love which our Glorious God commands of us, here in the valley of tears, this side the veil. That love which truly and completely separates us from all of our miserable human creatureliness, as to truly love, one must and can only be truly detached from all human persons and all things in the cosmos, while at once knowing with divine certitude that it is Almighty God alone upon whom we truly depend. Amen.
Christ our King commanded: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me.” This is implacably hard Melanie and only achieved through obedience by submission, while at once receiving the grace of perseverance, while moving upstream against any and all natural and preternatural obstacles. Amen. Christ Jesus never commanded that we would have the Sacraments until the end of time, but for Baptism, as the only one which does not require a priest and thus if there are two people remaining alive at the end, one could Baptize the other, and enter the Kingdom of God on earth.
I read your link to the lawyer. Remember Melanie, he is quoting mere men as canonists and theologians undertaking theological speculation, apart from Saint Alphonsus Ligori. When you were attempting to pin me down earlier for a specific answer to your questions, I attempted to help you understand that each of us perfectly miserable human creatures must come to these conclusions freely, through precise movements of our will as guided by the Holy Ghost. There are no exceptions. Tom A is pointing this out to you as well.
Saint Paul, in 2 Thes 2 commands us, as he is speaking of the time of the person of the Antichrist being present on earth, the following in verse 14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or our epistle.” We must hold not to theological speculation but to the Holy Tradition given us in the infallible Magisterium and the Holy Writ given us by the Holy Ghost. To sum what Christ Jesus commanded in the Holy Gospel of Saint John, in this same understanding: Soon I will be leaving you, as I will be returning to the Father Who loves Me, and if you love Me, you will be glad for Me. But the Father will not leave you alone. He will send you the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Paraclete, Who will remind you of all that I taught you and teach you more. The world will not know Him nor see Him but you will. The “you” of whom Christ is speaking is His disciples of course, the members of His Church, those who remain in Her until the consummation of the world. The Holy Church teaches that the “external signs” of the holy Sacraments are not necessary for Almighty God to instill His Sacramental grace, as the Almighty does this as only He sees fit. The external signs are a consolation for us mere miserable human creatures, who must naturally first sense all that we know, apart from grace.
We live the time of the Great Apostasy Melanie, as Christ commanded His disciples to “know” the signs of the times. That which claims the Majesty of the Catholic Church, in the realm of the visible, is the church of the Antichrist, as it holds and teaches all that which is antichrist. As this reality is in the realm of the objective, as in the proclamations of the so called, “Second Vatican Council”, there can be “no excuse”, as Saint Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter one. We must know this. As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect, that which holds heresy as the purported teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, cannot both be the Church and not be the Church, at the same time, as that is purely absurd, which means it that reality cannot in truth be real, as an absurdity does not have metaphysical “being”, and therefore it cannot exist, as God did not create it.
In closing for now Melanie, please read and discern Matthew 24 and Daniel 9. Our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, commanded in Mat 24: 15, that the, “abomination of desolation”, would be as the prophet Daniel foretold. Look then to Daniel 9:27 and you shall see, as Christ Jesus commanded in Mat 24:15, “…he that readeth, let him understand.”, that the following is to occur in its prophesied time (Daniel 9:27, Douay-Rheims): “And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” What the prophet Daniel was letting the disciples of the latter days know, is that the Holy Sacrifice, as the offering of the spotless Victim, would “fail”, and then we were left with this abomination of desolation unto the very end of the world, as the Holy Sacrifice would not return to the earth, unto the consummation and even to the end. Amen. I pray with fervor, this helps. In caritas.
Has everyone lost sight of the remedy to this diabolical disorentation given to us by Our Lady ?????
Ock , We haven’t . Have done the five first Saturdays many times since my youth and we pray the daily rosary. Funny thing though , CMtv does not cover the remedy hardly at all . I was banned . Now I am watching the hypocrisy play out daily.
XXXX XXXXX a year ago
“Removed”
“Why so many deleted comments?
Michael can you explain why you were ousted from the Dunwoody seminary? Church History teaches public sinners should do private Penance and not step out into the limelight to feed their psycho sexual immaturity and narcissism which is part of the hx pathology.
I cannot judge your conversion but I do know why now my own comments were deleted years ago when I related the broken heartedness we endured after having three Pastors who were all homosexuals, two of whom were pedophiles and one whose AZT medication our donations were paying for. Our church was sold. My comment was deleted and a note came in from a nameless Moderator that said ,”We are not interested in your experience with the dark side of the Church”. Now it appears that this is your favorite topic. Why?”