According to a report published in the Tablet, retired Archbishop Jan Lenga has been ordered by the local ordinary, Bishop Wieslaw Mering of Wloclawek, Poland, to “refrain from delivering sermons and publicly conducting the liturgy.” He is also prohibited from making “contacts with the media.”
The restrictions on Lenga come as a result of the following:
In a book-length interview, still circulating in Polish on YouTube, he [Lenga] said he still recognised Benedict XVI as Pope and had dropped the name of the “usurper and heretic” Francis from his Mass prayer intentions.
Gloria TV is reporting that Lenga has responded by telling a local television outlet that he has no intention of abiding by the restrictions.
“Christ gave me the authority through the Church to proclaim the Truth, and I will do this until I die,” said retired Archbishop Jan Lenga, 69…
Lenga has long been on record as casting doubt on the validity of Benedict’s resignation. In an open letter published in 2015, he wrote:
It is difficult to believe that Pope Benedict XVI freely renounced his ministry as successor of Peter.
The idea that the act was forced reflects my own opinion. As such, I do not find it at all surprising that every reaction I’ve encountered thus far on the part of Catholic commentators is focused on Lenga’s stance concerning Bergoglio the “usurper.”
Even so, the arguably more important element of this story is Lenga’s public insistence that Bergoglio is a “heretic,” which alone amounts to a declaration that he is not the pope.
According to the Tablet:
“Bergoglio has not confirmed himself in the faith and is not passing that faith to others, he is leading the world astray,” said the archbishop, who trained secretly in Soviet-ruled Latvia and Lithuania and was appointed Kazakhstan’s first bishop in 1991 and Archbishop of Karaganda in 1999. “He proclaims untruths and sins, not the tradition which has endured for 2000 years… He proclaims the truth of this world, which is precisely the truth the devil”.
Why does this aspect of Lenga’s statement deserve at least as much, and arguably even more, attention than his stance concerning the resignation?
First, canon lawyers and Latinists continue to quibble about the true meaning of the language Benedict employed in the Declaratio stating his intentions. Those who consider his act canonically invalid are but a small and vocal minority, and this even though the Ganswein presentation of May 2016 confirmed what plainly constitutes defective intent; e.g., an “expanded” papacy with “an active member” and a “contemplative” member.
Secondly, and more to the point, the unanswered questions concerning the validity of Benedict’s so-called resignation as it relates to the degree to which he was forced to submit it (the basis for Lenga’s stance) will die with him.
Benedict is going to die, folks, in all likelihood before Bergoglio, perhaps even well before.
Those presently taking the position that the resignation was invalid, for whatever reason, thus making conclave 2013 a total farce, will only find themselves further dismissed, and unfairly so, as a mere lunatic fringe.
Bergoglio, for his part, will continue his work of deception and destruction with all the more reckless abandon, convincing nearly all of humanity – including even the majority of sincere self-described “traditionalists” – that he is the Vicar of Christ. Nothing could be more dangerous!
The reality is, and I shall never tire of saying it, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of his own volition, is not a member of the Body of the Church, much less is he her visible head on earth, the pope. He is, to borrow the words of Archbishop Lenga:
A heretic, who has not confirmed himself in the faith, is not passing that faith to others, is leading the world astray, proclaiming the untruths of the devil.
Archbishop Lenga, in spite of being a man of the Council (just like Benedict XVI) and thus part of the problem, gives every appearance of sincerely wishing to embody the true faith. His public stance on the resignation of Benedict XVI is noteworthy indeed, but chances are very remote that it will gain the traction it deserves among other likewise sincere persons – be they bishops, priests, theologians or simple laity.
If for no other reasons, this is the case due to the nature of the resignation debate itself and the inaccessibility of certain crucial details, not to mention the fact that very few individuals possess intimate knowledge of either canon law or Latin.
On the other hand, focusing on Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies promises to garner far more attention and bear much greater fruit, both immediately and in the long run. Why? Because while mystery and disagreement surround much of the resignation debate, there is room for neither mystery nor disagreement when it comes to the one true faith.
Likewise is there no room for confusion when it comes to the relationship of every man, and every thing, to the one true faith. This includes the least of those who lay claim to membership in the Holy Catholic Church, all the way up to those who lay claim to the Office of Peter. It also includes the relationship of the Second Vatican Council and the bastard rite known as the Novus Ordo Missae to the one true faith.
And this, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road.
I’ve gone to Mass my entire life knowing that most of my priests did not believe in Catholicism. I had to go over the errors of many homilies with my kiddos after Mass. It’s fairly open knowledge that my bishop, or who I thought was a Bishop is a sodomite. None of this ever even slightly induced me to miss Mass nor even to refuse the support of the Church with $. I am so far from being a Donatist or hyper papal positivist. But I am Catholic and I know that the Pope can not teach heresy to the Church. ALL of the New Order rites, whether they use English or Latin believe that the Pope can teach error on faith and dogma, that the Church can be wrong and defectible, in other words She can lie, She can feed you poison. I’m sorry but that is not Catholic, it is a new religion, a bad religion, a religion that can change to be better or to be much much worse. The New Orders who want to cling to Ratzinger want a religion that can change in ways that they deem are better. We have been fed poison since 1958, so there was an invalid conclave, a fake conclave, a hidden, secret conclave, I can’t say what exactly, but I know that if a Pope was elected, he did not ascend the throne of Peter and instead a Freemason pretended to the throne and one has done so ever since. Maybe a true Pope was never elected, maybe he was murdered, maybe kidnapped, or drugged, or threatened, maybe we’ll never know. But we can know, it couldn’t be more obvious, that the Church has been without a Pope for the last 60 years. Hold any Bishop that you believe was validly ordained and consecrated in Catholic rites accountable for electing a Pope. Please, I am begging you. Arguing with all these poor New Order followers is unproductive. If they are men of goodwill they will convert to Catholicism when there is a Pope; they aren’t going to follow you, Joe Shmo. I pray that this man truly is Catholic and becomes a Priest and Bishop but anyone pointing to Ratzinger as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth is wrong, or a bad guy and we’re going to need a Pope. Freemasons and sodomite have some pretty air tight methods of assuring that no Catholics would reach the level of bishop or cardinal even in the New Order. Freemasons and sodomites can infiltrate the Church, Catholics can NOT infiltrate Freemasonry.
Poor, poor Melanie,
You lay it out much as it is, in the reality as it is, truth thus, and then you bail dear Melanie, a witness that you objectively bear to deep, deep sorrow, absent the Joy, which is transcendent. Amen. You deny Jesus the Christ, just when you must perfectly submit to Him, in the utter blindness and darkness of the Dark Night of the Soul, when you dear Melanie know, that you are now in the greatest tempest of tempests, the “one” in the history of the world which would ever be, that would make the one in which the Apostles/disciples were in, with The Christ asleep in the Barque down below, appear as a child playing in his rubber ring in the pool, when the breeze blew by. Amen. This is The End dearest Melanie. I weep for you. You know where we are and yet you hold out in rejection as in defiance of the utter reality as it is, truth thus. There is no man, as there are no men, who can, “call a conclave”, dearest Melanie. That aspect of the Church is now forever gone, deFide. Read, “Satis Cognitum”, dear Melanie and if you’ve read it 5 times, make it now 10 times, and beg Almighty God for His infinite Mercy to shower upon, your deeply, deeply, troubled soul. Read, “The Pope and the Antichrist”, as the 4 lectures of Henry Edward Cardinal Manning from Easter 1861, as he then knew the Antichrist and The End thus, was soon to come, as from the inerrant teaching of the Early Church Fathers. Amen. Know that Pope Saint Pius X taught in his first Encyclical within paragraph 5 of, “E. Supremi”, on, “Restoring All Things In Christ”, in 1903, that he believed the very person of Antichrist had already entered the world. Amen. I know you Melanie as I know your suffering. Amen. I dearly pray that you save your soul. Amen. May our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, come into your soul and save you, on this the Holy Day of Ash Wednesday. Amen. In caritas.
That’s fine In caritas. I’m not afraid of this, as much as I find your claim that the Antichrist came, died and life went on…..indefinitely sounds like heresy to me. I can’t understand Revelation well so I can not positively condemn you myself but I hope that someone else might. So, if there is a valid Bishop left on earth and he does elect a Pope, I’ll just allow him to make anathema any errors that have cropped up in his absence.
“On the other hand, focusing on Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies promises to garner far more attention and bear much greater fruit, both immediately and in the long run.”
Yes! THIS is what Bergoglio is promoting. He cannot be the Pope.
Contrary to what is said in the article, canon laws 188 and 332.2 are easy to read and understand.
Reading Benedict’s renunciation letter, it is confusing, in the first place trying to resign the “active ministry” whereas canon 332.2 requires resigning the “office” and no they are not synonyms in the context of canon law. This confusion is “Substantial Error” as stated in canon 188.
In the second place, in the aforementioned letter, farther on down Benedict states that a conclave will be needed to elect a new Pope. Implying that he resigned the “office” when he knew he didn’t! Confusion again! Once again tripping the “Substantial Error” clause in canon 188.
So Benedict resignation was invalid and he remains Pope regardless of whether anyone including himself likes it. The TRUTH must come out as another falsehood even one seemingly similar will have the effect of continuing the error.
Please argue against this, not calling this sedevacantism or anything else, just argue against the facts as presented.
Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Schneider, both from dioceses in Kazakhstan.
Fr Kramer lays this out well in Volume I of “To Deceive the Elect”, (2019) and plans to treat of the issue in more detail in Volume II.
Fr Kramer lays this out well in Volume I of “To Deceive the Elect”, (2019) and plans to treat of the issue in more detail in Volume II.
The fundamental issue here is that of personal manifest faithfulness, not canon law.
I’d argue that neither Bergoglio or Ratzinger have ever manifestly upheld or defended Apostolic Tradition which is the basis of faith.
The proof is in their public lives. In the case of Ratzinger specifically his mountain of published work both before, during and after his papacy, and in both their respective ecclesiastical careers.
Therefore, it seems neither ever qualified to exercise any real authority within any church office.
This is not “sedevacantism” (which is a position which is perfectly in line with Tradition) but something more.
Once one realizes that all this is fundamentally about personal manifest faithfulness and Apostolic Tradition and NOT about canon law or ecclesiastical formalism, it unclouds the issue.
This is what YOU have to do (and everyone else who would want to be known as a Catholic), Bishop Schneider. This, from Bishop Lenga, was right on cue.
In Caritas is correct that “this is the end” meaning “the end of the age” referred to in Daniel and the Apocalypse as an event culminating in “a new Heaven and a New Earth.” There are many mysteries still as to what all of this means. But a few things are clear:
1. After this event takes place (it has not happened yet) the Roman Catholic Church (the only authentic Church on Earth) will no longer be the chosen vessel, the Ark, for “the Body of Christ.” In the Apocalypse, “the Earth” is code language for the Roman Catholic Church. So there will be a “new Earth” after this miraculous, yet to come event takes place. And not all who call themselves “Catholic” will be invited to the Feast (the Marriage Supper of the Lamb). Only those who have been faithful to Jesus unchanging teachings, especially related to charity towards God and neighbor, and have “kept their garments clean” will be allowed in. These people “will not experience the second death,” i.e., will not have any chance of being cast into Hell at the Last Judgement, which takes place at “the end of the world.”
2. Parallel, and simultaneous, to the event described in 1 above, “the world” will go on and become more and more satanic in character. This is the stuff in the Apocalypse about Gog and Magog. Eventually, all of that ends when “the world” ends. Those other people, who claim to be Christians, but have false ideas about Christ, referred to as “the rest of Her seed” in Apocalypse 12, will be “tried by fire” during this satanic time near the end. Some will be purified and will be chosen for eternal life. Some will not make it.
3. If Bergoglio’s Global Pact in May of this year is the “Pact” or “Covenant” referred to in Daniel 9:27 (I think that it is), then we will have around 7 years until the “end of the age” discussed by Daniel. The 70 ‘Weeks” prophecy is a 490-year prophecy that starts with the calling of the Council of Trent in 1536. I’m not saying I can pin down an exact date but 2025 +/- 5 years is highly probable based on that prophecy.
4. The spirit of Antichrist has resided in many people since the Church was founded. Montini definitely did many things that were of that spirit. Wojtyla even more so. If this spirit can reside in many people over time as John implies in his letter, then it would seem that it could be like a baton passed from one anti-pope to another. This spirit is definitely active today in Bergoglio.
What does all of this mean? For me it means that worrying about “reforming the Catholic Church” or figuring out who is and is not “the pope” is a pointless exercise. The thing we need to prepare for in the next few years is the Reign of Mary and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. We need to stay in a state of grace and pray our Rosary daily, asking humbly for Our Blessed Mother to guide us and keep us from error. May Mary enlighten your path.
I don’t believe your interpretation is at all accurate, but who “the pope” is; not a pointless exercise. The Church needs a Pope. I’m pretty sure that we can have a Pope right up until the Antichrist and the end of time. The Catholic Church is here as well as in Heaven, it will not stop being the Ark. My goodness, so many lying liars. I do not believe a word of this. And you are encouraging everyone to go to traditional Priests and say yeah “the pope”, lol it’s of no importance. Who buys this? You people are scam artists.
Again, you see this poor, poor, heathen, as so called, “PNF”, for what he objectively is, simply another self-proclaimed Gnostic pope, if you will. The poor fool will know precisely who Lucifer is and for all eternity, should he remain on his wide road to Hell. Amen. He spews heresy like it’s a dime a dozen. Speaking of the, “earth”, as the Church and a new Church as the, “new Earth”, is literally Luciferian psychobabble. He is even riddled with enough hubris to tacitly say that he has, figured out all of this, “code language”, etc. God have mercy on this pseudo-intellectual, Freemasonic clown, on his sure as certain path to Hell, deFide. Amen.
That said, poor, poor Melanie, you just wrote this:
“That’s fine In caritas. I’m not afraid of this, as much as I find your claim that the Antichrist came, died and life went on…..indefinitely sounds like heresy to me. I can’t understand Revelation well so I can not positively condemn you myself but I hope that someone else might.”
I hate to spoil your horrifically errant line of thinking dear Melanie, but one who knows when divine prophesy has been fulfilled is simply called, “Catholic”, as they receive the divine Lights of the Faith to see. It is the one who is blinded to the fulfilling of prophesy who is the heretic dear Melanie, as you are utterly blinded to Truth, as Jesus the Christ admonished His disciples for NOT KNOWING the signs of the times, dear Melanie. He did not command them to NOT KNOW THEM, you poor, poor fool. Amen. It will be your hubris which damns you, as you believe yourself to be somehow a cut above and deserving of knowing the prophesy, as it was fulfilled, and you objectively do not know this, as you objectively receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”, thus you cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith, you poor, poor miserable wretch. The Apostle warns in 2 Thess 2, that those who die holding, “the operation of error to believing lying”, are damned to Hell dear Melanie, and you do hold it, as knowing this is objective. Amen. You can deny all of this, as you do, until you draw your last breath, and then it will be too late for you, dear Melanie. I pray that you do not do this dear Melanie, as you will damn your soul. You await a false council to elect a false pope as your very own personal false hope, you poor, poor, miserable wretch. You hold utter heresy just in that hope, you poor fool. In that hope you again deny, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and you are beginning to prove that you simply do not care that you deny the divine, living, perpetual Magisterium, you imbecile. Your hubris will damn you to Hell, poor, poor, poor Melanie. Beg Almighty God His infinite Beatitude. Save your wretched soul dear Melanie. I do pray that you do. In caritas.
In caritas, you are an evil creep. I will never again read another comment out of your sick twisted fingers. Maybe we won’t have another Pope but I think that you are a nasty little heretical weirdo either way. I’m going to hell for claiming that the Catholic Church is supposed to have a Pope? Ridiculous nonsense.
PNF this post is all pure haphazard speculation and reeks of a sort of milleniarianism on your part.
And milleniarianism, my friend, is a an outright heresy.
(Know that Pope Saint Pius X taught in his first Encyclical within paragraph 5 of, “E. Supremi”, on, “Restoring All Things In Christ”, in 1903, that he believed the very person of Antichrist had already entered the world.)
*pulls the paragraph in question*
“5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2).”
You do realize that saying the son of perdition “may already be” in the world is far removed from a definitive statement?
You’ve elevated St. Pius X’s statement regarding something probable (that the Antichrist was already born, which was reasonable to state in light of the relatovely recent loss of the Papal States and the rampant Modernism afflicting Europe) to that of absolute certitude, as though Pius X was saying that the Antichrist now roamed the world without a shadow of a doubt.
No reading of this paragraph warrants such certitude on your part.
In Caritas-A Charlatan,
You tool of the devil.
Mocking Melanie, a Catholic who is seeking truth and struggling in an extremely deceitful era reveals that you are sadistic.
(Our Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus) :
1 I THEREFORE, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called,
2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity.
3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling.
Oh’ and it is Joseph a NON-Christian, yet again, you bombastic, heretical fool, as a jingoistic exponent of the, “religion of man”, you godless, miscreant heretic.
As you objectively do not hold the divine and Catholic Faith, you cannot see Truth, as Jesus the Christ commanded, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits”. You are known Joseph and as a non-Christian. Amen. What you opine as from your hideous fiat is meaningless gibberish, you pseudo-intellectual, miscreant, sophomoric heretic. Your pride will be your damnation as you seek not the Holy Catholic Faith, rather you seek to interpret the Holy Writ, and this can only be in your own likeness and image, you non-Catholic fool. Demonstrate as once, you heretical freak, whereby what I have witnessed from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is other than it is, you ignorant fool. God save you non-Christian. In caritas.
And yet again the pseudo-intellectual commentary of yet another, “simple”, heretic, you sophomoric fool, A Simple Man,
Your hubris exudes from your meaningless moniker, you imbecilic moron. Because you cannot see and as this is res ipsa loquitur in its objective understanding, you believe there is, “nothing to be seen there”, you bombastic fool. Your hubris will be your eternal damnation as well. Simply because A Simple Foolish Man cannot see, it therefore CANNOT BE THERE TO BE SEEN. You are an arrogant heretic, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual imbecile. God save you heretic. In caritas.
No, no, not what was written dear Melanie,
You will go to Hell for not holding the divine and Catholic Faith, as in denying once and again as again and again, the full Apostolic Authority and power of the Keys to bind and loose, last held by the Angelic Pastor, Pope Pius XII, as he commanded his Papal Election Law to be, poor, poor, poor Melanie. Your hubris will damn you. Who in Lucifer’s Hell do you think that you are, denying the Papal Authority to protect the remnant Catholic Faithful from the wolves whom you know are in our very midst since October, 1958? VAS was written in the divine Providence to allow us to know that the church of Antichrist is here, you miserable wretch. Submit to the true Church and the divine, living, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium or lose your eternal soul. I pray that you do. I know your suffering. It remains self evident just Who is being attacked as you miserable heretics attack miserable me. Know this Melanie as the Christ commanded: They will hate you for the Name you choose to bear. Amen. In caritas.
(Because you cannot see and as this is res ipsa loquitur in its objective understanding, you believe there is, “nothing to be seen there”, you bombastic fool. Your hubris will be your eternal damnation as well. Simply because A Simple Foolish Man cannot see, it therefore CANNOT BE THERE TO BE SEEN.)
That is not what I said at all. Your reading comprehension needs work.
Pius X’s statement about the son of perdition is on the level of probability, and a probability less than 1 at that; you raise it to the level of absolute certainty, implying that Pius X was saying that the Antichrist roamed the world as a matter of fact. Any coherent reading of that paragraph cannot warrant such an interpretation; that’s all I was saying.
And yet you take the opposite tack with me, implying that I therefore believe as a matter of fact that the Antichrist has not yet been born, when all I said was that Pius X was speaking in terms of probability. You can’t coherently derive that conclusion from my words either, yet you do so wantonly.
For all your harping on knowing everyone else by their fruits, it seems to escape you that your fruits appear exceedingly and ludicrously bitter.
You seem to characterize those of use who hold that Benedict is still the pope on canonical grounds as indifferent to Bergoglio’s heresies. That is totally false. We are the most zealous to get him removed on that score also. Even more so than yourself.
(It remains self evident just Who is being attacked as you miserable heretics attack miserable me.)
This betrays a stunning lack of self-awareness.
Nobody is “attacking” you for your theological opinions, as far as I’m aware.
There are plenty of people, however, who have justly criticized you for your uncharitable conduct, tone, and rhetoric. To interpret these as attacks on your person is childish.
You poor, poor, protestant fool, A Simple Man,
You again ascribe to the power of human reason that which is divine Revelation, you hideous, miscreant, heretic, riddled with hubris. You see yourself as an intellective cut above as you ascribe everything to human power as natural reason, you perfectly imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual miscreant. Your hubris will damn you. You masquerade as a protector of those who are simply confused as being lesser proficient than you and as actually holding the Faith, as you believe yourself also to be, “Catholic”. While in truth as truth is objective and as the Incarnate Son of God commands, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits”, you are simply an effeminized heretic, whose intellect is fully deceived as you objectively evidence heresy, you jingoistic moron. What do you not understand about the Catholic Church in Her Militant Reality on earth, you effeminized heretic. As Jesus the Christ commands: You think I came to bring peace. I came not to bring peace but the sword. As it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen, you jingoistic effeminized heretic. Lastly for now, the Vicars of Christ do not protect the Deposit of Truth with the power of, “probability”, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual, non-Catholic imbecile. The Vicars of Christ protected the Magisterium with divine power, you sophomoric fool. It is utter heresy itself to suggest that the Vicar of Christ uses human reason in probability of this or that as he writes with the divine Charisms of, “truth and never failing faith”, you perfectly miserable pseudo-intellectual. You do not know Who Truth is, you poor, poor, poor fool and this is self-evident, as you ascribe human powers to that which is divine as infinite Omnipotence, you silly little sophomoric fool. You evidence as res ipsa loquitur, yourself to be a true exponent of the, “religion of man”. Save your soul, you miserable heretic. I do pray that you do, A Simple Man. In caritas.
(It is utter heresy itself to suggest that the Vicar of Christ uses human reason in probability of this or that as he writes with the divine Charisms of, “truth and never failing faith”, you perfectly miserable pseudo-intellectual. )
And again, that’s not what I said either. You draw interpretations that are absolutely unwarranted.
You evidence more and more a lack of reading comprehension and a willingness to divine the motives and inner thoughts and intentions of not only those who may disagree you on certain matters, but also those who actually **agree** with you on a great many things.
Your entire approach and manner of conduct is honestly tiresome, and downright pitiful.
Have a good day. May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Poor, poor, poor, A Simple Man, ever blinded in his hubris,
“You will know them by their fruits”. What does A Simple Man not understand about the words as now quoted from dear Melanie?:
“In caritas, you are an evil creep. I will never again read another comment out of your sick twisted fingers. Maybe we won’t have another Pope but I think that you are a nasty little heretical weirdo either way.”
And the sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual, A Simple Man, opines this in fiat about those words from Melanie:
“This betrays a stunning lack of self-awareness.
Nobody is “attacking” you for your theological opinions, as far as I’m aware.
There are plenty of people, however, who have justly criticized you for your uncharitable conduct, tone, and rhetoric. To interpret these as attacks on your person is childish.”
And the, “eminent”, A Simple Man opines from his illustrious fiat, as he languishes in the quagmire of his utterly blackened as darkened intellect, that dear Melanie was not attacking as in the ad hominem and also even more profoundly ridiculous is the utter opinion of the Simple Man that dear Melanie’s attack had, NOT A THING TO DO, with what was written to her, but not in my opinion, rather from Church teaching, you utterly darkened, imbecilic, heretical, pseudo-intellectual fool, A Simple Man. Every time you utter your hideous opinion, you dig yourself deeper into your own personal abyss, you non-Catholic fool, on your sure as certain path to Hell with your Prince, who is malignant self-pride as made manifest. Amen. Save your hideous soul. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Nevertheless Romanus Sum, you still want New Orders to elect a New Order to head the New Order. The conclave that you say was purposefully invalidated by your heroic fake pope, I say is invalid because a bunch of non-Catholic New Order sodomites can’t get together and elect a Pope of the Catholic Church no matter what Latin words they use. If you are really Catholic why don’t you look to the Catholic Bishops with your petitions and pleas?
Oh’ and the effeminized A Simple Man once again runs in retreat from truth,
You poor, poor, miserable fool. You prove NOTHING of what you write in pure opinion, as what you author is pure opinion, you silly, sophomoric fool. You write again in platitude and you believe in your hubris that your platitudes of thought somehow alter the reality as it is of what you have written from your blackened intellect, you sophomoric fool. Then you run as that is all you can do.
Prove for all who wish to read that what was written by me about the gibberish you keystroked about the Vicar of Christ and what he wrote as that the, “Son of Perdition”, may already be in this world, under the divine protection of his Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, and then you used, “probability”, in thought about what he wrote under his divine protections, as being the Catholic means in which a true Catholic discerns what the Pope wrote, as though he wrote it using human probability, to be interpreted then using human probability, is not, “what I said”. Your, “clarification”, is now requested thus, as you claim what was written about it is false. In caritas.
Oh’ dear Melanie,
Which, “Catholic”, Bishops and where dear Melanie? Prove their Apostolicity 61 years and running after the very loss of the same Apostolic Succession which you Melanie simply must prove to yet exist, in order to have truly Catholic Bishops, dear Melanie, and not the wolves dressed as Sheep; as in Truth that is all that we have and can have in this world now. Save your soul in submission to Truth dear Melanie. In caritas.
(Prove for all who wish to read that what was written by me about the gibberish you keystroked about the Vicar of Christ and what he wrote as that the, “Son of Perdition”, may already be in this world, under the divine protection of his Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, and then you used, “probability”, in thought about what he wrote under his divine protections, as being the Catholic means in which a true Catholic discerns what the Pope wrote, as though he wrote it using human probability, to be interpreted then using human probability, is not, “what I said”. Your, “clarification”, is now requested thus, as you claim what was written about it is false. In caritas.)
Very well. To quote from paragraph 5 again:
“When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3).”
As part of E. Supremi, an encyclical aimed at emphasizing Catholic positions on many moral issues and stressing the importance of holy priests and seminarians, Pope Pius X spoke about the troubles of the current age. He then point blank stated that, as a sign of those troublesome times, that they **may** be a foretaste of the end, and **perhaps** the beginning of the last days, that the Antichrist **may** already be in the world.
Not *is*. Not *for sure*. Not **absolutely, 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, as a matter of faith and prophecy**.
**May**. **Perhaps**. **May**.
Just to hammer the point home, some definitions.
May: used to indicate possibility or probability.
Perhaps: possibly but not certainly.
And, just to offer a postscript to the above: did I, at any point, say that Pius X was speaking using nothing more than the power of human reason, divorced from faith? Did I, at any point, imply that Pius X was promulgating doctrine on faith and morals as though it were a matter of probability? Did I, at any point, insinuate that Pius X was wrong or incorrect to say that the Antichrist may have already been born (as many other Pontiffs and holy men, in ages past, speculated in response to terrible times and trials gripping the world)?
The answer would be “No” on all counts.
However, it should go without saying that a plain reading of paragraph 5 of E. Supremi shows that Pius X is only speculating as to the possibility of the Antichrist already being born, as a corollary of the horrible events facing the Church and the world in the early 20th century. To elevate that speculation to the level of absolute certainty – that Pius X **was** saying, as a matter of faith and prophecy, that the Antichrist was truly already in the world, and that he was promulgating such as a matter of faith – is to put words into his mouth that he did not say.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
“Benedict is going to die, folks, in all likelihood before Bergoglio, perhaps even well before.”
Well dear Louie, contrary to what 1958 sedes would have you think, in reality, the Chair would only at that point be vacant. That would be for a time, a sort of (only) an appearance of a checkmate for the forces of Hell, as Bergoglio was never the pope in the first place, and the new one would not be elected because of this deception. As Rev. Berry points out, the Church would not be able to elect a successor for some time. Although they were material heretics of the past 60ish years, popes still held the Office and withheld the Antichrist with it. Now once the pope is formally out of the picture, there could perhaps be one more thing that needs to be done before the appearance of the man of sin- a public abolition of the sacrifice of the mass- call it maybe an amazonian rite.
“Satan will first attempt to destroy the power of the Papacy and bring about the downfall of the Church through heresies, schisms and persecutions that must surely follow . . . he will raise up antichrist and his prophet to lead the faithful into error and destroy those who remain steadfast . . . the Church, the faithful spouse of Jesus Christ, is represented as a woman clothed in the glory of divine grace . . .
“. . . In this passage there is an evident allusion to some particular son of the Church whose power and influence shall be such that Satan will seek his destruction at any cost. This person can be none other than the Pope to be elected in those days. The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter.
“The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians may be a reference to the Papacy as the obstacle to the coming of Antichrist: “You know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed.”
The Apocalypse of St. John
Excerpts from a Commentary by Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, 1921
If we do not have a pope for the 62 years already, why didn’t antichrist come already?
Momento Mori 2, I have zero idea why the Antichrist hasn’t come. I’d love to believe that maybe we’ll get our act together and maybe we’ll get to have a Pope before he arrives, maybe we’re being provided with some time for this? But I’d like to know more about who you guys believe is going to eventually wind up electing a true Pope who will be persecuted and attacked. To me it seems like it would be good to have these Bishops from SSPX and sedes who never defected from the faith rather than ANY of the hierarchy of the New Order who even the best of them are shady and frankly their ALL heretical, they all follow a new religion that is getting worse by the day. You guys are thinking that they’ll start peeling off going nah THIS heresy is the straw, I’m going to be a real Catholic now? I really would like to know because I can’t understand what you guys are thinking at all.
AND this is totally aside from their ordinations. Even SSPX do conditional ordinations and even conditional Confirmations. You guys look at all into the changes that heretics made to Catholic Sacraments? I’m just saying you all of a sudden are look at this MONSTROUS heretic without a sneaky bone in his body, 100% thug and you don’t want to take a look at what the sneaky heretics have done to the Sacraments? You’re just going to say, “They’re valid!” I don’t think they are.
Mind you, when Benedict dies, it will more than likely not be a simple peaceful death, but perhaps a start of the persecution of Catholics in the West as well..Fatima gave us a hint, but 1958 sedes reject it mostly as it does not fit with the (active) papacy narrative. Hint was also given by saint Pius X:
“What I have seen is terrifying! Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!”
Shortly before his death:
“I have seen one of my successors, of the same name who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death”.
The same name, as only one pope named Giuseppe since Sarto and that is Joseph (Ratzinger)…
Melanie, that would be great if they could get together, but it will never happen. Pride is the root of all sins. If two sede fractions can not agree on peaceful coexistence for decades, how would they now or better yet with FSSPX bishops? Would FSSPX bishops join FSSPX Resistance Bishops or the spiritual children of “The Nine” as well? Of course not. Principle unity is in the person of a pope, and we have had very very bad occupants, material heretics for decades and now a usurper. The solution can only come from above, not below and that is when enough people deserve it and fall on their knees.
The only way out of this mess is by a Divine Intervention. It must be, humanly speaking lost, that when God’s amazing reversal happens, not a single soul can doubt it…
How the next pope would be elected? I have not got a clue, maybe as blessed Anna Maria Tiage has predicted, directly from Heaven by St Peter and Paul:
Who can with certainty know the timeline
Antichrist—>Immaculate Triumph—>Second Coming of Christ
Currently in “dress rehearsal mode of end of the end” —>Immaculate Triumph—>Antichrist—>Second Coming of Christ.
Is Bergoglio a False Prophet from the Scriptures? Maybe…Will it be a linear timeline…Who knows..
The world was already so corrupt at the time of Saint Vincent Ferrer that it was almost over then, but sufficient number converted.
I am staying away from modernist priests and conciliar religion, but I do not know if they are all invalid. Did you actually study the consecration rite of 1968 compared to Coptic and Maronite rite for example or do you simply go by the constant pondering of the usual suspects in this combox?
Or better yet..
What makes 1968 invalid compared to the others? Don’t get me wrong, I am not setting my foot back to Novus Ordo land, nor do I have faith that most (if not almost all) of the current cardinals and bishops dressed in conciliar cloth have the backbone to do anything that would jeopardize the status quo.
And when you say “I can’t understand what you guys are thinking at all.” I do not know who do you mean by you guys. I am a simple layman who does not think I have figured this thing out with 100% certainty. God help all that fight in the best way possible by staying close to traditional priests, daily rosaries and brown scapulars.
Putting aside the question of formal heresy on the part of Cardinal Ratzinger, before or after his apparent ascension to the See of St. Peter, and also the question of the apparent deficiency in the purported resignation if he had even held the Office at that point – after his death, there would still be a duty on the part of any true Catholic prelate remaining, to state that Jorge Bergoglio was a false claimant to the papacy, apart from any issue regarding Cardinal Ratzinger (which had never been acknowledged in any formal way by bishops prior to his death) because of manifest heresy before or after his apparent election and acceptance thereof. The pertinacity would probably be easier to show in respect of any of the many heresies publicly upheld after he claimed to be pope. There would still be a duty on any true bishops that might remain to attempt to elect a valid pope.
Listen up. Everyone needs to get Louie’s memo: Even though Archbishop Lenga declared Bergoglio a “usurper”, let us not make THAT our focus. As the Canon212.com headline which links to Louie’s article says: “It’s the heresy, stupid.” Yes, focusing on Bergoglio’s *heresies* is what promises to bear the greater fruit, according to Louie (don’t be stupid to think otherwise) — and the reasons to NOT focus on Bergoglio’s CRIMINAL STATUS as a “usurper” (antipope in opposition to Benedict XVI), would be the following:
1) Benedict will likely die well before Bergoglio, taking any “unanswered questions concerning the validity” of his renunciation (what led him to flee) to his grave. — Aaand, this somehow makes Benedict XVI NOT the Pope still? Can Louie predict the future??
2) Those pesky Canon Lawyers and Latinists with their unending quibbling over Pope Benedict’s Declaratio “are but a small and vocal minority” who risk being categorized as belonging to a “lunatic fringe”. — Did Steve Skojec take over Louie’s keyboard when he typed that? Surely it’s hoped for that this marginalization tactic would be a substantive hindrance to forgo pursuing the Truth!
3) Archbishop Lenga, despite it being reported that he is favorable to Archbishop Lefebvre and has begun to say the Ancient Mass, matters not, because Louie has freeze-framed him as “a man of the Council”; therefore he remains part of the problem, “just like Benedict XVI”. — Never a possibility for conversions, just strictly condemnations of others’ souls.
4) Again, Louie, the soothsayer, tells us that the chances are “very remote” that Archbishop Lenga’s public stance on recognizing Benedict as the true Pope will gain the traction it deserves (hey, he at least concedes it deserves attention!), because it’s just too darn complicated for us mere sheep who don’t possess intimate knowledge of Canon Law or Latin. Never mind that it’s not impossible for anyone to actually teach us (what a slap in the face to those of notable credibility who HAVE taught us for over 6 years and continue to do so). Never mind that Louie didn’t seem to let his own lack of knowledge of these so-called ‘intricacies’ keep him from concluding that Benedict XVI did indeed maintain the Papacy all along… that is, until he ventured off into Sede-ism, which is ultimately where he wants to lead us. Duh.
Please forgive my poor wording (due to my chronic cognitive difficulties) – of course, the pertinacity of many of his public heresies post the election is manifest.
I think that False Francis is the antiChrist. So many of his words and actions, are deceitful and destructive: 1) FF offered up the Chinese Catholics, to China’s tyrant atheist government.
I love SSPX but they are not altogether honest. And I can read through the bs in this article and know that they know those rites are POSITIVELY doubtful; they just don’t want to admit it bc it leads to the logical conclusion that the seat has been vacant since 1958. I absolutely can not believe that those Priests and Bishops will continue that nonsense in the face of Jorge. I pray for them like crazy but I’m telling you Jesus Christ our Lord told us to follow the Pope and I’m a simple person myself and I’m only going to follow the Pope. Period. Not Father Pagliarani, no.
You wrote and quoted:
““The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians may be a reference to the Papacy as the obstacle to the coming of Antichrist: “You know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed.”
The Apocalypse of St. John
Excerpts from a Commentary by Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, 1921
If we do not have a pope for the 62 years already, why didn’t antichrist come already?”
The Papacy WAS taken out of the way in 1958 which is when the false church of the Antichrist came into being, with its “operation of error, to believe lying” (2 Thess Ch. 2) with which to deceive the masses who are not being saved as they love not the Truth. The idea that Benedict is somehow a Catholic, and worse yet a true Pope, when he is part of the very same system as Francis, and even held his very own “Assisi II” which denied Christ and was an act of apostasy in itself, worshipped with Jews, wrote abominable heresies, etc. etc. is so pitiful that it’s laughable once one can see the forest through the trees. RATzinger/Benedict is an horrible heretic and in all REALITY is not even one ounce better than Francis. Only blindness and insanity could cause anyone to think otherwise.
We don’t have a Pope right now because it’s NOT GOD’S WILL. Period. We don’t even deserve a Pope, much less a Church or even the lowest place in Purgatory. We deserve hell. Toughen up buttercups because the ride is about to get even rougher and the amount of time we have to get on the side of Truth grows ever shorter by the God-given day. Doesn’t anyone see the signs? “It’s the end times, stupid.”
THE TRUTH sets us free.
If you belong to a Church which does not have the Apostolic Succession, then you should at least recognize that you are not in the Catholic Church. Since you hold all the popes and bishops are heretics, then you have no bishops and then your Church has no apostolic succession.
If you hold that it is possible that the Holy Spirit would allow all Bishops with apostolic succession to fall into heresy, I would say you have a very low opinion of the Holy Spirit, of the kind of which Christ said, All sins shall be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven in this world or in the next.
I think it is safer to hold that your idea, Melanie, about who is a heretic and when he loses his office, is probably wrong, since by it you end up sustaining the opinion that the Holy Spirit has failed in his duty to see that the Gates of Hell never prevail over the Church.
Catholics, like myself, have always distinguished error, the sin of heresy, and the canonical crime of heresy. The fact that a man does not condemn heresy, might make him suspect, but it does not make him a heretic. Everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. And if you know the level of theological ignorance of Bishops, by comparing it with your own, then you would cut them some slack, unless of course you ascribe to the errors of Jansen and think that you are holier and infallible in your judgements.
Be assured of my prayers.
Your tone is very critical of Louie and I think you are misconstruing much of what he said here. He hasn’t condemned “others’ souls”, only pointed out some objective facts. Why do you choose to find fault with what he is saying? Are we not all human (even you) and subject to error? Is it rational to suppose that the majority of us sheep will become canon law experts and all agree with any of the arguments before us?
Louie is 100% correct to give us the unvarnished truth and you would do well to examine it with humility instead of blaming the messenger.
Remember that there is no requirement that a pope be elected from among the clergy. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
This is a follow-up to some comments under the February 14 post titled “And the Unreliable Media Blinked.” As then promised, I am now back with more information on how Rome (the Catholic Church, ruled by true popes and with bishops acting in union with him) long before Vatican II (and continuing to our day) has been accepting (tolerating? condoning?) a regionally widespread practice in the heart of Europe to ordain married men to the priesthood without calling for continence.
I thank all who responded to my earlier notes on this (FrankIII, Anastasia, Lynda, In Caritas, and 2Vermont).
Let me stress again: I am not after why allowing married men to be priests without continence is incorrect. Rather, I hope to learn how the infallibility of true popes’ (and their bishops) acting as authority can be reconciled with history. Only In Caritas responded to this question when I first posted this question, the others remained gridlocked around the issue of celibacy.
And now, some history (based mostly on a phone discussion with a friend who was raised Greek Catholic and studied art, history, and theology):
A branch of Roman Catholicism where married men have been and continue to be routinely ordered to the priesthood (not to the episcopal office) is the Hungarian Greek Catholic church. They have hundreds of parishes in Hungary, mostly in the East, and some also in neighboring areas that had been Hungary for a millenium until they were ceded to other countries after WWI.
Greek Catholics have been in sacramental, canonical, and theological union with Rome for little less than four centuries. The story began on April 24, 1646, when 63 Orthodox clergy with their bishop converted to Roman Catholicism and took their oath of allegiance to Pope Innocent X in the town of Eger, Hungary, in front of the local Roman Catholic bishop there. With some restrictions, they were allowed to keep their liturgy and traditions. (A restriction at one time was that they were supposed to abandon using Slavic as the language of liturgy, but this requirement has been on-and-off ignored over the centuries, and occasionally even Hungarian was liturgically used.)
Their union with Rome left some loopholes, so a later archbishop of Eger, whose name was József Kelemen, initiated a correction. The process lasted 1695 through 1707. The issue was that, according to their tradition, the Greek Catholic community continued to elect their own bishops. This was then replaced with the new rule which remains valid today: they select their bishop candidates but Rome has to approve. With this discrepancy remedied, their story continues “undisturbed” to day. (The quotation marks refers to their sufferings under the blows of history — e.g., prelates martyred and faithful persecuted after their homeland was ceded to unfriendly countries.)
As I mentioned earlier, it was Pope Pius X who granted them their newest Episcopal district and the office of a new bishop in the town of Hajdudorog in Eastern Hungary in the early XXth century, with 160 or so parishes of theirs in this new district.
As I mentioned earlier, their seminarians have been studying and continue to study together with those belonging to the Latin rite, but their seminarians are allowed to start a family before they are ordained.
Although I am interested not in celibacy but in how, in the light of the above story, the popes’ infallibility and the principle of non-negotiable continence for married priests can be reconciled — I figured from your earlier responses that most of you prefer staying focused on celibacy only. Accordingly, I asked my friend about this detail, too. Warning me of his limited competence, he vaguely recalled from his studies that there used to be issues of (mis-)translation between Greek and Latin over the centuries, and the perceived controversy over this question is partly due to subsequent misunderstandings.
A Simple Beggar, so you say… Why couldn’t the remaining few members of the episcopal hierarchy elect a valid pope in the last 62 years?
Yes, I am well aware of the abominations of conciliar popes. Where is the antichrist if the papacy has been taken away? Are you one of those who think he will not be a person, contrary to what the Doctors and Fathers taught us? Or that he was here already, just because of one papal encyclic that said there was a POSSIBILITY he is here already. We overslept his 3.5 years of terror I assume?
Memento, the 1968 Ordination Rite for bishop resembles an installation Rite from the East not an ordination rite. An installation is not a sacrament.
A look at history shows that Papal elections can hold many forms and differing electors. There is no one set manner for a valid election.
Wo wo wo, wait a second Tom A. I hope that I’m misunderstanding this. This chart that is made by the SSPX that Memento Mori 2 provided compares New Order episcopal consecrations with eastern rite installations (whatever those are which aren’t even a Sacrament)? Because that would be really low down deceptive. I hope that I misunderstand.
Unreal. Now I have you accusing me of blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST. Lord in Heaven deliver me from this world filled with complete lunatics. I am so glad that I am surrounded by a sane family because this world has gone completely mad. Whatever. I’m done. I, personally, will send my pleas for the election of a Pope to the Catholic Bishops like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais or Bishop Pivarunas, etc. You pray for me and the Lord will take good care of us. You are as loony as In caritas. Bye.
Bergoglio is the Vicar of Pachamama.
Prove their Apostolic Succession dear Melanie or damn yourself for following Mister, “Bishops”, who are nothing but that which the Angelic Pastor, Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, was trying to protect you from, you obstinate, heretical, miscreant fool, as WOLVES DRESSED IN THE CLOTHING OF SHEEP. Amen. Save your soul dear Melanie. Know that Apostolic Succession is forever gone from this hideous, scorched, and barren world, absent the Vicar of Christ now and with the loss of Apostolic Succession, since that fateful day in October, on the 9th day, 1958. Amen. In caritas.
You poor, poor Gnostic, heretical fool, attempting to, “Naturalize”, that which is supernatural, you heathen,
In the form of, “question”, is how Holy Mother Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, often teaches, you sophomoric fool. There are no, “probabilities”, as there can be none, contained within the divine, LIVING, perpetual as UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. You see the Holy Magisterium through your utterly hideous, darkened, natural power of reason alone, you lonely heretic, as you are alone, apart from the Catholic Religion, which is the supernatural Society of Heaven on this wretched, scorched, and barren earth, as the Church Militant you fool. You attempt to naturalize that which is perfectly apart, as infinitely apart, from the natural. You are a Gnostic, you simply do not know that you are, you heretical, pseudo-intellectual fool.
A, “probability”, can, will, and does CHANGE, you pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric in your understanding, non-Catholic fool. That which is PERPETUAL deFide, simply CANNOT CHANGE deFide, you utterly hideous heretic. You are so ignorant, that you cannot even glimpse the degree of your ignorance, within your imaginative power, which is also darkened and of course. Pope Leo XIII warns you of your darkened ignorance and deems you to be as, “sterile and worthless sand”, and you simply reject this teaching in, “Satis Cognitum”. He teaches Authoritatively as infallibly there that those who are OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, simply cannot see the Truth, as, “…those who are outside the Church can NEVER GRASP the divine teaching…” You do not grasp the divine teaching you heretical fool and in your unmitigated hubris which will damn you, you deem that because you cannot grasp it, no other can grasp it either, therefore, you have NOTHING to learn from the other in your midst, you pseudo-intellectual heretical fool. While you cannot grasp it, you supplant the divine teaching, and replace it with your Gnostic Naturalism and of course you are perfectly blinded to your doing this and you reject the reality as it is, on its face, you godless fool.
When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith left upon this earth? The Incarnate Son of God, teaching in question, you heretical fool. Find the Holy Faith but to do that you must follow the command of the God Man: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first DENY HIMSELF [which is all that he errantly believes], take up his cross [as this denial is repugnant to the flesh], and follow Me [to Calvary and then the Resurrection]”. Amen. I pray that you do. In caritas.
And the godless exponent of the, “religion of man”, again strokes his diabolically deceived keys,
You darkened, pseudo-intellectual, monster, as a literal slave of your Prince, Lucifer, Tom A. You utterly affront the LIVING, DIVINE, PERPETUAL, as unchanging and unending Magisterium. You UTTERLY DENY the Vicar of Christ in his SINGULAR power and Apostolic Authority to teach and GOVERN, you Gnostic Freemasonic Naturalist pig, who will scream and screech cacophony in your blasphemy of God into eternity, should you continue to persist as you do, in blasphemous error, you whore of Babylon, as you use the Truth to build your Gnostic error, you are a whore.
The hideous, miscreant, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual heretic Tom A wrote this blasphemous heresy, as he simply cannot help his utterly hideous self:
“A look at history shows that Papal elections can hold many forms and differing electors. There is no one set manner for a valid election.”
That same, “look at history”, you blasphemous whore, will show that every, as in every single, “Papal election”, followed ONLY the “form”, which was commanded by the reigning Vicar of Christ’s Papal Election Law in force at the time of the Election, you godless, miscreant, son of Lucifer as his deceiver. You have the unmitigated audacity to suggest that because Papal Election Law can change, as by the singular power and Apostolic Authority of the Vicar of Christ who can change it, YOU can change it, you miscreant, heretical, conniving deceiver with your prince as the Prince of this world as Hell. Save your hideous soul, you perfectly miserable wretch, Tom A. You are known by your evil fruit and you remain alone, as on your own personal path to Hell. I pray that you do. In caritas.
You poor, poor, pathetic, heretic, as an exponent of the, “religion of man”, as so called, Momento Mori 2,
You write in hideous platitudes, meaningless rhetoric, as you profess your membership in the church of Antichrist. Let’s cut to the chase you hideous heretic. Do you freely assent with the operation of your will to the, “Constitutional Document”, “Lumen Gentium”, “Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI”, on November 21, 1964? Simply answer this question you poor, poor, exponent of the, “religion of man”. In caritas
A Simple Beggar, so you say… “Why couldn’t the remaining few members of the episcopal hierarchy elect a valid pope in the last 62 years?”
I didn’t say that – you did! Nor did I say he wasn’t or isn’t a man. PRAY that you might SEE. No one here has the power to convince anyone of the Truth because only GOD can remove blindness and ONLY if you first REPENT and BEG HIS MERCY.
The level of insanity around here is astounding, and so I can barely stand to read any of it anymore.
Time is very short!
I have yet seen anyone refute the assertion made by Fr. Cekada that the Novus Ordo Episcopal Ordination Rite is based on an Eastern Installation Rite and not an Eastern Ordination Rite.
An Installation is when a Bishop is “installed” into the office assigned. Such as being named a Bishop of a Diocese. It is not a Sacrament. Why Montini chose to add such ambiguity to the new Rites is a matter if speculation. I can only guess it was to compliment his desire to make the Church less offensive to Protestants and Schismatics.
No, most overslept all 62 years of his terror. 3.5 years is not necessarily literal but can signify a period of PERSECUTION.
Given that you are reading into Pius X’s words an interpretation that objectively is not there renders your accusations that I am gnostic befuddling, if not sad because of your lack of self-awareness.
After all, I’m not the one divining a hidden meaning from Pius X’s plain speculation, as though such were deFide.
It is you, not I, that is placing words into his mouth.
And what in HELL is a “conciliar pope”? It’s a pope alright but NOT of the CATHOLIC Church. Wake up – memento mori!
Poor, poor, Gnostic heretic, the hideous Tom A,
All you ever can do is, “guess”, you non-Catholic, heretical, conniving fool. As if a, “guess”, can possibly get a soul to the Beatific Vision, you Naturalist whore of Babylon. You can only, “guess”, about Montini, you Gnostic, pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric fool. You are so utterly stupid Tom A, your imaginative power has not the ability to even glimpse just how profoundly stupid that you indeed are, as your noxious fruit does speak about you objectively, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God, as you are on your way to Hell, deFide. You have no idea who Montini was in truth, you hideously blinded bombastic fool. God save you as only He can. In caritas.
“Insane” refers to the ridiculous statement of Tom A above.
You poor, poor, poor, poor blinded non-Catholic fool, you utterly stupid Simple Man,
That which is a matter of Faith is that which requires the actual reception of the supernatural virtue of Faith to see as to know, and as the Church teaches, deFide, you Gnostic fool. Your simple power of human reason is POWERLESS, you hideous fool. You deem to be, “Gnostic”, that which the Church has divined as Catholic, and you call that which is Gnostic–an attempt through gnosis (using the power of human reason) to know that which is divine–to be, “Catholic”. You perfectly invert the truth, just as your Prince who inspires you, you arrogant, imbecilic, moronic, heretical fool on your way to Hell with your Prince.
What do you NOT UNDERSTAND about the Authoritative teaching of Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, warning you, A Simple Man, about your perfect INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND that which is in the Magisterium, you blackened intellectual fool??? You still don’t get it, nor can you, as you objectively receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”. You actually believe yourself to be better than to receive it as you deserve to receive it, as, “You will know them by their fruits.”, you Gnostic, arrogant, protestant, heretic. Amen. Who in Lucifer’s Hell do you think that you are, you poor, poor fool? “Probability”, holds inherently, “change”, you utterly sophomoric moron. “Change”, is what the PERPETUAL Magisterium simply CANNOT UNDERGO, you bombastic fool, utterly illiterate of the Catholic Faith. Amen. Lastly for now, the command which warns you that you are outside the Holy Church, poor, poor, poor, A Simple Man, where there is no salvation, deFide:
“And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend” (Comment. in Matt. xiii., n. I).”
God save you pathetically wretched soul, A Simple Man. I pray that he does. In caritas.
How many are now secretly, guiltily rejoicing at the prospect of Jorge Bergoglio having Corona?
IC – You are only 99.9% correct that Apostolic Succession is forever gone. There remains alive to this day ONE BISHOP!: On 11 February 1958, Pope Pius XII appointed Bernardino Piñera Carvallo auxiliary bishop of Talca. He is the 105 year-old Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena. Antipope Bergoglio at this moment through his “nuncio” Ivo Scapolo has sought desperately to to “disappear” him since August of 2019.
This is what I mean by a lack of reading comprehension, as you consistently, repeatedly, and dare I say *insistently* keep misinterpreting what I say.
You are the one engaging in gnostic behavior, not I. You seek to divine a meaning and interpretation from paragraph 5 of E Supremi that simply **is not present. **
Consider: if Pope Pius X desired to promulgate that the Antichrist was truly manifest in the world as a matter of divine and Catholic faith, and that such was born and wandering the world, then he would have said so **clearly**, as the saintly Pontiff certainly did not shy away from precise and succinct language on other matters of faith and morals, and constantly thundered against ambiguous words and terminology utilized by heretics when they tried to muddle Catholic doctrine.
And yet, if this was a doctrine being promulgated for all the faithful to follow (and truly, what a matter that would require forceful clarity, given the portent that the Antichrist carries with regards to the End Times!), we see ambiguous words: ‘may be’, ‘perhaps’, ‘may’; hardly the clear direction and teaching one would expect of a true Pope of the Catholic Church, no? Why would Pius X use such muddled words on what you obviously believe is a matter of the divine faith? In fact, why would such a matter not merit its own encyclical all on its own (to fully warn all the Faithful that the End is Nigh, to get themselves right with God), instead of what amounts to a minor tangent in a singular paragraph of an encyclical geared for other topics altogether?
Quite simply: Pius X was **speculating** about the possible existence of the Antichrist at that time. A plain reading of the paragraph admits of no clearer interpretation than that.
That you desire to elevate his speculation to the level of Divine and Catholic Faith is your problem, not mine.
“Rather, I hope to learn how the infallibility of true popes’ (and their bishops) acting as authority can be reconciled with history.”
Seeker- You’re asking the right question. In this day and age more than ever, that’s more than half the battle I think.
I would offer that papal “infallibility” is a theological “development” which took place over centuries and found its culmination in both the solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and in Pastor Aeternus in 1870.
When I use the word “development”, I use it in the pejorative. This is because it seems that the overwhelmingly vast number of so-called “developments of doctrine”/“theological developments” in church history simply cannot be reconciled with history- which is to say with Apostolic Tradition.
That’s just for starters.
BTW one point of clarification: As a matter of principle I’m opposed to “development of doctrine”/“theological development”. Therefore when I stated:
“…it seems that the overwhelmingly vast number of so-called “developments of doctrine”/“theological developments” in church history simply cannot be reconciled with history…”
I was not creating a contradiction. I’m sorry if it came across that way in the way I worded it. Rather I was distinguishing between what the institutional church and so many of its fathers, doctors, popes, theologians and so forth have done over the centuries and that fundamental Tradition we receive from the Apostles- the ones who actually knew Jesus and witnessed what He said and what He did.
That being said, our basis for our faith must be that Apostolic Tradition. It cannot be novel “development”/“theologizing”. I’d say that this reliance on the latter is a massive factor contributing to the utter confusion and chaos the church and the would-be faithful are in at present.
AND… Rat-zinger is NO LESS an apostate and heretic, and so on back to 1958; but nobody cares about that “minor” inconvenience, they only want what they want, and how they want it – whether they opine that we have a Pope or not.
Your focus has been diverted by entities you cannot see; you are wasting your valuable time on this topic.
A summary of Church history and the development of the Eastern Catholic Churches and its disregard for continence for married clergy based mostly on a phone call to a person raised in the Eastern Rite doesn’t quite cut it for me. Like I said before there is more to this story also than meets the eye. The issue of non continent married Eastern Rite clergy was indeed an issue with the West. They had restrictions. One of the restrictions was back in the 1800’s when it was issued by some decree that if any of the Catholic Eastern Rites wanted to set up a Church in the West they would have to leave their married clergy behind. Some Eastern Riters were very furious about this and went running back into the arms of the schismatics Orthodox Eastern Rite. I just read that in 2014, Bergoglio lifted one of the remaining restrictions in writting on the Eastern Rite and now allows them to ordain their own Bishops. I have not thoroughly read up on all the history of the behind the scenes with theCatholic Eastern Rite, which by the way is a very small percentage of the Catholic world, but I am pretty sure this married incontinent clergy was a very thorny issue back in the day.
From the “Insane” Catholic Encyclopedia, pre V2 edition:
The method of electing the pope has varied considerably at different periods of the history of the Church.
Believe me, I’m my own brand of insane right now, but the point made by IC above still stands and is in context.
AlphonsusJr- No matter how and how soon Bergoglio exits this life, my sense is that won’t make much if any difference in terms getting to the heart of crisis we face now.
This whole crisis isn’t fundamentally about the Pope or the Roman Papacy itself. Nor is it about canon law. Even less is it about celibacy for clergy and bishops.
It is fundamentally about faith and Apostolic Tradition. I cannot emphasis that enough, They’ve both been practically cast aside in favor of, respectively, subjective “religious experience” and “development of doctrine”/”theologization”.
This did not begin with either Vatican II, Modernism or even the Protestant Revolution however. The roots lie much farther back in history. It just so happens that now we are witnessing on a massive scale the bearing of the ugliest fruits.
Anyway…there will be another neo-Modernist of some stripe to replace Bergoglio. They’re lined up at the door, so to speak. I see no short term fix to all this whatsoever. Certainly not by way of “electing the right Pope”.
It’s actually kind of comical how “conservatives” cling to Ratzinger on account of him looking the part wearing “traditional” papal attire and vestments…and of course his grand (neo-Modernist) motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” which gave Catholics “permission”, albeit severely restricted, to adhere to Tradition in their liturgical practices. LOL.
He’s actually far worse in some ways than Bergoglio, IMO. So it baffles me that anyone who is somewhat informed or has any sense would ever insist that he holds any sort of authority in the church.
Tom A the hyper-belligerent, satanically deceived, conniver of Truth, on his way to Hell, deFide,
Now posits a statement which says absolutely NOTHING to support his Gnostic argument and of course it does not, as it cannot, as his lies are rooted as they have been from the beginning, in anti-Papal Authority, which itself makes the poor, poor, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual child Tom A look to be more pristinely the stupid fool that he is in schism, on his way to Hell, deFide. His statement simply states the reality as it is that Papal Election Law can and has changed over the centuries. What the conniving son of Lucifer fails to state, is that the SINGULAR, as the ONLY MAN who can change that Papal Election Law, which has changed in the Church’s hierarchical history, IS THE VICAR OF CHRIST. The Hell you will know for all eternity Tom A, you exponent of the Whore of Babylon, you hideous fool, is not approachable by your imaginative power, you hideous heretic. Your time soon approaches, as time continues to compress, as motus infine velocior, you heretical fool. I pray you save your soul. In caritas.
You poor, poor, poor, wretched, protestant heretic on your sure and certain path to Hell with your Gnostic Prince, you hideous, pseudo-intellectual, miscreant, so called, A Simple Man, whose hubris is now unutterably stunning as fantastic.
Again, KNOW this heretic, as once again quoted from, “Satis Cognitum”, as your fruits are known Simple Man, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God. Amen. Your fruits are evil as they come from your Gnostic, heretical tree and they will damn you, should you hold this heresy in your final breath. Amen.
“And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend.”
You are outside the Church, poor, poor, poor, poor belligerent, effeminized Simple Man and as you are outside the Church, you CANNOT COMPREHEND the meaning of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as you, “are as sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend”, deFide, deFide, deFide, repeated thrice in the hope that your darkened and childish intellect will grasp this single understanding, you all but hopeless, sophomoric, miscreant fool.
You closed your last hopeless rebuttal to Truth with this protestant heresy, you Gnostic, miscreant fool, and this alone will damn you to your own personal eternity in Hell with your Gnostic Prince:
“Quite simply: Pius X was **speculating** about the possible existence of the Antichrist at that time. A plain reading of the paragraph admits of no clearer interpretation than that.
That you desire to elevate his speculation to the level of Divine and Catholic Faith is your problem, not mine.”
You simply cannot see the heresy that you spew time and time and time and now again. You now posit that the Vicar of Christ, protected with the divine Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, deFide, as Authoritatively defined in the 4th Session of the only Vatican Council, 18 July, 1870, can and actually did, as the Simple Man stakes claim, “SPECULATE”, within the divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Amen. Now the poorest of poor Simple Man posits the claim that the Pope as Pope, teaching and governing the Church with divine protections, as in his protection of the NEVER CHANGING TRUTH, such that this See, “always remains unblemished by any error”, can CHANGE what he posits in that same UNCHANGING Magisterium, as, “speculation”, holds within its meaning, as its very nature, CHANGE. The contradictions that you make manifest from your words as coming from your hideously darkened intellect, A Simple Man, are simply FANTASTIC in their hubris. In the darkened mind of A Simple Man, THAT WHICH CANNOT CHANGE is simply the same thing and as thus means the same thing, as that WHICH DOES CHANGE. In its final distillation, A Simple Man proffers that, “CAN CHANGE”, has the same meaning as, “CANNOT CHANGE”, thus, “CAN”, and ,”CANNOT”, mean the same thing. Amen. Save your heretically deceived soul, on your way to Hell. I pray that you do, Simple Man. In caritas.
Oh’, and by the way, the Pope and Saint was warning us about what actually did occur, you blind and bombastic, sophomoric fool. What Pope Saint Pius X warned the Church of was the coming of the fulfillment of the prophesy of Antichrist, which has occurred, and which of course you cannot and will not be able to see, unless you convert to the Catholic Faith, deFide. Amen. The infinite Beatitude of Almighty God, warning His true children of the coming prophesy to be fulfilled by his Vicar and Saint, Pope Pius X. Amen. Pope Saint Pius X was the clarion call for Antichrist, as Saint John the Baptist was for The Christ, you poor heretic. God works His divine prophesy analogically. Amen. If it could have been, “speculation”, which it cannot be, deFide, Succeeding Popes would have corrected him, you protestant, Gnostic, heretical fool. Amen. In caritas.
“The roots lie much farther back in history.”
“The roots lie much farther back in history.”
like when? The Great Schism? Charlemagne? Adam and Eve? The fact is that the Catholic Church, though encumbered with the sins of Her members (sins which our Lord said would always plague us till the end of time), has always remained the beacon of hope for mankind, the one, true religion of God. All other religions are manmade and are an abomination before Almighty God. Those who find fault with Christ’s holy Church cannot be counted among Her faithful.
mothermostforgiving- it is not a question of one single event or even one single person. Much less is it a simple question of outright sinners/heretics warring with outright saintly defenders of orthodoxy. As much as we would like the narrative to be simple and straightforward as that, it isn’t. History is much more complex than that. Put this way- it’s very “messy”.
However, if there is one figure in church history one can point to as the one who introduced “development/theologizing” into the Western/Latin/Roman church, it is none other than Augustine of Hippo. I have said in previous comments that I believe this to be overwhelmingly negative and pejorative.
The Western Church is going to have to come to terms with Augustine and his negative impact. Much of his thought has planted seeds which have, so to speak, grown into theological weeds which are strangling Apostolic Tradition. This in turn, I’d suggest, has rendered a proper sense of Christian faith- which I define as individual reasoned belief founded upon historical fact -very much into a hopelessly subjectivist, Platonism, and and in some cases even gnostic muddle.
We are living through the consequences, by and large, of this all-pervading Augustinianism as we live and breathe now.
Dear Anastasia, thank you.
Follow-up point: if the Hungarian Greek Catholics can now ordain their bishops (I have to check) — does this mean hope for the sacramental continuity of episcopal ordinations within the Roman Church? The Greek Catholic rites may not have been substantially diluted after Vatican 2. If they still have some valid bishops (likely) and they can now ordain with a valid rite, continuity may not be lost! The twist of history that permits them to ordain matters not, the fact does.
By the way, my question wasn’t based on a call, but on personal experience (see my earlier posts). The call filled in historic details. Actually, my friend quoted the data from two books, from 1943 and 1998, books he once used in his formal studies. If you want, I will give him another call and get the references. They are in Hungarian. In any case, my point with the historic details was only to show that my vague recollection had been correct: the tradition in the Roman Church to tolerate (and not even complain about) married non-episcopal clergy living non-continent lives goes centuries back before v2, not only to Pius X whom I referenced.
I also thank all others who responded. I am responding only to this detail because this may open up a new door, on continuity.
I wish you elaborated / provided examples.
Seeker- you asked for an example.
I’d offer that there seems to be a solid case that Augustine of Hippo’s theology of original sin and grace, his “ex opere operato” theology of the sacraments and much of his ecclesiology are all deeply flawed in that they “develop”/“theologize” Apostolic Tradition in that pejorative sense.
In doing so I’d argue that the properly Christian sense of faith in Jesus- individual reasoned belief founded upon literal/historical fact- becomes distorted or transformed into something quite alien.
Well, I certainly can’t say I tried, but I can only ram my head against a brick wall so many times.
(You now posit that the Vicar of Christ, protected with the divine Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, deFide, as Authoritatively defined in the 4th Session of the only Vatican Council, 18 July, 1870, can and actually did, as the Simple Man stakes claim, “SPECULATE”, within the divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.)
I “posit” that because that’s what Pius X, in fact, did.
(Now the poorest of poor Simple Man posits the claim that the Pope as Pope, teaching and governing the Church with divine protections, as in his protection of the NEVER CHANGING TRUTH, such that this See, “always remains unblemished by any error”, can CHANGE what he posits in that same UNCHANGING Magisterium, as, “speculation”, holds within its meaning, as its very nature, CHANGE.)
This is a good example of where a lack of reading comprehension leads you to some absurd conclusions, because you apparently believe that speculating about the Antichrist’s presence (in the face of troublesome or dire times) is somehow an inherently erroneous action. It isn’t.
And “speculation” in and itself is not an action that inherently wavers to change or a lack thereof, as it is entirely dependent on the matter being speculated about, and on how the speculation itself is condicted. In addition, “Pope Pius X speculated about the Antichrist’s existence” is itself an unchanging event, because nothing you or I do can change the fact he speculated about it.
Was he erroneous to do so? I certainly don’t think so (and I doubt anyone else truly thinks so), but that you imply doing so in an encyclical *would* be erroneous is simply bizarre.
Further, if Pius X wanted to give such an event – that the Antichrist now wandered the world as a matter of fulfilled prophecy – the full weight of Magisterial heft, then **he would have done so clearly**. Otherwise, you imply that the saintly Pontiff was thereafter derelict in his duty as the chief Shepherd by not duly warning the flock about the Antichrist’s presence on Earth with all the authority at his disposal. Instead, you rely on a singular, rather tangential paragraph from an encyclical that isn’t even about the Antichrist, and one that uses terminology which is definitionally probabilistic at that (if, indeed, the Antichrist’s **active and current** existence was meant to be handed down as doctrine).
(In its final distillation, A Simple Man proffers that, “CAN CHANGE”, has the same meaning as, “CANNOT CHANGE”, thus, “CAN”, and ,”CANNOT”, mean the same thing.)
This is the kind of tortured logic that makes me pity you. I truly believe you are motivated by good intentions, but your logical abilities appear to be so underdeveloped (or perhaps malformed) that it leads you to draw patently absurd conclusions, such as “A Simple Man claims that Pius X was speculating about the Antichrist’s existence in a papal encyclical, therefore he believes that changing and unchanging things are equivalent.” It doesn’t follow at all, and your attempts at distilling that implication are quite frankly **silly**.
(What Pope Saint Pius X warned the Church of was the coming of the fulfillment of the prophesy of Antichrist)
As we have been warned about since Apostolic times. A fresh reminder to the faithful to beware the coming of the Antichrist != “the Antichrist is absolutely, 100% alive right now, and you better believe it under pain of heresy.”
(Pope Saint Pius X was the clarion call for Antichrist, as Saint John the Baptist was for The Christ, you poor heretic.)
Is that so? I don’t seem to recall St. John the Baptist saying that the Messiah “may” come, or that “perhaps” he was preparing the way of the Lord; he was straight-up, blunt, and **definitive** about the fact that Christ was coming.
This is quite simply a reach on your part.
(God works His divine prophesy analogically.)
Notwithstanding that this is a rather definitive statement on your part which is flat-out wrong (because the Virgin Birth was certainly not an analogy! A better way of framing this would be to say that God *sometimes* works His prophecies analogically), it doesn’t even apply, as paragraph 5 of E Supremi barely qualifies as an analogy to begin with: one could use the same observations Pius X was making about godless men and apply them to numerous historical figures. For example, one can rightly say that Julius Caesar, who styled himself as the “son of the divine”, was a type of the Antichrist, as one “sitting in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God.” But Caesar was not *the* Antichrist.
(If it could have been, “speculation”…Succeeding Popes would have corrected him,)
Why would they?
Seriously, why would future Pontiffs have “corrected” such speculation? There would have been no need, as the mere act of speculating that the Antichrist may already be born is not an inherently erroneous action! That you believe it to be so is honestly perplexing.
This is a response to Bishops Schnieders recent proclamation, I’m probably guilty of sin of impatience for not waiting for a post on it by Mr. Verrecchio, but it’s good just to write out ones response, perhaps I will repost it when he posts on the proclamation.
On one hand it sounds to me like bishop Schneider is saying that if something is not in the infallible magisterium, then it’s false or heretical. But that’s not the case, if something is not in the infallible magisterium, either affirmed or condemned, then it’s in the state of allowed disputance, something we can agree to disagree on. Unless it’s in the fallible magisterium, then the faithful are guilty of mortal sin to teach contrary to it, unless it contradicts a previous infallible magisterium, then the faithful have a moral obligation to point out the previous infallible magisterium, and call for the current fallible magisterium to be corrected, and also call for those who are responsible for putting heresy into the fallible magisterium to repent and do penance. If something was in the fallible magisterium and the current magisterium changed it to something different by engaging the fallible magisterium only. The faithful have to give more weight to the previous fallible magisterium believing the previous fallible magisterium till the infallible magisterium is engaged to settle the question. There is no such thing as silencing all theological positions till the magisterium rules on it. If the magisterium has not ruled on it, we can hold it, and act on it, especially if it was held by a saint.
It almost seems like bishop Schneider is inadvertantly saying if you are willing to exercise your right to withdraw obedience to prelates who fail to condemn error or are at least materially heretical, then you can go to Mass etc. at Sedevacantist chapels because we are only agreeing to disagree with them concerning theological conclusions. But Fr. Kramer is saying the Sedevacantists are teaching what is “proximate to heresy” because they teach contrary to the very reasons Vatican I define the dogma of the infallible pope.
The Sedevanctists not only eliminate the existence of material heresy, they reduce the magisterium to two infallible levels, eliminating the fallible level of the magisterium, and they also teach what’s “proximate to heresy.”
The big difference between the individual Protestant judgement and the individual judgement of Catholics adhering to saintly doctrine neither approved nor nor condemned by the Church is that the Catholics are defending the infallible magisterium where the Protestants are opposing it. In other words, the individual Catholic judgement is not individual at all, but actually comes from the magisterium itself, rather it is the heretic prelates being judged that have thrown off the shackles of the magisterium in order to present to us a counterfeit magisterium by engaging in individual Protestant judgement divorced from previous magisterium, lacking continuity with the past, and not having harmony with Holy Mother Church, but rather they have harmony with freemasonry, communism, secular humanism, Babylonianism, and synagog of Satan.
When judging the true meaning of a law we look at the intention of the the law maker. When there is a question of a lawmaker keeping a law, his intention can only be used to determine malice. It matters not what his malice is or is not, if he did not keep the law, he either broke it in the 1st degree, the 2nd degree, or the 3rd degree, however you cook the books with his intention, he broke the law. In this case, the law states the consequences no matter what degree of malice was used to break it. The law demands a pope renounce the “munus” or he remains the pope, and failure to do that, is not an internal intention.
When a prelate gives the faithful the right to withdraw obedience from them by failing to condemn errors or by heresy itself even only on the material level, he also gives them the right to withdraw reverence. If that is not the case, and if the anti-Christ comes as a bishop or a pope. Bishop Schneider would say the faithful need to give the anti-Christ the reverence that we owe to Christ even after they figured out the bishop or pope was the anti-Christ. Thus in the case of the anti-Christ being a pope, the reverence of Christ is owed to the anti-Christ till the anti-Christ declares it’s not necessary or some future pope tells us it’s not necessary!
In Bishop Schneiders map and model of the Church, the handing of the Church over to the synagogue of Satan on a golden platter, cannot be prevented. The Church and her children must be held captive, simply because it cannot be prevented. This is of a similar likeness to the attributes to someone in the state of mortal sin. In Fr. Kramers map and model of the Church, there is a similar likeness to the attributes of God as both almighty and triumphant. It takes man to sin and fail on his part to be held captive, the devil has no power or control of us unless we give it to him. The fact that we will be held captive by the devil despite being in the state of sanctifying grace, because of the failure of the faithful, will not make the Church or the pope fallible when the Church defines them as being able to be infallible.
Cardinal Burke needs to declare what Archbishop Lenga declared, and bishop Schneider needs to study Catholic theology, then join Archbishop Lenga also.
The toleration of Francis is leading to unrepentant sinners becoming guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. Communist environmentalism, transubstantiating itself as Catholic teaching, Pagan idols desecrating St. Peters Basilica and leaving it in the need to be re-consecrated. The faithful being ridiculed by a “pope.” Blasphemy coming from a “pope.” Rumors about a future invalid liturgy, female deacons, married priests, and permanent changes to the Church itself, all creating confusion, the hallmark of Satan.
This is not about convicting anyone of heresy, nor is it about belittling anyone, non of us were taught these things, if we were, we would not be arguing about them. If I am wrong, it would be material heresy only, if Bishop Schneider is wrong, it would likely be material heresy only, if Fr. Kramer is wrong, it would likely be material heresy only, if the Sedevacantists are wrong, it would likely be material heresy only. We are all just faithful Catholics trying to get to the bottom of this.
“On one hand it sounds to me like bishop Schneider is saying that if something is not in the infallible magisterium, then it’s false or heretical. But that’s not the case, if something is not in the infallible magisterium, either affirmed or condemned, then it’s in the state of allowed disputance, something we can agree to disagree on. Unless it’s in the fallible magisterium, then the faithful are guilty of mortal sin to teach contrary to it, unless it contradicts a previous infallible magisterium, then the faithful have a moral obligation to point out the previous infallible magisterium, and call for the current fallible magisterium to be corrected, and also call for those who are responsible for putting heresy into the fallible magisterium to repent and do penance. If something was in the fallible magisterium and the current magisterium changed it to something different by engaging the fallible magisterium only. The faithful have to give more weight to the previous fallible magisterium believing the previous fallible magisterium till the infallible magisterium is engaged to settle the question. There is no such thing as silencing all theological positions till the magisterium rules on it. If the magisterium has not ruled on it, we can hold it, and act on it, especially if it was held by a saint.”
With all due respect to commentor Ratio, this excerpt from his comment post is a living example of why I’ve said previously that not fond of either the concept or the word “magisterium”.
We have to rely fundamentally on the Apostolic Tradition for our faith in Jesus.
ASM, that was a brilliant retort to IC, but you are wasting your time talking to him.
I can understand why one would be opposed to theological development if it entails opposition to Apostolic Tradition; however, to be opposed to theological or doctrinal development *in principle* seems a step too far, as it ignores the fact that a lot of the Church’s doctrinal development has occurred in response to the heresies of each age, thus necessitating clarification of dogma and rejection of that which could not stand with Christian doctrine.
To oppose development in principle would be to keep fighting the same battles, discovering the same tools over and over, yet throwing them away each and every time.
Simple Beggar and In Caritas-
Tom A is simply pointing a verifiable historical fact.
If that qualifies as “insane” to you, then with all due respect you both need to brush up on your history.
Nobis, IC et al are not concerned with facts.
JESUS THE CHRIST IS KING OF OUR HOLY CHURCH.
The false popes are destruction.
Yet, as our King Jesus proclaimed, He is with us until the end of the age. The Holy Word and the faithful teachings of true papal servants of the past are our strength through this apostasy.
We follow Jesus the King of Catholics, through all storms.
Your main point is true.
Please include me in one of your prayers this lent.
Jesus Christ our King, bless you.
Is Bergoglio worried about Lenga’s statement?
You godless heretical fools, Tom A, Nobis……,
The only fact that is of Catholic import is this: As it relates the history of Papal Elections and the changes that occurred in the Law of the Papal Elections, there is ONE MAN IN THE COSMOS who can make those changes—-THE VICAR OF CHRIST—–and he is now gone from this barren and scorched earth and since October, 1958. Thus, the Papal Election Law in force upon his death and therefore the ONLY as SINGULAR PAPAL ELECTION LAW that MUST BE FOLLOWED, is the final Pope’s Apostolic Constitution, as his Papal Election Law, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. Period and end. Deny this as you heretics all do and you simply deny the entire Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and you perish in Hell with your Prince. Amen. So called Nobis, you pathetic, pseudo-intellectual, bombastic, sophomoric, heretical imbecilic fool, you who rejects Doctors of Holy Mother Church as Saint Augustine, you are doomed to Hell, you heretical whore, as you use the Truth to Blaspheme Him. Save your soul, you imbecilic fool. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Poor, poor, poor, non-Catholic, A Simple Man,
Theological speculation does NOT exist within the divine, living, perpetual, as in UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Speculation cannot exist within the Magisterium which is divine Truth, as speculation is in opposition to Truth, as it inherently contains conjecture. Truth does not as it cannot hold conjecture, you sophomoric idiot, as that is contradiction. Amen. Speculation places a contradiction in Truth and in Truth there can be no contradiction. Period and end. The Magisterium is the Deposit of Truth, not “speculation”, you sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual fool. You attempt to use the power of human reason to understand that which is infinitely apart from that power, you protestant, Gnostic heretic. Gnosis is using the power of human reason in attempt to suggest that the supernatural virtue of Faith isn’t necessary for the proper Catholic understanding of the Magisterium to occur, you obstinate heretic. Inherent in the understanding of, “speculation”, is conjecture and theory, as conjecture and theory can and do change by their very nature, they hold within their meaning, within their very understanding, and at their very essence, the capacity to change. Truth, you godless heretic, does not change, as He is the Eternal Word, the Logos. And of course Pope Pius X’s Encyclical, “E. Supremi”, was not corrected by a Successor, as the Pope cannot err in the Magisterium you fool.
The Antichrist has come, you non-Catholic, heretical fool. The prophesy has been fulfilled, as you remain perfectly blinded and on your sure as certain path to Hell, deFide, as you receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”. It will be your unmitigated hubris that will damn you, A Simple Man, you imbecile. Jesus the Christ admonished His disciples for not knowing the signs of the prophetic times. You as an heretic cannot possibly see, as to know the prophetic time that we are in. Your utter heretical blindness does not change as one iota the, reality as it is, the truth of where we are. Because A Simple Man cannot see, he deems that it cannot be. Who in Lucifer’s Hell do you think that you are?, but for his slave, you heretical fool. You have been warned, A Simple Man. You have been warned by the Holy, Perpetual Magisterium in witness and you remain utterly darkened in your twisted intellect. Amen. The Antichrist would be the one who would deny the divinity of Jesus the Christ, you sophomoric, heretical fool. Right before your darkened eyes the prophesy rests complete and in perfect analogical relief. And lastly for now and again from, “Satis Cognitum”, warning you of who you are you blinded, heretical fool.
“And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend”
Save your soul heretic but to do this you will have to DENY YOURSELF and your unmitigated pseudo-intellectual pride, take up your cross and suffer, and follow Jesus the Christ to Calvary, you effeminized man. I pray that you do. In caritas.
If Apostolic Succession has definitively ended (as you so argue), then the Catholic Church is no longer Apostolic by necessity.
You essentially argue that we must treat the Magisterium as our definitive Rule of Faith; however, given that almost everyone (if not all people) lack access to the Magisterium in its entirety (even implicitly, as the Roman Pontiff would have the divine protections when utilizing it; divine protections that we as mere laity lack), then we would necessarily end up in the same lamentable situation as the Protestants with regards to Scripture: doomed to using our private judgment to the best of our ability until the Second Coming, lacking visible and lawful authority to settle differences or conflicts definitively.
We see this borne out amongst all those who profess to be Traditional Catholics, yet are still divided because they interpret the Magisterium differently, using pre-V2 councils, encyclicals, constitutions, canon laws, catechisms, and theological manuals for the arguments, yet still arriving at different conclusions (one particularly notable example involves the whole Baptism of Desire/Blood concept that still divides people). And this is precisely because we **aren’t** the ordinary authority.
Also. this has been pointed out to you before with regards to VAS, but for the sake of others reading: recalling St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on law from his Summa Theologica, a law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”
As such, one can make a good argument that if VAS renders electing a true Pope impossible (for we currently lack cardinald, etc.), then it no longer supports the common good. This is notwithstanding other issues with your interpretation (such as: a law that becomes impossible to enforce is no law at all; or the legal absurdity of a law leading to the end of the authority that gave that law power to begin with).
Because a true Bishop still lives, if indeed a true Bishop does still live, one who did not lose the Faith by assenting to the false popes of the church of Antichrist, this presence of the true Bishop yet on this earth has no bearing, none whatsoever in and of itself, on Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession was lost deFide, with the death of Pope Pius XII, because his Apostolic Succession Law, his Apostolic Constitution, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, was abrogated, by the purported, “election”, of an invalid claimant, Angelo Roncalli. Amen. He commanded that if it was not followed to the very letter, with no additions, deletions, or any other changes made, any election that would occur apart from the letter of his Law, would be as, “Null and Void”. Amen. Period and end. There is no turning back the clock to hold a valid Conclave within 18 days of the death of Pope Pius XII, as he died 18 days plus 61 years, 5 months, and counting ago. Amen. Deny this and you deny the entire Catholic Faith in heresy and schism. Amen. Each taking the soul to Hell, deFide. In caritas.
And again, A Simple Man,
You impart a purely natural, using the power of human reasoning, understanding of, “law”, upon that which is supernatural, the DIVINE, LIVING, PERPETUAL, as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Amen. The Magisterium today is more, “accessible”, than the Vicar of Christ himself would have been when present on this earth. The point is that, it is the reception of the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, as to the properly disposed soul, which allows for the understanding to occur, and this is a matter deFide, as taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, as has been pointed out to you now many times from Saint Hillary. Those who are outside the Church simply, “cannot comprehend”, as they, “cannot grasp the divine teaching”, they (heretics), “are as sterile and worthless sand:..”. That which is contained within the Magisterium is already, “interpreted”, as has been written in this space innumerable times now. You cannot somehow, “reinterpret”, divine truth. There is no precedent for such an understanding, nor could there be, as Truth does not change. The reception of the supernatural virtue of Faith, this divine Gift actually infused by Almighty God in His infinite Beatitude, into the miserable creature’s soul, is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to, “grasp the divine teaching”. This is deFide.
Lastly for now, it is in, “Satis Cognitum”, where Pope Leo XIII definitively teaches that aspects of the Church can and have fallen to the powers of Hell, while in Her foundation She remains as always inviolable, unblemished, and true. We now happen to have had the human hierarchical element fall, as the Iscariot before them, and this stands as res ipsa loquitur. Amen. “Satis Cognitum”, teaches that the Church is visible in Her, “Unity of Faith”, and, “Unity of Communion”. For 1958 years, Her Unity of Communion was visible in Her divine Head as the Vicar of Christ, who now gone, the two Unities yet remain in the paltry few who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith. Anyone evidencing disunity in Truth, is not Catholic, deFide. Amen. Truth cannot be divided as He is Unity Himself. Amen. Here is the part from, “Satis Cognitum”, teaching that aspects of the Church can fall to the powers of Hell:
” For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them.”
Remember A Simple Man, only the Vicar of Christ has the power of the, “Keys”, to bind and loose. Only he can change the Apostolic Succession Law, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and as he is gone, it simply cannot be changed, and this is a matter deFide, as per the Vatican Council and affirmed in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, as has been typed here time and time again. No one as in not any man or men have the power to change what the Vicar of Christ has Authoritatively given. This is not man’s law as the Angelic Doctor wrote of, this is Divine Law, as the Magisterium is divine, it is living, it is perpetual, deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”. I pray you are helped by the reception of Almighty God’s grace, in the divine Person of the Holy Ghost. In caritas.
(Theological speculation does NOT exist within the divine, living, perpetual, as in UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. )
What paragraph 5 of E Supremi describes isn’t even theological speculation in the proper sense of the term! The Antichrist’s active presence on Earth more properly deals with eschatology and prophecy; furthermore, Pius X was **not wrong** to wonder if the Antichrist was in fact alive in light of the events of that time. Why is that so hard to grasp?
You’re essentially arguing that, in the **entire history** of the Catholic Church, there was a never a single encyclical, apostolic constitution, bull, or letter within the Actis Apostolicae Sedis that speculated (and not even speculation about theological matters, but speculation **period**, about anything!) about things which may or may not be.
A trivial search refutes this notion of yours, with a selection of counterexamples. From Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism) by Pope Pius XI in 1937:
“17. There is another explanation for the rapid diffusion of the Communistic ideas now seeping into every nation, great and small, advanced and backward, so that no corner of the earth is free from them. This explanation is to be found in a propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has **perhaps** never witnessed its like before. It is directed from one common center. It is shrewdly adapted to the varying conditions of diverse peoples. It has at its disposal great financial resources, gigantic organizations, international congresses, and countless trained workers. It makes use of pamphlets and reviews, of cinema, theater and radio, of schools and even universities. Little by little it penetrates into all classes of the people and even reaches the better-minded groups of the community, with the result that few are aware of the poison which increasingly pervades their minds and hearts.”
Using your line of argument, Pius XI is saying deFide with the full weight of the Magisterium that Communist propaganda is more diabolical than all prior propaganda in history, more so than anything involving the French Revolution, the rise of Protestantism, or the Jewish Sanhedrin propaganda against Christ when delivering Him to Pontius Pilate.
From “The Function of Art” by Pope Pius XII in 1952:
“10. In truth, artistic masterpieces were known as the “Bible of the people,” to mention such noted examples as the windows of Chartres, the door of Ghiberti (by happy expression known as the Door of Paradise), the Roman and Ravenna mosaics and the facade of the Cathedral of Orvieto. These and other masterpieces not only translate into easy reading and universal language the Christian truths, they also communicate the intimate sense and emotion of these truths with an effectiveness, lyricism and ardor that, **perhaps**, is not contained in even the most fervent preaching.”
Using your line of argument, Pope Pius XII is saying deFide with the full weight of the Magisterium that the highest forms of art are categorically superior to preaching (regardless of who it comes from, be it layman, priest, bishop, or Pope!) when it comes to conveying Christian truths, notwithstanding that some people are more swayed by arguments, preaching, and words than by art, and notwithstanding that the early Church’s conversion was by and large done by word of mouth from the Apostles and not with art.
From Amantissima Voluntatis (an apostolic letter to the English People) by Pope Leo XIII in 1895:
“Having resolved to address this letter to the English people, We recall at once these great and glorious events in the annals of the Church, which must surely be remembered by them in gratitude. Moreover, it is noteworthy that this love and solitude of Gregory was inherited by the Pontiffs who succeeded him. This is shown by their constant interposition in providing worthy pastors and capable teachers in learning, both human and divine, by their helpful counsels, and by their affording in abundant measure whatever was necessary for establishing and developing that rising Church. And very soon was such care rewarded, for in no other case **perhaps** did the faith take root so quickly nor was so keen and intense a love manifested towards the See of Peter.”
Using your line of argument, Pope Leo XIII is saying deFide with the full weight of the Magisterium that the faith of the English people took root quicker than with anyone else, and that the English people manifested a love for the Papacy that was more keen and intense than **everyone else’s**, and that this must be held as a matter of divine and Catholic Faith.
I could go on. But, suffice to say, all it takes is one singular counterexample to render your argument false, null, and void.
(Speculation cannot exist within the Magisterium which is divine Truth, as speculation is in opposition to Truth, as it inherently contains conjecture. Truth does not as it cannot hold conjecture, you sophomoric idiot, as that is contradiction. Amen. Speculation places a contradiction in Truth and in Truth there can be no contradiction. Period and end.)
This entire argument encompasses far too much to even be valid. Speculation and Truth are not inherently in conflict, otherwise the entire branch of dogmatic theology known as “speculative theology” (which is using known dogmas and doctrines and implicitly deriving new truths from them through speculation, particularly using the Scholastic method). Furthermore, one can make a truthful conjecture without knowing it’s true, but it does not erase the fact it was still a conjecture.
You’re trying to compare entirely different categories (namely, “Truth in and of itself” with “the act of speculating about whether a particular event has occurred”) which is why your argument breaks down.
(Gnosis is using the power of human reason in attempt to suggest that the supernatural virtue of Faith isn’t necessary for the proper Catholic understanding of the Magisterium to occur, you obstinate heretic.)
Nowhere have I said that the supernatural virtue of faith isn’t necessary.
( Inherent in the understanding of, “speculation”, is conjecture and theory, as conjecture and theory can and do change by their very nature, they hold within their meaning, within their very understanding, and at their very essence, the capacity to change. Truth, you godless heretic, does not change, as He is the Eternal Word, the Logos.)
“Pope Pius X speculated about the Antichrist’s existence” is an actual event that neither you or I can change. It is an unchanging fact of history.
(And of course Pope Pius X’s Encyclical, “E. Supremi”, was not corrected by a Successor, as the Pope cannot err in the Magisterium you fool.)
As already shown, Pius X did not err by the mere act of speculating. As such, there was **nothing to correct** (also, by the way, you’re basically admitting in your rebuttal to me that it would be hypothetically possible for one Pontiff to **correct** a prior Pontiff, which sort of goes against your entire notion of the Magisterium being perpetual and unchanging. Just an FYI).
(The Antichrist has come, you non-Catholic, heretical fool. The prophesy has been fulfilled, as you remain perfectly blinded and on your sure as certain path to Hell, deFide, as you receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”.)
Let’s kindly pull from 2 Thessalonians 2:2, and get more context about the nature of the Antichrist’s coming: “ And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.  And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,  Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,  And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:  That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
In other words, per these verses, the Antichrist **will be destroyed** by Jesus Christ Himself, with the brightness of the His coming.
Since the Second Coming has yet to occur, we’re left with two options: the Antichrist is alive **right now**, or they have yet to be born.
However, it cannot be said that the Antichrist has **already come** and fulfilled the prophecy, for the prophecy has yet to be accomplished in its fullness, as you maintain it has. Thus, your opinion regarding the Antichrist – that he has already come and passed (and as support for this you cite a singular, tangential paragraph from an encyclical of Pius X that isn’t even about eschatology as a topic) – is refuted by Sacred Scripture itself.
In summary: your entire argument – namely, that Speculation and Truth are mutually exclusive – is seriously flawed, as it leads to absurdities of several types when applying it.
I’m praying for you, Joseph.
Good Monday morning, A Simple Man,
We seem to be making some headway now. Firstly, allow me to correct your misread of what I wrote about a Pope, “being corrected”, by a succeeding Pope in the Magisterium. I wrote this:
“If it could have been, “speculation”, which it cannot be, deFide, Succeeding Popes would have corrected him, you protestant, Gnostic, heretical fool. Amen. In caritas.”
It aught to be clear, “If it COULD HAVE BEEN, “speculation”, which IT CANNOT BE, deFide….”, “which it [speculation] cannot be, deFide”. Speculation in matters of the Faith cannot exist in the Magisterium, deFide. When the Pope speaks of Catholic Art, Communism’s reign of terror and subversive rhetorical power, etc., he is not teaching the Faith or Morality per se. In, “E. Supremi”, the Holy Father Pius XII said this about Antichrist: “… and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3).”. He is now touching directly upon a matter of Faith, the prophetic coming of the singular person, as a man, in his singular prophesied time, of the Antichrist. Amen. Any, “theological speculation”, that occurs, even by the Pope in his capacity as theologian, does not occur within the Magisterium. The Vatican Council defined that perfectly, as this See is protected from, “any blemish of error”, and as the Pope is the singular man in the cosmos given, “the gifts of truth and never failing faith…”. Saint Robert Bellarmine clarified the reality as it is that if a Pope speculates as a theologian, which can only be about a matter not yet defined in the Magisterium, he does not err as Pope, he errs as theologian. Amen. And by the way, A Simple Man, as you wrote this:
“This entire argument encompasses far too much to even be valid. Speculation and Truth are not inherently in conflict, otherwise the entire branch of dogmatic theology known as “speculative theology” (which is using known dogmas and doctrines and implicitly deriving new truths from them through speculation, particularly using the Scholastic method). ”
There is no such Catholic thing as, “new truths”, as Truth is a divine Person, as there is nothing new under the sun. Amen. There is, “new definition” of Truth, but never, “new truths”. Amen. “Speculation” and “Truth” are inherently in conflict, if they could both exist within the perpetual as UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Truth is divine as Truth is perfectly unchangeable, and while infinitely knowable, only infinitely known unto Himself as God. Whereby in perfect as infinite contradistinction, “theological speculation”, is human, it is the power of human reason in its work to assent to Truth. Truth then is understood only by the reception of the Gift of the divine and Catholic supernatural virtue of Faith. Amen. This is deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”, as Pope Leo XIII incorporated the teaching of Saint Hillary as has been demonstrated for you. The heretic, as outside the Church, “cannot comprehend”, as, “they can never grasp the divine teaching.” Pretty clear command now isn’t it, A Simple Man? You continue to use the power of human reason in exclusivity in your attempt to comprehend Holy Scripture and the Holy Magisterium. This cannot be done, regardless the power of your intellect. Amen. This is divine and Catholic teaching. We absolutely need the grace of the reception of the supernatural virtue of the Catholic Faith in order to comprehend what the Church teaches about that same Faith, as the body of knowledge contained within Her.
Lastly for now, lets consider this part of 2 Thess 2 which you quoted:
“And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming,…”
Firstly, the wicked one shall be revealed, within the same context of the Pope being taken out of the way, as the next thing the Apostle states after “…he who now holdeth do hold until he be taken out of the way…” is then that wicked one shall be revealed. He then prophesies that Christ will kill Him with the breath of His divine mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. You read this purely with the, light of human reason dear A Simple Man. Firstly, you must begin with the light of human reason allowing for the understanding, in light of holding the Catholic Faith, that Apostolic Succession is now forever lost, deFide, as per VAS. Apostolic Succession is lost only once as it can never be regained once lost. Amen. The question of when this occurs is answered as res ipsa loquitur, as this must be at the End of Time. Amen. I do yearn for your salvation A Simple Man, as I yearn for my very own. God willing, let us continue this discussion. In caritas.
(He is now touching directly upon a matter of Faith, the prophetic coming of the singular person, as a man, in his singular prophesied time, of the Antichrist. Amen. Any, “theological speculation”, that occurs, even by the Pope in his capacity as theologian, does not occur within the Magisterium. The Vatican Council defined that perfectly, as this See is protected from, “any blemish of error”, and as the Pope is the singular man in the cosmos given, “the gifts of truth and never failing faith…”. )
And yet if he were making a point of dogma or doctrine regarding the Antichrist being active on Earth, Pius X would have used language befitting such an occasion (as had been the case with doctrine promulgated before and after). He did not, because he clearly was not making a definitive theological statement. Nor was it erroneous for him to do so, and to imply such a speculative action introduces the blemish of error into the Magisterium is patently absurd. In addition, as previously pointed out, your thesis implicitly argues for Pius X being derelict in his duty with regards to protecting the flock from the Antichrist, if his only warning consisted of a singular paragraph (written with probabilistic terms) from one encyclical that wasn’t even about the Antichrist.
(You read this purely with the, light of human reason dear A Simple Man. Firstly, you must begin with the light of human reason allowing for the understanding, in light of holding the Catholic Faith, that Apostolic Succession is now forever lost, deFide, as per VAS. Apostolic Succession is lost only once as it can never be regained once lost. )
If you wish to presume that Pius XII,
A) Would have desired his legislation to be the means by which Apostolic Succession ended, and/or
B) Would have intended his legislation’s edicts to remain in force in the face of the entire College of Cardinals apostasizing (which VAS is largely directed at), thus necessitating no more papal elections period,
then I certainly can’t stop you, but you’ll have to forgive others for arguing that Pius XII would not have been of the same opinion. Not all ecclesial legislation foresees and accounts for all future events and circumstances.
(The question of when this occurs is answered as res ipsa loquitur, as this must be at the End of Time.)
Last time I checked, time is still going, and the Second Coming has yet to occur. If the Antichrist has passed as you profess (IIRC from an older thread, you intimated that he was Roncalli, AK John XXIII), then he would have been destroyed with the brightness of Christ’s Second Coming.
Obviously, that has not yet happened, which means your interpretation of prophecy is flawed in some manner.
(I do yearn for your salvation A Simple Man)
As I do yours, IC.
Take care, and have a blessed day.
I appreciate A Simple Man’s comments. He makes sense and has very good and important points. Thank you A Simple Man.
A Simple Man-
“Magisterium” is a poor idea in theory and an abused thing in practice.
In so many words, you seem to be adding proof to why I stated in a previous comment why I’m not fond of it.
Apostolic Tradition is what we have to rely on fundamentally. It is quite literally the very foundation our faith in Jesus. Not “magisterium” as formalized in an encyclical by a Pope from a hyperpapalist era.
A Simple Man-
It’s one thing to formulate creeds/confessions/symbols of faith based strictly upon Apostolic Tradition when the need arises: when there is heresy, disagreement, or for the sake of bringing others into the fold. These should serve to keep that Tradition clear and simple for now and for the future.
It’s quite another thing to engage in needless and even wild theological extrapolations and speculations. I’d argue that much of what passes for Catholic theology is in fact just that. And it’s been an absolute bane to the Church down the centuries.
Consider this: Why else would the Catholic Church have a massive tome of an official Catechism now which, as someone I know observed recently, is better suited to be a doorstop? Is there any need for such a Catechism?
“Consider this: Why else would the Catholic Church have a massive tome of an official Catechism now which, as someone I know observed recently, is better suited to be a doorstop? Is there any need for such a Catechism?”
Because the Christian religion encompasses a wide range of areas in terms of morals, history, and the tenets of Apostolic doctrine (and the consequences of such) which necessarily entail in-depth explanations depending on your particular station in life. Hence why the Baltimore Catechism, for example, had rankings going from I to IV, depending on who was learning. But for those who teach and work in apologetics, such catechisms provide invaluable references.
Why would any textbook on ANY subject be thick and of many pages? Because it has a lot of ground to cover. The Bible itself is a rather meaty text; a book seeking to explain it in context with Apostolic Tradition would be even more so.
So yes, such catechisms are needed. This particular complaint about the size of a catechism has little to stand on, as it sounds much akin to the complaint of a lackluster school student bewailing how much homework he has to do.
Good Tuesday morning ASM,
You wrote this in response:
“If you wish to presume that Pius XII,
A) Would have desired his legislation to be the means by which Apostolic Succession ended, and/or
B) Would have intended his legislation’s edicts to remain in force in the face of the entire College of Cardinals apostasizing (which VAS is largely directed at), thus necessitating no more papal elections period,
then I certainly can’t stop you, but you’ll have to forgive others for arguing that Pius XII would not have been of the same opinion. Not all ecclesial legislation foresees and accounts for all future events and circumstances.”
Firstly, and yet again ASM, you view the divine Magisterium as though it is simply constructed by the power of human reason, as you read it exclusively as through your power of human reason. Amen. The holy Magisterium is divine, therefore it is supernatural, while at once it is, “supernatural”, it cannot at the same time be, “natural”, as this defies the law of non-contradiction and of course. While the lesser cannot be responsible for the greater, the power of human reason cannot result in constructing that which is divine. Look to, “Satis Cognitum”, which defines this, yes. Amen. And again, you use the word, “opinion”, in your analysis of what Pope Pius XII invoked in his Apostolic Constitution, with his full Apostolic power and Authority, as the Vicar of Christ in this world. “Opinion”, simply does not exist in the Magisterium as it is divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and unending. And yet again, “opinion”, holds within its deepest interiority as from its immanent understanding, “doubt”, in the scholastic understanding, which is the only understanding which can apply to human reason when concerning the Magisterium, deFide, as per Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. Amen. Doubt does not, as it cannot, exist within the Magisterium dear ASM, to suggest that it can is heresy, as it, “…always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”, as per the Vatican Council definitive proclamation. Amen.
This comment of yours is absurd on its face: “A) Would have desired his legislation to be the means by which Apostolic Succession ended, and/or…”.
This is tantamount to saying that a law which is constructed, as by the lawgiver, is written such that the lawgiver desires it to be broken, and that is the reason that he constructs his law. This is utterly foolish reasoning, which is affective and not objective, thus you are subordinating your intellect below the passions in such conjecture. Secular laws disallowing stealing are written because the lawgivers wish that people steal, is what you are objectively intoning. That is patently absurd. Laws are written to protect the innocent from those who would perpetrate the privation of the good which is due them. VAS was written such that the faithful few would know who the wolves in Sheep’s clothing were as they came and constructed the church of Antichrist. What other church can this be ASM? It is not of any protestant flavor. It is not Anglican, nor Greek, nor Muslim, nor Hindu and of course it is not. It rests within the very metaphysical accidental forms of those structures and other objects which were once held by the Bride of Christ in this world. It is the perfect deception. Wake up man. That’s all for now. God willing, let us continue. I pray we do. In caritas.
Why don’t you ever call Louie any of the names you call everyone else?
In no way does he agree with your opinion (sorry, your facts. Everyone else just has mere opinions).
Why don’t you ever, ever call out Louie? Afraid you’ll get banned and have no other platform?
Just get your own blog.
A Simple Man, you wrote-
“Why would any textbook on ANY subject be thick and of many pages? Because it has a lot of ground to cover. The Bible itself is a rather meaty text; a book seeking to explain it in context with Apostolic Tradition would be even more so.”
That’s a rather poor analogy. I’m not sure I see your point. There’s simply no comparison between a catechism and any given book of scripture taken as texts per se. Much less do I see a comparison between it and the compilation of vastly different texts which over time came to be called “the Bible”.
I’d suggest that a catechism ideally should be a concise summary of what constitutes the essentials of Apostolic, Catholic faith published as the genuine, practical need arises. It certainly could and perhaps should first outline a proper understanding and sense of history- after all, faith in Jesus is fundamentally historically-based. Secondly it also could and again probably should outline a proper Christian Catholic philosophy (which is NOT theology).
None of this however entails digressing and/or theologizing endlessly about every pointless and irrelevant topic under the sun as the recent tome entitled the ”Catechism of the Catholic Church” does. We can thank JPII for that largely.