Was the 2013 renunciation of Benedict XVI a valid act of resignation?
Almost immediately after issuing the Declaratio of 10 February 2013, there were serious scholars, clerics and religious – men holier and more learned than I – calling its validity into question. Their arguments were largely based upon the Latin text of the Declaratio wherein it is evident that BXVI did not intend to resign the papal munus (understood by canonists to mean office), but rather only the ministerium (that is, the active exercise thereof).
In May of 2016, Archbishop Gänswein, himself a Doctor of Canon Law, confirmed as much when he publicly stated:
He renounced not his duties, which are, irrevocable, but the concrete execution of them.
Commenting further on Benedict’s intent, Gänswein plainly said that Benedict’s act had “profoundly and permanently transformed papal ministry.” It has thus been, according to him, “expanded” into a “quasi-shared ministry” that has “a collegial and synodal dimension.”
Any attempt to so split the papacy would, of course, render the act invalid. In light of this, I wrote shortly thereafter:
While some, no doubt, will take the position that Benedict’s resignation is valid until proven otherwise, I choose as my starting point … what the Catholic Church has always believed, taught and practiced. As such, I cannot help but conclude that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise.
I have also noted in this space, on many occasions, that there are numerous good reasons to believe that BXVI was forced to step down, or aside as the case may be. Furthermore, he has indicated to the outside world that he is in some sense imprisoned (e.g., he referred to himself as a “cloistered monk” whose state “does not allow” him to leave apart from the “invitation” of “the Pope”).
In sum, there are serious reasons to believe that foul play was, and is, involved in this matter. As I write, with Archbishop Gänswein appearing ever more clearly as the St. Gallen Mafia’s inside man, this sense is growing even among those who once dismissed such claims as mere conspiracy theories.
In all cases, an invalid resignation would necessarily mean that conclave 2013 and its results are likewise invalid; i.e., Francis is an anti-pope.
My opinion on these matters hasn’t changed.
I have, however, come to recognize that there are far bigger issues at hand, specifically, those concerning the true identity of the institution that Benedict once led and the office from which he allegedly resigned, the same that “Francis” presently claims to lead and to occupy.
Those familiar with this blog know very well that I do not for a moment believe that theirs is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, dispensing to the innocent as it has, and does, so much poison. The implications of this awareness are tremendous, and I am prayerfully doing my best to make sense of them.
In the meantime, I am convinced beyond all doubt that Jorge Bergoglio simply is not Catholic; the man is a blasphemous heretic who has made it plain to all with eyes to see that he has severed himself from the Body of the Church, if indeed he was ever attached to it.
He is, therefore, an anti-pope for this reason as well.
Given that very few among us are well-versed in either Latin or Canon Law, not to mention the fact that there is a great deal that we simply cannot know surrounding the events of February 2013, it is my opinion that the latter reasoning (Jorge’s notorious, pertinacious heresy) is more readily accessible to the moderately well-formed layman’s mind. As such, this is where I tend to focus my attention with regard to the Bergoglian anti-papacy.
As for those far bigger issues, I realize that many sincere readers do not share my concerns; i.e., a good number of readers tend to view the conciliar church as the Holy Roman Catholic Church, albeit infected with Modernism even to the Office of Peter. All of us are on a quest to discover the truth, and I was in just this place not that long ago.
For this reason, I believe that there is value in demonstrating that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-pope due to his heresy, even apart from those bigger issues, for the benefit of those who, at present, cannot see them. Truth, one hopes, will then lead to more truth…
My own opinions hopefully made clear, let’s return to the topic at hand.
I have no bones to pick with those who are making objective observations that support the position that the so-called resignation of BXVI was invalid.
Where I am compelled to issue a warning concerns the fanciful notions that some have begun to attach to Benedict, spinning his cowardly and confusing behavior, as well as his scandalous silence, into a deliberate and heroic attempt to save the Church from diabolical forces.
The reason I have chosen to address the matter in this space is that even some otherwise clear-minded “traditionalists” are evidently beginning to latch on to this narrative, in spite of the fact that it is impregnated with the poison of conciliar conservatism.
In my experience, one of the most prolific outlets disseminating these ideas is the From Rome blog, which is run by Brother Alexis Bugnolo, a man whose sincerity I do not doubt in the least, but whose ideas (in part) are dangerous nonetheless.
In a recent and rather lengthy post (which I invite you to read HERE), Br. Bugnolo proposed to inform readers “what happened [re: Benedict’s renunciation] and why it happened and what it all means.”
After sifting through certain pieces of evidence and speculating as to their significance, he ultimately, and with great confidence, proposes:
From all this, then, we can say decisively and with great certitude that the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender. [Emphasis in original]
In short, Br. Bugnolo believes that Benedict, by making room for the Bergoglian anti-papacy and sitting silent in the face of the evils he is promoting with reckless abandon on a near daily basis, is somehow outsmarting the bad guys and protecting the Church.
The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution. [Emphasis in original]
According to Br. Bugnolo’s version of what happened and what it all means, Benedict XVI is not the only putative pope whose mozetta is best viewed as a superhero’s cape. In a previous post, he told readers:
Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch.
If this doesn’t raise a red flag for traditional Catholics, nothing will! And yet, some still delight in Br. Bugnolo’s creative musings, which paint Benedict as a misunderstood martyr, valiantly going it alone for the sake of Christ’s Church.
As the post under discussion makes clear, Br. Bugnolo imagines that John Paul II was a visionary who laid the groundwork for Benedict’s allegedly brilliant maneuver:
… it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical possibility of an invalid renunciation in the case of a pope who renounced something other than the petrine munus! [which] allowed a Roman Pontiff to give the appearance of a valid resignation, so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church. [Emphasis in original]
In furtherance of this theory, Br. Bugnolo asserts:
For since the man who is the pope has the canonical right to renounce the petrine munus, it follows ex maiore that he has the moral right to renounce anything less than the munus. In cases of grave threat, he also has the moral right to dissimulate.
The logic (if you will) is obviously flawed inasmuch as it validates what every serious Catholic recognizes as invalid; namely, the utterly false notion that the Papacy is comprised of individual parts (an office and a ministry) that are subject to division. Rather is it the case that the Papacy is, by the will of Christ who established it, one; it is whole and indivisible. Therefore, the man who is pope does not have the right to renounce only a portion thereof, as if to retain what allegedly remains, no more than a member of the Church has the moral right to renounce a portion of the one true faith and yet remain numbered among her faithful.
In any case, Br. Bugnolo finds cause to conclude:
In this way, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have acted with great foresight and angelic prudence.
Evidently, Br. Bugnolo is confused concerning the duty of the pope as elucidated by the First Vatican Council:
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. (Pastor Aeternus),
Get that? The popes are divinely endowed with gifts that enable them to discharge their office – not flee from it by concocting fake resignations therefrom, thus making room for a blaspheming heretic anti-pope who will deceive God’s people – as if doing so somehow serves to protect the flock from the poisonous food of error. The very idea is absurd!
With regard to Benedict’s shameful silence in the face of Amoris Laetitia (as discussed in my previous post), Br. Bugnolo seems willing to give him a pass. It’s as if Brother has either forgotten, or changed his mind about, the following post on the From Rome blog, dated April 9, 2016: This ‘Amoris Laetitia’ cannot be tolerated in silence
In this post, written by “The Editor” (perhaps Br. Bugnolo himself), we find:
On account of the universal scandal given by it [Amoris Laetitia], on account of its universal reception by the press as signifying the abandonment of Scripture and Tradition as the remote Rule of Faith in the Church; inasmuch as it is recognized by all and the author itself to contain novel doctrines, which contradict the past ones and past pastoral practice, every Catholic is obliged to REJECT and CONDEMN it AND DISREGARD the authority the author pretends to exercise in it. [Emphasis in original]
Get that? Every Catholic! He went on to conclude:
In the coming day and weeks, we shall see which of these [Cardinals of the Roman Church, the clergy of Rome and the bishops of the Catholic Church] cleaves to Christ and which deny him by an effeminate silence.
How much more does this apply to the man one considers the Bishop of Rome! And yet, more than three-and-a-half years have since passed and Benedict XVI’s most noteworthy response to Amoris Laetitia (beyond praising its author) has been nothing but effeminate silence!
No, with Benedict XVI were are not witnessing the behavior of a pope acting to “save the Church;” rather, we have before us a man who more readily fits the following taken from the same post on the From Rome blog:
Finally, it is obvious on account of the gravest moral obligation of charity for the whole Church, that these three groups [Cardinals of the Roman Church, the clergy of Rome and the bishops of the Catholic Church] are obliged to act, and that if they do not act, each of them individually merits ETERNAL DAMNATION for having loved themselves more than Christ and His Church. [Emphasis in original]
In conclusion, it bears repeating, I believe that Br. Bugnolo is entirely sincere. He’s obviously very knowledgable in Latin and Canon Law, and he makes a good contribution to discussions concerning the validity of Benedict’s apparent renunciation.
That said, readers would do well to dismiss – or better still, avoid altogether – his fanciful theories suggesting that BXVI is somehow providing a service to the Church, protecting her and the faithful in her care from the menace of evil men.
“…it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical…so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church. [Emphasis in original]…”
So, JPII was clandestinely working to undermine the efforts of Jews and Freemasons to subvert Christ’s Church? He was really on the side of the 2000-yr-old Catholic Church and, contrary to the appearance of such things as the 1986 Assisi assault on the first commandment, the kissing of the Koran, the proclamations absolving the Jews of any calumny against Christ, the…, well, how much of the mountain of sewage flowing from his “pontificate” do we have to list here?
Christ told us to say “yes” when we mean yes and “no” when we mean no, and that anything else was from the evil one. That’s good enough for me to form an opinion of someone like JPII.
MMF-You are correct. JP2 used his overly long “pontificate” to reduce Catholicism to just one of many “religions”. The scandalous “Assisi Meetings” was proof of his disastrous intent. Was B16 a Villain?–Yes; was he a Victim?–Maybe; was he a Superhero?–Never. I used to follow Br. Bugnolo’s blog until he started to sound very weird. I don’t know what happened.
What happened to him is the same thing that happens to everyone else who rejects the Pope: they detach themselves from reality, lose their ability to reason, and end in absurdities.
There is a saying in medicine, “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras” which conveys the idea that when you are vexed with a problem and trying to determine origin, the most obvious answer is probably correct. Neither of these men seem like heroes, but Catholics are desperate for one right now. I do think the book is worth something, and it’s going to cost them both, but I’m saving my thanks for the man who calls a press conference and says Bergolio is an antipope and we the sheep must consider him anathema. I have a hard time believing he is not an antichrist. Anyway, I don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade, but Bergolio is going to end priestly celibacy real soon, and he’s probably got some other surprises in there. His advance directive to bishops to be ready to call a press conference and they should consider having an expert in ecology, ministers of some king (including laywomen), and even youth who minister to youth, as I recall, means buckle up it’s about to blow up. This book isn’t going to deter him, in fact, he may move quicker.
Once he does that, I don’t know what to say about any potential remedy except with God all things are possible.
JPeters,
Quick test regarding your fidelity to “Pope Francis” and his magisterium: do you accept Amoris Laetitia in its entirety, assenting to it according to the standards of religious obedience (at the bare minimum)?
If you don’t, then how do you justify your rejection of the magisterium of the man you profess to be Pope?
Evangeline, your reasoning is sound, which doesn’t mean I don’t think Cardinal Sarah is an honorable man, just that I, as well, am “saving my thanks for the man who calls a press conference and says Bergolio is an antipope and we the sheep must consider him anathema.” Unfortunately, while I think you are correct that Bergoglio is going to do as you predict vis-a-vis priestly celibacy, I predict even that will not rouse our modern-day Athanasius — whoever he may be — from his slumber. I fear things must disintegrate further before that happens. Perhaps it will take direct Divine Intervention. Will Bergoglio have the gall to host an inter-communion service in the Vatican itself, for example? Would God strike St. Peter’s with lightening (again), causing the round roof to cave in on everyone inside? I fear that is what it may take to destroy the Fake Church that has been constructed around the True Church: the actual destruction of the Vatican itself.
It looks as though Archbishop Vigano has added more fuel to the fire considering Monsignor Gänswein…
It’s time to pull the fire alarm on Benny’s ‘resignation.’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-vigano-denounces-benedicts-secretary-for-abusive-and-systematic-control-of-pope-emeritus
JPeters–Is it OK to reject the numerous heresies of Pope Francis while still believing he is Pope? The SSPX says that Pope Francis says and does heretical things, but he himself is not a Heretic.
Maybe, you would be so kind to explain this reasoning. Is it like admitting that someone murders people, but he is not a Murderer? Perhaps, you could enlighten all of us. Thank you.
“The Supreme Shepherd and Vicar of Christ on Earth, who, being a prisoner in the Vatican… in that greatest crisis of the Church, he who is obligated to speak in due time will remain silent.”
Our Lady of Good Success (approved)
There’s nothing in AL that applies to me. If you believe there’s anything objectionable in the document, quote it and I’ll reply.
First cite the “numerous heresies” you’re talking (with a link to the source), and then I’ll gladly reply. One of the problems with you sede vacantist apostates is that you don’t know what heresy is. So, let’s begin with proof of the alleged heresy. That requires quoting the defined dogma he has allegedly denied, and then showing how his statement is a DIRECT denial of the dogma. And since you accused him of numerous heresy, I want to see proof of at least 3. Then I will gladly answer your question.
M2C: “The SSPX says that Pope Francis says and does heretical things, but he himself is not a Heretic.”
.
I am not a fan of the SSPX, but that statement is true. A Catholic who does heretical things might be suspected of heresy, but doing heretical things does not make him a heretic in the eyes of the Church.
JPeters–If you yourself are not familiar with the heresies of Francis, there is no documentation that will convince you. Apparently, you must therefore not agree with Louie who is very astute and analytical regarding Bergoglio. You have made up your mind. That’s OK with me. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Have a wonderful evening.
Clergy cannot be presumed to be culpably ignorant of the Catholic faith, as may be said of laymen. This is by virtue of their authority and their position.
Much less the putative Roman Pontiff, who has the Divine Promises, who is guaranteed to be unshakeable in teaching the Faith in light of those promises.
Paragraph 301.
M2C: “If you yourself are not familiar with the heresies of Francis, there is no documentation that will convince you.”
.
Too lazy to offer proof I see. I’m not surprised. It would take too much time away from you gossiping, complaining, and searching out the latest scandal to feign shock and outrage over.
Quote it and explain what is wrong with it.
mother & mostforgiving and my2cents
His name oddly enough is RATzinger and I think that says it all. I appreciate the truth of what you both said. I think Br. Bugnolo is very confused and there is another Novus Ordo cleric on one of the other posts I forget his name Sum maybe I don’t remember and a picture of him in monastic garb and he asked me if I had a spiritual advisor. Well I can only respond to that Novus Ordo monk that it would never be RATziner or Br. Bugnola because in Ratzinger’s case he is one among many who have caused the confusion, heresy and religious indifferentism, as well as all of the horrible sex scandals when he was prefect for the Congregation on Doctrine or whatever when it used to be called “The Holy Office” now what it ought to be called is “The Dicastery for spreading of THE GREAT APOSTASY WHICH BEGINS AT THE TOP” 60 years and counting. Who really wants to get “spiritual advise from these “robbers”. Your mind would have to be “clouded” to say the least. Bugnolo has been duped. If I can get out of the NO church anyone can so there is hope for him.
Who would want to be a Superhero? anyway, much better to be a saint. The super-heroes were the concoction of New Agers to ape the Catholic Church’s saints and get children to look at the comic books and not the lives of the Saints.
Evangeline, I agree Bergoglio is going to end priestly celibacy. But it will NOT solve the problem to call him an anti-Pope or false Pope which he truly is because he is an Apostate. The reason why is because you still have the WHOLE NOVUS ORDO CONCILIAR CHURCH which is meant to lead people out of the true Catholic Church as it was always known and practice before the robber council of Vatican II. Here is proof below that one their own Conciliar Churchman Cardinal Delubac called it Conciliar Church and that it was Apostate he should know because he helped to run it.
The conciliar authorities don’t want to admit that the third secret is about them. One honest liberal Fr. Henri De Lubac S.J.made Cardinal by JP II and highly respected by the pope- stated at the Institute of Renewal in the Church at Toronto in 1967, “It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of ‘the new Church,’ ‘the post-conciliar Church,’ a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenism or adaptation,” From Henri de Lubac, S.J. in Témoinage Chrétien (Paris, September 1, 1967) as quoted in Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Trojan Horse in the City of God Sophia Institute Press, 1993 p. 8. Apparently Fr. De Lubac made the rounds with this statement in his lectures. Hildebrand quoted inte Temoignage Chretian (Paris), Sept, 1, 1967. Or see http://alcazar.net/salvation1.html
It is a “Man Centered” church instead of God Centered and that it the big reason why it CANNOT BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT IS THE APOSTATE COUNTER CHURCH
uthagen, Right now I see no modern Athanasius among any of the Novus Ordo clerics- they are sheep following the wolves because they were brainwashed in Novus Ordo secularized seminaries learning Vatican II heresies and religious indifferentism or even worse some of them were victims of the likes of Marcial or McCarrick. Of course there is hope that these poor victims will realize a great fraud was perpetrated on them but most of them are like frogs being boiled gradually so as to not realize in what danger they are in.
CatholicKingdom, This quote from Our Lady of Good Success could NOT apply to Benedict XVI because he was a heretic while he was a priest and cardinal so it was an invalid papal election.
Below is his distain for the Old Latin Mass and the pre Vatican II Church which was far healthier than todays dying Conciliar church
RATZINGER ON THE OLD LATIN MASS OLD MASS OLD MISSAL HEGELIAN DIALECTIC
Fr. Ratzinger wrote that The Tridentine Mass is a dead liturgy in “Problems and Results of Vatican Council II” in 1967
“The [liturgical] additions of the late Middle Ages were eliminated, and at the same time severe measures were adopted to prevent a rebirth. …. At that time, the fate of the Western liturgy was linked to a set authority, which worked in a strictly bureaucratic way, lacking any historic vision and considering the problem of the liturgy from the sole viewpoint of rubrics and ceremonies, like a problem of etiquette in a saint’s court, so to speak.
As a consequence of this link, there was a complete archeologization of the liturgy, which from the state of a living history was changed into that of pure conservation and, therefore, condemned to an internal death. Liturgy became once and forever a closed construction, firmly petrified. The more it was concerned about the integrity of pre-existent formulas, the more it lost its connection to concrete devotions ….
In this situation, the baroque carved it [the liturgy] superimposing a people’s para-liturgy over its true and proper archeologized liturgy. The solemn baroque mass, through the splendor of the orchestra’s performance, became a kind of sacred opera, in which the songs of the priest had their role as did the alternating recitals. …. On the ordinary days that did not allow such a performance, devotions that followed the people’s mentality were often added to the mass.”(Joseph Ratzinger, Problemi e risultati del Concilio Vaticano II, Brescia: Queriniana, 1967, pp. 25-27) http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_068_RatzMass.htm
“Problems and Results of Vatican Council II” By Ratzinger
“The [liturgical] additions of the late Middle Ages were eliminated, and at the same time severe measures were adopted to prevent a rebirth. …. At that time, the fate of the Western liturgy was linked to a set authority, which worked in a strictly bureaucratic way, lacking any historic vision and considering the problem of the liturgy from the sole viewpoint of rubrics and ceremonies, like a problem of etiquette in a saint’s court, so to speak.
As a consequence of this link, there was a complete archeologization of the liturgy, which from the state of a living history was changed into that of pure conservation and, therefore, condemned to an internal death. Liturgy became once and forever a closed construction, firmly petrified. The more it was concerned about the integrity of pre-existent formulas, the more it lost its connection to concrete devotions ….
In this situation, the baroque carved it [the liturgy] superimposing a people’s para-liturgy over its true and proper archeologized liturgy. The solemn baroque mass, through the splendor of the orchestra’s performance, became a kind of sacred opera, in which the songs of the priest had their role as did the alternating recitals. …. On the ordinary days that did not allow such a performance, devotions that followed the people’s mentality were often added to the mass.”(Joseph Ratzinger, Problemi e risultati del Concilio Vaticano II, Brescia: Queriniana, 1967, pp. 25-27)
Joseph Razinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966)
“The decision to begin with the liturgy schema was not merely a technically corrective move. Its significance went far deeper. This decision was a profession of faith in what is truly central to the Church–the ever-renewed marriage of the Church with her Lord, actualized in the Eucharistic mystery where the Church, participating in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, fulfills its innermost mission, the adoration of the triune
God. Beyond all the superficially more important issues, there was here a profession of faith in the true source of the Church’s life, and the proper point of departure for all renewal. The text did not restrict itself to mere changes in individual rubrics, but was inspired from this profound perspective of faith. The text implied an entire ecclesiology and thus anticipated … the main theme of the entire Council–its teaching on the Church. Thus the Church was freed from the ‘hierarchical narrowness’ of the previous hundred years, and returned to its sacramental origins” ( p.14).
JPeters, I agree with my2cents that is sheer bunk from the SSPX because they are inching ever nearer to a Union with the Apostate Rome and softening on there former militant stand against Vatican II. There own SSPX clergy here “Carthago delenda est! (So, what about Vatican II?) Written by By Father Michael Johnson, FSSPX states “It must be admitted, however, that one of consequences of this quest has been a fair amount of softening on the Society’s (SSPX)attitude towards the ongoing modernist devolution of Holy Mother Church, and towards that devolution’s chief engine, the Second Vatican Council. In attempting to make the Council more palatable, some on our side have even taken to slicing and dicing it, identifying 95% of it as more or less acceptable, but the remaining 5% contrary to what the Church has always taught; and, therefore, to be rejected. The 95% deemed more or less acceptable was then further dissected into two more parts: the larger part said to be comprised of direct quotations of earlier orthodox magisterial documents; while the remaining smaller part was deemed ambiguous, and in need of clarification to bring it into line with traditionally accepted doctrine. …
Can we say that the four marks of the Church – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic – are more gloriously evident today than they were before the Council? Rhetorical questions, all. You know well the answers.
So, presuming that such authentic traditional Catholic doctrine is indeed present throughout the Council documents, what was the purpose of including them with the bad and the ugly, these latter two being asserted by the dissectors to compose but a miniscule portion of the Council? The Gospel of today’s Mass could not be more dead on in answering this question: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Mt. 7:15 – 20)”
Now you might think that is great but I don’t.
That it even has to be specified is quite interesting, but I’ll oblige with one particular portion:
“The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
Note that the “irregular” situations mentioned are those who are objectively in the state of adultery.
Those who are objective adulterers **are** deprived of sanctifying grace.
In no where in moral theology that I’m aware of is allowance made for lessening one’one’s culpability because you don’t know the “inherent value” of a rule (and I doubt most of the laity through the ages would qualify under such a standard. Yet the Church still expected and exhorted them to obey Her moral laws).
And to insinuate or teach that continuing in the sin of adultery is objectively **better** than alternatives is to give license to moral evil, and to put a stamp of approval on sin in certain scenarios.
Need I go on?
Only too lazy, perhaps, to waste time on your objectively hopeless case.
Louie,
Br. Bugnolo yawn comment about RATzinger wanting to save the church from Masons is a comedy of errors. A modernist is NEVER going to “surrender” trying to take down the Catholic Church with ANY of his effeminate overtures because of his pride even though he was caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar with his backtrack of he is not giving up his “munus Petrinum”. Putting Gänswein the modernist tennis player “model” out there, (the man who RATzinger has lived with as his “secretary”) to take away with one hand what he puts out with another- the Hegelian double Dutch ” Active papacy and the “contemplative” Emeritus papacy Two Headed Hydra medusa touch that has taken in so many poor Catholics because they are impressed with his red shoes and lip service to the Latin Mass when he has done everything to destroy it.
These guys are like octopuses massaging a FrankieStine monster and it is NOT the Catholic Church bankrupting everything they touch. No one is going to save anybody by soft peddling what is really going on- “Magical Smoke and Mirrors Eclipse” . You don’t have to be a Canon Lawyer to figure this out or “Holy” go here https://romeward.com/articles/239752647/can-a-private-individual-recognize-an-uncondemned-heretic You just have to have good common sense and know your Catholic Faith.
Everyone must submit to a true pope and you cannot submit to this two headed HYDRA from the Conciliar “APPARENTLY PAPALY APPROVED DIOCESES AND Jurisdiction ANTI-CHURCH”. I started paying more attention to your blog because I thought you were finally starting to fight against the hypnotic spell of the Medusa headed Rasputin’s ( VII & VII false Popes) who coiled around all of us from the time were little children like a journey from that Jason and the Argonauts movie surreal as it was this truth is stranger than fiction is far more deadly and before you know it all of the Catholic sense has been squeezed out of you.
In essence you get fleeced with Vatican II thinking you were looking for the “Golden Fleece as in the Argonauts Epic The fleece is a symbol of authority and kingship but when you turn the pages of the Vatican II documents and see the movie played out in real time , and search for the Real life “authority & Kingship of Christ on Earth” they give you Pachamama, Louie and Company you cannot subsist on this poisonous popcorn.
Just get out of this bad B Movie Louie because “Jason attempts to put the serpent guarding the golden fleece to sleep” but you are never going to EVER BE ABLE TO PUT THIS SERPANT OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TO SLEEP SO YOU CAN GET AT THE REAL CATHOLIC CHURCH IT ATTEMPTS TO CRUSH. YOU CAN NEVER GET TO THE END OF ITS COILS AND YOU WILL NOT FIND THE CHURCH AT THE BOTTOM OF IT. They are “FLEECING US ALL as All that glitters is NOT GOLD “. IT IS A COILED TRAP BY THE DEVIL TO CRUSH THE FAITHFUL. YOU JUST NEED TO GET OUT OF MYSTERY BABYLON AND NOT LOOK BACK AT SODOM OR LIKE LOTS WIFE- WELL We all REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO HER.
Do you remember just how horrific the fictional Medusa was ??? “They were Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa. Now Medusa alone was mortal; for that reason Perseus was sent to fetch her head. But the Gorgons had heads twined about with the scales of dragons, and great tusks like swine’s, and brazen hands, and golden wings, by which they flew; and they turned to stone such as beheld them. So Perseus stood over them as they slept, and while Athena guided his hand and he looked with averted gaze on a brazen shield, in which he beheld the image of the Gorgon, he beheaded her.” That is the Conciliar church.
Catholics need to slay these dragons of the Conciliar Church by holding up the mirror against the medusa touch placing over the eclipse the shield of the Catholic Faith so that these snakes will be crushed by the Heal of Our Lady Holy Mary- the crusher of heresies.
Genesis 3: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
JPeters
What happened to him is the same thing that happens to everyone else who rejects the Pope: they detach themselves from reality, lose their ability to reason, and end in absurdities.
Rejecting “A true pope you would be TOTALLY right with what you say, but if you follow a false pope then you end with absurdities.
There is NOTHING ABSURD ABOUT HE CATHOLIC FAITH JPeters and what you are seeing played out with the Bergolio Clown group of Sodomites and apostates in the Vatican is detaching itself from the Catholic Church as we speak. Now look at this quote from a pereti of Vatican II who knew the Bishops at Vatican II and this is what he said”
Msgr. Antonino Romeo wrote in 1964, “In Rome and throughout the world there is a whole hive of ceaseless activity on the part of termites toiling away feverishly in the shadows. This compels us to intuit the active presence of a complete plan of trickery bent on disintegrating those doctrines which form and nourish the Catholic faith. An ever-increasing number of ‘straws in the wind’ coming from various quarters bears witness to the gradual unfolding of a broad and progressive plan of manipulation, under the extremely capable leadership of seemingly devout men, calculated to uproot Christianity as it has been known and lived for 19 centuries, in order to replace it by a Christianity of the “new age.” (Msgr. Antonino Romeo, A. Romeo, “L’Enciclica ‘Divino afflante Spiritu’ e le ‘Opiniones Nov_'”, Divinitas 4 (1960), p. 454)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1288654/posts
JPeters Msgr Romeo warned you about the trickery going on in the Conciliar Church and De Lubac told you it was APOSTACY! Wake up before it is too late. Life is short.
Fr. Gommar DePauw quoted Msgr. Antonino Romeo’s famous statement to the Press in a letter to Paul VI in 1967, “[Synod Vatican 2 was] a sinister farce acted out by three thousand good for nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don’t even believe in the Trinity or the Virgin.” (Msgr. Antonio Romeo of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Bob Considine’s column ON THE LINE in the NEW YORK JOURNAL AMERICAN of Friday, November 27, 1964. see Letter Sent August 15, 1967, by C.T.M. President, Fr. Gommar DePauw letter to Pope Paul VI also at http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm
Now he said it not me. He was a Catholic priest and Msgr so JPeters was he loosing his grip on reality and being absurd??? He was a witness to this false council. What he said is what we see today and you just have to stop burying your head in the sand because NO true Pope would have ever allowed this GREAT APOSTACY THAT BEGINS AT THE TOP which by the way would be the papacy. Isn’t that the top of the Church or is it the traditionalist Catholics or better yet the Catholics that believe the Chair has been empty since Jn XXIII who took the name of an anti-Pope.
Lou,
You got the legal presumption wrong.
A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.
Just like a last testament is invalid, unless it clearly says it is leaving something to someone.
For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.
All this has to do with the concept of Cessation of power. In law, the cessation of power is not presumed. Thus, the cessation of right is not presumed. Contrariwise, in the election of a man to the papacy, we have the right and the Church is bound by law, not to regard it valid unless it meets all the necessary requirements of validity and or legitimacy.
Thus, a doubtfully resigned pope is still pope.
Priestly chastity would be something to aim for.
“It [the offering of proof] would take too much time away from you [sic] gossiping, complaining, and searching out the latest scandal to feign shock and outrage over.”
Nice try, but those on this blog know what you’re doing. You’re demanding “proof” to substantiate that which is obvious to anyone who is knowledgeable of the Catholic faith. BTW, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to accuse us of feigning “shock and outrage”? How do you know they are feigned?
“A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.”
Once again, it seems clear that you comment before reading. I wrote: I cannot help but conclude that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise.
MMF–I learned long ago not to play tennis with someone who does not own a tennis racket. ASB–Your response to JPeters is perfect.
That quote is in reference to Pope Pius IX. The actual quote reads:
” …His Pontifical infallibility will be declared a dogma of the Faith by the same pope chosen to proclaim the dogma of the mystery of my Immaculate Conception. He will be persecuted and imprisoned in the Vatican by the unjust usurpation of the Pontifical States through iniquity, envy, and avarice of an earthy monarch. ”
The monarch being Victor Emmanuel of Savoy, who in 1860 usurped all papal territories except Rome, and then in 1870 seized Rome as well. He granted Pius IX the use of the Vatican but denied him sovereignty over his territory. Therefore, the pope termed himself a “prisoner in the Vatican”.
With that said, I don’t deny that the messages of Our Lady of Buen Suceso of the Purification are meant for our time of crisis right now and that Benedict seems to be a prisoner too.
Just wanted to clarify as there are many out there who quote the messages without having studied these apparitions. There is so much more to it than an excerpted quote.
Also, if I may, insist that the proper title is used for Our Lady. The correct translation of Buen Suceso is Good Event. That good event being the Purification. When her time comes, Our Lady of Buen Suceso will purify the Church on earth and that will be the beginning of the Restoration and period of peace. An urgent request for this correct translation of Our Lady’s title has been sent in a letter from the Conceptionist nuns of the convent in Quito where these apparitions took place. The correct translation is essential to understanding the meaning of what lies ahead for the Church.
I must add that there is another reference to the Supreme Pastor of the Church which states, “In this supreme moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will be silent.”
This was told to Mother Marianna in an apparition of Our Lady who states, “Thus I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and from shortly after the middle of the 20th century… Satan will reign almost completely by the means of the Masonic sects.” She is speaking about Ecuador at this point.
Shortly after the middle of the 20th century. 1958 perhaps?
Anyway, it is difficult to pinpoint which pope she’s referring to.
Good point!
Some act like we are in this situation because of the serpent only, and will never admit that Eve was deceived by the serpent to the point that she actually committed a sin against God. Are we in this situation because of 1st degree weeds only? Or are we in it because some were deceived by the 1st degree weeds and committed the sins suggested to them by the 1st degree weeds? Seems there are plenty of Adams also who were not deceived by the 1st degree weeds, but sinned against God with the Eves because they loved the Eves and wanted to please the Eves!
Hardly any pure souls remaining . . .
Where is there chastity in its complete, true sense, to be found? Everywhere there are public unchaste words and acts across the apparent Church leaders.
Hardly any pure souls remaining . . .
Where is there chastity in its complete, true sense, to be found? Everywhere there are public unchaste words and acts across the apparent Church leaders.
” . . . the fanciful notions that some have begun to attach to Benedict, spinning his cowardly and confusing behavior, as well as his scandalous silence, into a deliberate and heroic attempt to save the Church from diabolical forces.”
This phenomenon of making things up out of whole cloth an example of which Mr Verrechio describes, regarding the notion of some secret plot of Benedict to save the Church by apparently resiling from the Holy See, is everywhere in this time of mass mortal sin, heresy and apostasy. Diabolical disorientation. People refusing to accept the truth as clearly happening before them and preferring to accept the lies presented them by wicked men that all the apparent evil is just a clever plot by really clever, really good people to secretly overcome the greater evil!!!
This is mirrored in the secular sphere too.
The Holy Faith CANNOT change, as God CANNOT change – perfect for all time. This turning to a kind of gnosticism seems to be a way for many of the receivers of it to avoid the suffering of the truth of the evil of this world, and the Great Apostasy from the Church. The people who concoct the falsehoods are doing great evil while many accept the falsehoods are desperate to avoid the terrible truth.
There are so many things wrong with these dangerous ideas, so removed from reality -what about the objective truth that one may not do evil that good may come of it?
When attempts are made to change the Holy Faith, right reason disappears very quickly.
As for the apparent resignation of Benedict from the Holy Office of the papacy, I still can only say what I said from the time of the announcement of the resignation – I do not see the valid ground necessary for such resignation to be effected. Aren’t there very few grounds upon which such may occur??? There is one as respects a pope’s incapacity due to mental or physical damage but I can’t see where Benedict’s situation, objectively, or as per his own given words in his act of “resignation” referring to his ill health and infirmity satisfy that ground for resignation. A pope could be permanently bedridden and very physically unwell and still have the requisite capacity to defend the Faith and strengthen his brothers in the Faith (in fact may be better able to do so due to perseverance in suffering). [Please forgive inadequacies, errors in my phraseology, etc. – as some will know, I have chronic cognitive impairment due to chronic illness, and often can’t think of the proper words, etc. I hope the intended meaning is clear enough.]
“I have no bones to pick with those who are making objective observations that support the position that the so-called resignation of BXVI was invalid.”
The problem with this position is that it gives credence that the man was ever pope in the first place. If he was never pope, then his resignation is irrelevant. It is only “invalid” because a person can not resign from a position that he never held.
Louie,
your article clarifies some things but not completely. Let me disagree/explain/point_out to some aspects that you, imo, passed over.
Three main subjects.
1) Bergolio’s ‘so called papacy’.
This becoming similar to beating dead horse, especially on Aka pages. If somebody wants to see base for ‘Bergolio is an anti-pope’ statement, solid arguments are available on the web. Although, I admit, it is still not time to stop spreading information about present ‘so called papacy’, what needs to be stressed out is importance of usage of true argument, namely: invalid resignation, and not listing all possible reasons with hope one of them will stick. All arguments but the true one muddy the waters and lead to erroneous conclusions. I don’t think you yet grasp the necessity of holding to the true reason. ( I don’t intend to patronize you – in case you read it this way.)
You wrote: it is my opinion that the latter reasoning (Jorge’s notorious, pertinacious heresy) is more readily accessible to the moderately well-formed layman’s mind.
This is simply should not happen, you should not use this argument at all at this level. That is, you should not use arguments that are false (o-ouch, will I have to explain what do I mean by that?) only because they will be better received.What is your goal?
2) far bigger issues at hand, specifically, those concerning the true identity of the institution that Benedict once led and the office from which he allegedly resigned
Surprise, surprise, how this point connects to the one above.
Let’s start from what you think you realize but what is not necessary so.
I realize that many sincere readers do not share my concerns; i.e., a good number of readers tend to view the conciliar church as the Holy Roman Catholic Church, albeit infected with Modernism even to the Office of Peter.
You realize correctly that some of your readers (Actually I speak for myself, because I don’t follow everything in comments section and can’t, and don’t want to speak for others.) don’t share your concerns. But what they don’t share is not your position toward NO, as you think, but your sliding toward sede positions. Some readers, same as you, don’t see true Church in conciliar/NO/modernist or whatever other name we use (Without precise definition we understand what we are talking about.), but don’t even think that Church ended with V2 (or went invisible what is actually the same thing). Some readers think that ‘spirit of V2’ should be stopped from spreadind and, e-hymn, corrected, and that fleeing from the Church because of contamination is not viable solution.
3) Benedict [and] his cowardly and confusing behavior
From when I realized, or rather from when I picked up suspicions about B16 resignation has been invalid I was critical about him, abut his conduct. He was not the pope I wanted to see. I had P10 in my mind all the time. I was looking at his, B16’s, past, was reading excerpts from his work. I was even thinking that all this ‘resignation thing’ was part of his plan to introduce ‘dual/multi) papacy’. Today I’m not sure. While still I can’t undoubtedly prove either way I think it is worth (for many reasons) to act on opposite assumption – that he tries to save the Church…
You know – I don’t want to go into details, not now. We can start long discussion which will lead to no decisive conclusions after all. There is not time for that. I rather express it in different form, somewhere below or under your next article.
One more thing. Regardless of what you think about B16: don’t fall for sede trap.
If you do, let me know. Please.
Lynda,
You are so right about hardly any pure souls remaining. It is a cesspool out there but God will raise up some saints. St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort said that there would be saints raised up in the later days. And it sure won’t be the Mormons.
To all on Peter’s Barque
Rant
Peter was seduced. It happened not so long ago. He was seduced by the enemy. Barque seemed to loose direction since and started to drift.
We were seduced too. We let this to happen. We didn’t cry loud enough, we didn’t protest loud enough, we didn’t pray fiercely enough.
Today situation is dramatic. Enemies have taken places amongst highest rank officers, enemies are amongst middle rank officers, amongst lower rank officers, enemies are between passengers and managed to convince many to collaboration. Enemies are everywhere.
Peter realized what happened. He sees his foolishness and he knows he must act. But he can swing the sword no more. He cant issue orders that are not approved by enemy, he cant explain, he can’t teach the way he should. Enemy’s eyes are on him all the time. And yet he is fighting. He knows who he is, he knows importance of his presence. He stays visible to give hope to those who still can see. Peter needs to be very careful, any moment he can be removed and disappear. He can’t allow this to happen, without him there is no Peter’s Barque anymore. So he, surrounded by enemies, does the best he can, but he pays dearly. Peter can’t hold for long without any support. He needs help. From you and me.
We need to pray. We need to fight. We need to save the Barque. Join Br. Bugnolo’s League of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI, join Ann Barnhard’s initiative, start praying on your own – and pray hard.
Find others, learn the Faith, be very prudent! but fight. So much time was lost and who knows how much is left?
Don’t be among those from Hiacynta’s vision who scream, curse and throw stones at Peter. Be rather with hungry (we are all hungry, aren’t we?) who pray for him.
Remember about his situation. Don’t listen to voices urging you to abandon Barque. Where will you go? Don’t listen to those who, pointing to the past, blame Peter for what has happened and denounce him. They are supporting goal of the enemy. Peter is not without fault, but this is not time for blaming, there are more important tasks at hand.
No Peter – no Church.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fight!
A.M.D.G.
Nonsense, Romanus sum if your statement here is true and it is in the first part of it up to application “For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.” You must be calling Ratzinger a liar and he is but he said he did NOT resign under force or coercion. You just want him to be the pope because for some odd reason you think he is better than Bergoglio because you suspect Bergoglio is a heretic.
Well guess what Benedict XVI was not just a doubtful false pope he was a manifest heretic. So even if he were coerced to resign he would still be a pope is nonsense you on your part. During the Great Western Schism Pope Gregory in 1415 had a lot of pressure put on him to resign during the Council of Constance and he did NOT remain pope and there was a two and half year interregnum until Pope Martin was elected in 1417. The Church never said that Gregory remained a Pope after he resigned so you are just wrong. You grasp at straws so you can feel like we have a true Pope with the Ruby Red slippers because you don’t want to let Toto pull back the curtain and see that the Wizard of Oz a fraud is behind a nightmarish Apostate system that is causing people to loose the Catholic faith. Did you even bother to look at my post regarding Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II by Kenneth C. Jones ??
Benedict & Bergoglio were some of the chief architects of this fraud and you want to quibble about which of the least of the two evils is the “real pope” when in fact with either one you pick you still get EVIL which is the absence of Good. Both of them want the modern Vatican II church and that church has to go because it is not God’s Catholic Church but is eclipsing it. You need to wake up from Oz and realize that you have been hit over the head by Hoodwinkers.
Lynda, for a modernist who constantly “updates” his own evolution of doctrines as Ratzinger Benedict’s actions and theology clearly shows that he thinks he is the measuring stick not God or past papal perennial church teaching. I have already proved in another post that Ratiznger thought that the old Latin Mass was fossilized and had to be changed and he and his henchmen were working on that along with Bugnini in the 1960’s -“The Concilium”. So do you really think that Ratzinger cares about precedence as in what past popes did (other than fashion like the red shoes) and the reason why a few of the true popes gave as a reason for resigning??
You need not apologize for any chronic illness effecting errors and anyone would be wrong to attack you for type o’s etc.. I have a ton of those myself. Most popes died with their boots on even the ones that were very old and their secretary of State helped them and other members of the curia. But it was John Paul II that was actually putting that buga boo about resigning. Because when you have popes inferring that “you might be too old or incapacitated and so they have to resign it takes away from the monarchical character of the papacy- that a pope is in there for life. I think it weakens the papacy if it is done too much. Usually it happens under a great deal of political pressure on a pope. So that is why I think it is silly to say that a Pope who resigns because of political pressure is still a pope because it is a “doubtful resignation I think as someone else implied is wrong . That just causes more confusion. A pope who can not stand the heat anyway and wants to resign is really not big enough for the task of governing Christ’s Church. There was funny business with the Vatican Bank and Benedict was being blackmailed and that is why he resigned. Ratzinger did nothing to uncover all of these horrible clerical sex scandals and money laundering going on with the Vatican bank and the Mafia when he was approached by people who wanted to stop these abuses. He did next to nothing. Who cares if he is gone?? The guy who is in there now is approved of by Ratzinger.
2Vermont, That is exactly what I have been trying to say about Benedict XVI that HE NEVER WAS POPE. What you are saying is true. I would add that popes have been pressured to resign before and it was a valid resignation as in the Great Western Schism.
M.C.
What you said, here: ” Some readers think that ‘spirit of V2’ should be stopped from spreadind and, e-hymn, corrected, and that fleeing from the Church because of contamination is not viable solution.”
Can you tell me in a reasoned way why you think the “spirit of Vatican II” is somehow different than Vatican II ??? After all the so called “reformers of Vatican II were in power as the Vatican II popes and they were in charge and they led the wrecking crew, they interpreted how the documents were to be implemented. Sure NOT the traditionalists.
The UN- holy Spirit of Vatican II was not led by the HOLY SPIRIT because VATICAN II was NOT lead by the HOLY SPIRIT. It is really that simple. The Vatican II church M.C. is NOT the Catholic church so it is NOT schismatic or heretical to get out of that Church because when people stay in the Conciliar Church they become part of the Prayer Meeting of Assisi Pachamama false church. The very thing that you are “so afraid of” namely the position which more and more Catholics are taking is actually THE CATHOLIC POSSITION BECAUSE A MANIFEST HERETIC LOOSES THE CHAIR OF PETER BECAUSE HE CAN NOT BE THE HEAD OF THAT WHICH HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF.
Here when you say “One more thing. Regardless of what you think about B16: don’t fall for sede trap. If you do, let me know. Please.”
Is you are telling Louie that this position which some Catholics throughout the ages have taken (as those who took the sed position in the Great Western schism were placed in a “trap” and in fact were not Catholics and that somehow if Louie did take the sede Vecantis position in this situation he would also be in a “trap” and by the way it is the most logical and truthful position to take because if you believe a pope is the pope you must obey Him and not resist him but if he is a manifest heretic well guess what Pope Innocent III said here he would be judged by God and trampled upon by men
Pope Innocent III (1198)”The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore (should a pope ‘lose his savor’) could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’. Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.
Still less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men’.”
Sermo 4.
And yes you are right that Pius X warned us of the modernist Benedict Ratzinger and his phony confusion over “two popes” was meant to put a monkey wrench into the monarchical character of the papacy. Anytime these modernists can muddy the water they do.
The only “trap” M.C is to be trapped in the Conciliar church.
“Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. They have left the Church. This is sure, sure, sure.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, July 29, 1976 Reflections on the Suspension a divinis, interview published July 30, 1976 in the periodical called Minute, no. 747 (emphasis added).
Archbishop Lefebvre said ” That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive…. The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church” Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976
Arcbhishop Lefebvre was right. It is to bad though that his society currently is “softening ” its position.
Louie,
Benedict XVI said that he resigned under his own free will so why do you say here ” I cannot help but conclude that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise.”
How can it be “invalid”??? So are you calling Benedict a liar?? What does it get you Louie to have Benedict XVI to be your Pope??
Both of them have the same heretical policies.
Amen, M.C. That was a most edifying “rant”. God bless you.
JOIN THE LEAGUE OF PRAYER FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI
https://fromrome.info/2019/12/19/join-the-league-of-prayer-for-pope-benedict-xvi/
M.C.,
Peter was “seduced” before he became the Pope, so that point is nil.
Furthermore, if a religion is promulgating evil teachings and doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith, then it logically **cannot** be the Barque of Peter.
To flee from the Ark of Damnation is in no way equivalent to abandoning the Church or giving up the fight.
It’s really that simple.
Marie,
Very informative quote by Fr. Romeo. Your explanation of this horrible situation is well thought out.
Christ Is Above All. The Vatican 2 unfaithful bishops and popes, oppose our Lord Jesus. Therefore they are adversaries to all Catholics, who are striving to live for and in the Holy Word.
Simple Man,
True. Ratzinger is the apostasy, he can not also be the solution. Ratzinger has publicly embraced protestant heretics, false jews, demonic pagans… He is a man of complete indifference, he denies that Jesus Is The Christ- The Singular Way For Life, With The One True Almighty God.
ASM,
Exactly, a typical mistake. The Church teaches Peter was not confirmed in his task as Pope at the point of “upon this rock”; but rather after the Crucifixion, and is recorded in the last chapter of John’s Gospel, “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. Check the Church Fathers.
And btw, when was it fine and dandy, “heroic” in fact, in history and Catholic teaching, to run with heretics and schismatics who are posing as Catholics? Who do not believe or teach “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” at all and in fact, teach the very opposite? Perfectly reversed thinking. St. Hildegard could have just “resisted” the heretics, and taken that “sacrament” after all. And that is considered these days as being “faithful” to Christ!? That’s pure nonsense, there’s no precedent, that’s preaching another Gospel. Sounds great on the surface though, and seemingly makes one popular. Dez got all da Catholic stuff.
Where Peter IS, is where the Church is; not where Peter is Not.
Indeed, no Peter = no Church, also, it would promptly have follow that no Peter = no jurisdiction. Unless of course, one wants to argue that heretics can have jurisdiction, or can “supply” it somehow. Power flows through anti-christs?
Oh-oh, saying that is going to get me “stoned” for sure.
Abandoning the barque is abandoning Holy God, the Holy Faith and the Holy Church given us by God – that is what manifest, pertinacious heretics do, they condemn themselves and by their own acts are excommunicated. One may not be in communion with manifest heretics.
The Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles only after Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven.
The truth is simple. The Catholic Faith is simple.
James,
In the interest of clarity, I think it would be prudent to rephrase “Indeed, no Peter = no Church”, because it can be all too easily misconstrued to mean that the Church no longer exists if the Chair is vacant for an extended period (seeing as how the Papacy, created by Divine action, can only be abolished by Divine action), for the Church will have Christ with Her “unto the consummation of the world”.
(Not to imply you believe the Church has been abolished, but your phrasing can seemingly imply that.)
M.C.
Brilliant exposition. Pray for the Pope, pray for the true and only Vicar of Christ.
Dear Mr. Verrechio,
I did read your comment, you said that you conclude that the resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
I said, the legal presumption is that a resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
The point seems to be a fine one, but it is not. A presumption of law is a principle, not a conclusion. It does not exist under certain circumstances and in certain minds or as derived from certain beliefs or not. It exists a priori to all of these on account of the very nature of the legal act.
You do not have to prove it. You do have to accept it, to be a sane rational person.
For you, if it is only a conclusion, then your interlocutors will demand that you prove it or hold that for you it’s an opinion, not a principle which is objectively true at all times.
As regard your entire piece, I thank you for bringing to your attention some of my conjectures and suppositions, which are based on what Benedict did actually say.
As I say in the preamble to my Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation, I ask all to read my interpretative note about the distinction between facts and conjecture.
https://fromrome.info/2019/11/25/facts-vs-conjecture/
That might help you restate somethings better in the entire article above, as it explains what I am doing and why I do it, and “what it all means”
If Benedict never tells us, we may both not know the answers until the Day of Judgement when all is revealed. Until then, thoughtful minds seek answers, even when the evidence is so slim we must sometime conjecture. Because to renounce ministerium instead of muns is simply per se an irrational act, if you know anything about canon 332 §2 before the fact.
MC,
Your right, I should be clearer on that point, and word it more carefully. Thanks.
The Church can never be “abolished”, but only “eclipsed” for a time, it is our duty to remain faithful to Christ in any persecution.
Sorry, I was addressing ASM ^^^ above, not “MC”.
Yes, as I said in the other piece, we should all:
pray for Benedict ….. that he convert to the Catholic Faith and publicly repent for his part in creating, teaching and professing the false religion of Vatican II to the Universal Church ….. before he dies.
AM: “M.C., Peter was “seduced” before he became the Pope, so that point is nil.”
Yes, many R&R types hold that Peter was pope from the moment of Matthew 16:18, but he was not. The Church (and therefore the papacy) was not founded until the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.
Douay-Rheims (Challoner)commentary on St. John Chapter 21:
17 “Feed my sheep”… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; (St. Matt. 16. 19); and here he fulfills that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
Thanks for all comments.
There are some voices here who understand situation. Special thanks to you that you withstand the pressure and remain with Mother Church. There is still hope but we must act.
Marie Tageye,
I promised you to answer similar question in combox under previous article. In fact I intended to answer it yesterday but wrote back to Louie instead. Hopefully I will find time today/tomorrow to answer your concerns. I need time to make the answer short. You don;t want to read a book and I don’t want to write a book. I do my best to convey the answer in short. Look for my post in previous combox.
Yes, it’s our duty to pray for repentance for all heresies, public mortal sins. Lord, God, Our Sole Redeemer, grant us the grace of final perseverance and never to succumb to constant attacks on Faith and Reason. Lord have mercy.
True the first Peter denied Christ three times, was called Satan by Jesus, would have created merry hell for the Church had Paul not resisted him to his face, but he was the solution as Our Blessed Lord called him back. So can be, and is, Benedict. You are called to pray for the Pope: pray for Benedict, the man aka Francis cannot be the Pope. He is preserving the Papacy from the wolves. As Blessed Jacinta was wont to say, pray for the Holy Father.
“True the first Peter denied Christ three times, was called Satan by Jesus” all before he became Pope and received the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
“would have created merry hell for the Church had Paul not resisted him to his face” Not even in the same category as the heresies promulgated by Ratzinger. This example is brought out a lot, as though Peter’s sin of impudence is in any way comparable: https://novusordowatch.org/2018/06/the-saint-paul-resisted-peter-objection/
Peter was not yet the Pope when he denied Christ, and the incident with St. Paul was NOT a matter of Faith but behavior, as the Church teaches in the only Douay Rheims bible, of 1582/1610, the official (and suppressed) bible of the Catholic Church.
If you want a very thorough commentary of St. John Chapter 21, (or all the Scriptures) the 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims Bible as mentioned by ASB above.
St. John 17 is too big to post here. But if your ok with middle English, you may download it here for youself:
https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n1
Dear All:
Please, allow me to return to an earlier question.
On another thread, A Simple Beggar on January 6 wrote in the context of the licit or illicit nature of sacraments administered by some, and the notion of epikeia (the emergency relaxation of some rules):
Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B., S.T.L., wrote the book: The History, Nature, and use of Epikeia in Moral Theology. Copyright 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, INC. Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing. D.D., 7 May, 1948.
Father Riley informs us on page 344:
“In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the SACRAMENTS, the use of Epikeia is ALWAYS EXCLUDED.”
Father Riley informs us on page 347:
“In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, (Holy Orders and Matrimony) what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that EPIKEIA IS NEVER LICIT.”
Could you please explain:
Whether administering Confession or the Holy Eucharist is a matter “touching the essence of the SACRAMENT” in the sense that Riley used the word? The expression “touching the essence of a sacrament” may also suggest changing or altering the essence, or communicating it a false/misleading/non-orthodox way — rather than simply administering the sacrament.
Touching the essence of a sacrament in the “alteration” sense may also be indicated by the last example A Simple Beggar quoted from the book: matrimony. Isn’t matrimony administered by the bride and the groom? The priest is there to officiate it, but he doesn’t administer a sacrament. And matrimony is valid and licit if circumstances forbid a priest to be there — e.g., is remote, isolated/abandoned Catholic communities. Weren’t there such in the colonial era?
So if this sacrament is mentioned together with the others, surely the term “touching the essence” means alteration, doesn’t it? In what other sense of the word can Matrimony be categorically (“never”) denied “touching its essence?”
By the way, are all statements in Riley’s book true beyond doubt? Are all church history/theology/catechism books written by clergy over the centuries true beyond doubt?
Thank you.
To james_o,
–
Thank you for sharing that link. I had been hoping to find the original version of the Douay-Rheims Bible for some time. It seems to be more rare than the updated version by the same name made in the 18th century.
–
The original isn’t too hard to follow if one recognizes which letters printers sometimes substituted when they were running short, such as:
“f” for “s”;
“v” for “u” or (“u” for “v”);
“i” for “j”.
For instance, “serves” might read occasionally as “feruef” or “even” as “euen” or “joy” as “ioy”. The minor changes aren’t as daunting in the font they use since the replaced letters look more alike.
–
Knowing the above substitutions and taking the time to patiently read through the occasional challenging word or to sound out another one phonetically (e.g. “yere” instead of “year”), one can come to read the text proficiently enough.
–
As an aside, I would like to make an audiobook out of it some day God willing.
–
All the best,
Kyle of Canada
You are correct Seeker, these distinctions such as authority to administer a sacrament and the power to confect a sacrament are issues that ASB and IC obfuscate in order to further their predetermined conclusion. I still contend however, that the issue of EPIKEA in regards to the licit consecrations of Bishops and Priests during an extended interregnum is worth a serious discussion.
Dear Seeker,
I was once where you are when my main concern was to find out if any Sacraments available today are both valid and licit. I avoided seeking anyone’s “opinion”, however, and especially not here because it will only make your head spin and possibly give the demons room to confuse your mind. I realized that my opinions or those of others were driving my actions and which put me on a path to hell, when instead I should have been asking GOD for the Truth and for guidance as to what His Will is in this situation.
As for Fr. Riley, he was only reiterating the teachings of the Church. I don’t have time right now to address all of your questions but you should find the following link helpful in that regard:
https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Epikeia
Let me know if there’s any problem with the link.
May God and the Holy Virgin guide, bless and keep you always.
Tom,
You’re clearly the one who obfuscates in order to justify your untenable position.
Seeker,
Recall that an understanding of Scholastic/Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics is key (as many Popes have proclaimed), for they undergird the Church’s various explanations on matters of theology. For that end, I direct you to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on essence:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm
Quote: “Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an equivalent of the to ti en einai ofAristotle (Metaph., VII, 7). The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is. As furnishing in this manner an answer to the question What? (Quid?) — as, e.g., What is man? — essence is equivalent to quiddity; and thus, as St. Thomasremarks (I, Q. iii, a. 3), the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.”
So, to apply this definition to what Fr. Ripley states, it is never licit to invoke epikeia to confer the sacrament of matrimony on two men, for this involves the essence of the sacrament itself (which can only be between a man and a woman by its very nature). In like manner, to invoke epikeia to confer Holy Orders without the imposition of hands would also be touching on the essence of the sacrament, and would thus be illicit.
Now, the question would then be whether invoking epikeia to confer Holy Orders without a papal mandate (which is a matter of ecclesial or canonical legislation regulating the sacrament’s use) touches on the sacrament’s **essence** or its **existence** (the latter being a given object’s actuality).
Now, there are numerous examples throughout history where priests and bishops were consecrated during extended interregnums or during times of confusion, like the Great Western Schism. Not only were such actions not condemned by the Pope once the next one was elected, but they instead recognized them as licit after the fact through the ordinary means, as far as I’m aware. Note that the rationale for these consecrations was to ensure continued access by the laity to the sacraments, which is the same rationale that groups like CMRI and SGG use.
Given that ecclesial legislation like Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis
t would seem that such legislation touches on the existence of the sacrament and not its essence.
(Accidently hit post before I finished typing. Second verse, same as the first!)
Seeker,
Recall that an understanding of Scholastic/Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics is key (as many Popes have proclaimed), for they undergird the Church’s various explanations on matters of theology. For that end, I direct you to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on essence:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm
Quote: “Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an equivalent of the to ti en einai of Aristotle (Metaph., VII, 7). The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is. As furnishing in this manner an answer to the question What? (Quid?) — as, e.g., What is man? — essence is equivalent to quiddity; and thus, as St. Thomas remarks (I, Q. iii, a. 3), the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.”
So, to apply this definition to what Fr. Ripley states, take these examplesç it is never licit to invoke epikeia to confer the sacrament of matrimony on two men, for this involves the essence of the sacrament itself (which can only be between a man and a woman by its very nature). In like manner, to invoke epikeia to confer Holy Orders without the imposition of hands would also be touching on the essence of the sacrament (as taught by Apostolic revelation), and would thus be illicit.
Now, the question would then be whether invoking epikeia to confer Holy Orders without a papal mandate (which is a matter of ecclesial or canonical legislation regulating the sacrament’s use) touches on the sacrament’s **essence** or its **existence** (the latter being a given object’s actuality, which is not identical to its potentiality in Scholasticism).
Now, there are numerous examples throughout history where priests and bishops were consecrated during extended interregnums or during times of confusion, like the Great Western Schism. Not only were such actions not condemned by the Pope once the next one was elected, but they instead recognized them as licit after the fact through the ordinary means, as far as I’m aware. Note that the rationale for these consecrations was to ensure continued access by the laity to the sacraments, which is the same rationale that groups like CMRI and SGG use.
It would thus seem that such actions touch on the **existence** of the sacrament and not its essence, for essence is unchanging by definition, but the means by which an object’s essence is actualized into being can be subject to change depending on the object and the circumstances.
One must therefore distinguish between where the Church is speaking on the **essence** of the sacraments (such as in response to grave heresies as in the decrees of the Council of Trent), and where the Church is speaking on their **existence** (such as when promulgating legislation like the 1917 Code that regulate how such sacraments like Baptism are to be administered).
But then again, I’m not a trained theologian, so take that for what it’s worth.
Kyle of Canada,
Glad the link helped, It’s a very interesting find, with lots of old commentary. Good stuff.
Btw, I live way, way up in Canada as well.
All the best to you as well.
2Vermont,
It was not at Pentecost either, please check the information given above.
Thanks james, I was thinking the Upper Room, so that is probably why I was mistaken. However, I thought the birth of the Church was at Pentecost. Wouldn’t that have to happen before a pope (or at least at the same time)?
Thank you, all, who replied so far – and who is yet to respond.
I will contemplate and continue to pray.
Regarding Louie’s question: B16 could be a superhero if he publicly denounced the entire V2 church and admit his culpability at the Second Vatican Council. Even if he so desired, would he be able to get past his guards to make such a statement? I don’t think so. In any event, I believe he is “player” in this mess which will not end without Divine Intervention. Let’s hope and pray soon, Dear Lord.
2 Vermont,
Your welcome.
You will notice that in the first chapter of Acts, St. Peter as Pope was already doing his first official act of choosing Matthias to take the place of Judas, even before the days of Pentecost were fulfilled. The Lord had everything prepared, covered before His Ascension, in a very definite order. Also, Christ Himself was already the visible Head of the Church before His Ascension, so it wasn’t until that very point that He left St. Peter as His visible Vicar. No gaps there!
The Lord commanded them to wait in the upper room until the Holy Spirit came upon them. So it was necessary that the Pope came first, even before the birth at Pentecost.
Bears witness as well to the absolute necessity of the Pope as visible authority on earth, as commanded.
Dear Seeker,
Please read carefully Ad Apostolorum Principis (Pope Pius XII, June 29, 1958). What happened in times past no longer justifies actions taken in the present, as Pope Pius XII, better than anyone else being Christ’s Vicar, knew what was on the horizon and had thus “battened down the hatches” and laid down the law:
“39. Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: “. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[13]”
It is no coincidence that the wolf in sheep’s clothing, Lefebvre, later placed an affront to this law on the very same date of June 29.
Here’s where you can purchase your own transliterated copy. Again, this is the only and true Douay Rheims bible, the official bible of the Catholic Church:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-william-von-peters/the-original-true-douay-old-testament-of-anno-domini-1610-volume-1/paperback/product-23845005.html
ASB,
The context of Ad Apostolorum Principis is this:
-It is addressed to the people of Mao’s China, who were undergoing the trials and tribulations of the materialistic atheistic Communists.
-A particular “patriotic” association is mentioned (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association) which Chinese Catholics were being forced to be a part of. Said association spread salacious rumors about the clergy, desired to minimize and usurp the lawful powers of the Apostolic See, utilized coercive force against those who disagreed with it, and nominated people to the episcopacy who had been previously rejected by Rome for being acceptable to the Communists, oftentimes under the direction of agents who weren’t even baptized.
-Some nominations went to the point of undergoing actual consecration by Chinese bishops, without consultation of the Apostolic See, despite such appointments being **condemned previously** already.
-In addition, this association proclaimed that Catholics had the right to elect bishops to head their own dioceses, even though the power of canonical appointment is specifically reserved by its nature to the Apostolic See.
-As such, Pius XII rightly condemned these actions as disastrous to principles of Catholic unity, and declared the election of those who had been **explicitly condemned previously** by the Apostolic See to be null and void.
Now, to contrast:
– There is no Apostolic See at current to consult regarding episcopal nominations, as the Chair is vacant.
– No traditionalist Bishop that I’m aware of has tried to usurp the title of an ordinary or diocese canonically established by the Roman Pontiff (as elaborated here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=59&catname=13).
– Sedevacantist apostolates have no capacity to coerce anyone to join them, for they have no civil backing as the CPCA did.
– Even though obtaining the papal mandate is currently impossible, there is at least a solid rationale and argument invoking epikeia to consecrate bishops for the sake of continuing Apostolic Succession (I’m aware that you have clearly noted previously that you don’t agree with the argument, but you can’t say that an argument based on theological, historical, and canonical principles **hasn’t** been made).
Now, with regards to divining the mindset of the legislator – Pius XII – you’re free to conclude that he would have condemned the actions of these traditionalists as trying to lawlessly usurp the privileges due the Roman Pontiff, thus necessitating the complete and total loss of all Apostolic Succession by this point in time. However, there are just as many who would reasonably say that Pius XII would *not* have condemned them, particularly in light of the circumstances faced since Vatican 2.
However, at the very least, it’s utterly fallacious to try and compare the situation being addressed by Pius XII in Ad Apostolorum Principis with the situation involving sede apostolates like CMRI and SGG.
As St John Eudes stated prophetically, it is a sign that God is extremely angry with a wicked people that they are deprived of holy priests, bishops. Any holy priest or bishop today would have to be most gravely persecuted, as is anyone who speaks the truth. Purify us, oh Lord God, Our Saviour. Give us the graces to embrace our crosses rather than comply with the evil rulers of this world, and their evil dictatorship, including the heretics and apostates controlling the temporal institutions of the Church. Viva Cristo Rey!
ASM,
He makes it quite clear that in no way does this apply only to China, and after all, this is precisely the reason why the false N.O. church “excommunicated” Abp. Lefebvre.
However, to those who deny the gravity of our times and who wish to “explain away” these commands in order to justify their position and have their “Sacraments”, so that they may do their own will and have their “comforts”, naturally the following will only sound something like Charlie Brown’s mother speaking:
“>>41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.<>42. To such conduct the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: “He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber.”[15] The sheep indeed know the true shepherd’s voice. “But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”[16]<<
*43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.
*44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
45. Well known are the terms of Vatican Council’s solemn definition: “Relying on the open testimony of the Scriptures and abiding by the wise and clear decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by virtue of which all the faithful must believe that ‘the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the Successor of the blessed Peter and continues to be the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is the blessed Peter our Lord Jesus Christ committed the full power of caring for, ruling and governing the Universal Church….’
46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”[17]
47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]
48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]"
A Simple Begger,,
A Simple Man is correct. Pius XII excommunicated Bishops who would consecrate Bishops without his permission because of what was going on in China which is now what Bergoglio is actually promoting- namely that the Chinese Communist government pick their own Communist Peoples Patiriot “Catholic Association ” turn coats to be Bishops and spread Communist evolutionary heresy to the flock. I am pretty sure though that Pius XII allowed the underground Chinese Catholic Bishops to consecrate and ordain men for the Catholic Church behind the iron curtain and they did not come under the athematic excommunication because they did it for a good reason. I heard that he didn’t even know who all those Chinese Catholic Bishops were that were consecrated in secret without his knowledge.
Now this is what Pius XII said Canon Law was for
Pope Pius XII stated in his address to the clerical students of Rome on June 24, 1939:
“Canon law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God.”
If Pius XII was on this earth today walking around do you really think that he would say let God’s priesthood (apostolic succession) burn down with heretics in charge of false sacraments due to one of my technical rules when I could not have foreseen the meltdown?? Is that what happened during the Great Western Schism???? No there was a way out of it and the Church herself supplied the jurisdiction when from 1415-1417 THERE WAS NO TRUE pope but you had “valid” sacraements UNDER NO PAPAL JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRUE POPE AT THAT TIME. We just have a very long interregnum with this. (If we do not the that would mean the anti-Christ would be on the scene and in the not to far future the return of Christ- however many people still think we are in the 6th age of the Church. That we ill have a restoration after this apostacy with a Holy Pope and possibly a “great Monarch” (a universal reign of Mary and period of peace), then an even greater apostasy, then anti Christ and then the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. (No one really knows but God.)
Lefebvre is the man who fought the revolutionaries with the matches who wanted to burn down the Church but you want to lump him in with all the Vatican II false popes. I think you are attacking the wrong people sometimes although I agree with much of what you say.
The Principle of Intrinsic Cessation of Ecclesiastical Law by Cardinal Amleto Cicognani And from p. 627: “A law ceases intrinsically when its purpose ceases; the law ceases of itself … The law ceases extrinsically when it is revoked by the Superior;…The end (either its purpose or its cause) of the law ceases adequately when all of its purposes cease; inadequately, when only some particular purpose ceases… The purpose of the law ceases contrariwise when an injurious law becomes either unjust or impossible of observance; or negatively, when the law becomes useless; universally, when the purpose of the law ceases with respect to all subjects or the majority of subjects; or particularly, with respect to some individual. quote by Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law in Rome
Now Vatican I
Vatican I declares that the Papacy is the Perpetual Principle and Visible Foundation of Unity (but guess what folks that is only when we have one if there is no Peter at the moment, year or decades that just means it is a really LOOOONNNNG interregnum and some day we will get one or St. Peter himself will come back because Jesus said that he would NOT leave us orphans on this earth).
If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.
(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus; Denz. 1821-1825
Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Sess. 4, July 18, 1870: “But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church might rise in the firmness of this faith.” (Denz. 1821)
David John Sharrock, C.SS.R, S.T.L.: “He [i.e. St. Alphonsus] treats the general question of succession to the See of Rome by showing that in the case of an illegitimately elected Pope, or of a doubtfully elected Pope, the basic concept of succession to the power of St. Peter has not been destroyed. For perpetual succession to the Chair of Peter does not demand that the Chair of Peter be always occupied. This is not necessary to the concept of continuous or unbroken succession. For each time the Pope dies, the Chair of Peter is empty. Necessary to the concept of perpetual succession is this that the Pope elected be chosen as the successor of Saint Peter with the very same authority and powers that Peter had as Vicar of Christ.” (The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori, 1961)
Bishops, however, are the true successors of the Apostles as taught by the Church, example see below.
(SATIS COGNITUM
ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
JUNE 29, 1896)
14. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule [Bold added].
This being the case, a consecration of a Catholic bishop by a Catholic bishop is the ordinary means of Apostolic Succession because the ordaining bishop is a true successor of the Apostles. This would never be the case for a bishop consecrated by a priest or laity as they are not successors of the Apostles. Two distinctly different situations which the phrase missio extraordinaria would only apply to the second.
This one below is from another web site http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1468&view=unread
But could not one claim that a bishop consecrating another without the explicit consent of the pope (papal mandate) to take upon oneself a missio extraordinaria? Not in the sense of missio extraordinaria but to me the action could constitute schism rendering the bishops outside the Church. However, it would depend on the circumstances of the case. For a bishop to consecrate another bishop without the explicit consent of a pope while there is a sitting Pontiff would constitute the consecration a schismatic act. Whether or not the consecrating bishop was a schismatic would have to be affirmed by whether the act was done in disobedience or from a rejection of the Roman Pontiff’s authority. The act however would render the consecrating bishop suspect of schism and demand further investigation. If disobedience then the pope could excommunicate the disobedient bishop; if schism the bishop would separate himself from the Church.
However, this is not what is being discussed here. The question being addressed is whether a Catholic bishop (Bishop Lefebrve or Thuc), unable to attain explicit consent of a Roman Pontiff, could consecrate a bishop to supply the sacraments for the faithful? This again has nothing to do with missio extraordinaria as again the Catholic bishop is a true successor of the Apostles and has the power to confer the sacrament. The question is whether the implicit consent of the Roman Pontiff could be assumed in such a case or would this action constitute schism rendering these bishops outside the Catholic Church. I believe, understanding that the sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation and these require priests and bishops, implicit consent of the Roman Pontiff could be assumed although the action would have to be ratified by a pope as soon as the ordaining bishop could contact him. Given that the seat of St. Peter is currently still sede vacante, the Catholic bishops will have to wait until the time when the seat is again occupied by a legitimate successor of St. Peter, and until that time they are the ordinary means by which the faithful are ruled as bishops are shepherds of their flocks as appointed by the Founder. So as one can see, “ 2. …The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. (Brunsmann-Preuss Handbook of Fundamental Theology – Vol III, pp. 340-343.), is in no way contradicted.
While there is nothing in Church doctrine which assures us of an extended sede vacante period, Church doctrine does assure us of the indefectibility of the Church and her infallibility. It is from this that a Catholic can know that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, cannot produce false worship, cannot promulgate a code of law containing sacrilege, and therefore the Novus Ordo Church CANNOT be the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo hierarchy CANNOT be the Catholic hierarchy. It is simply not possible based on the divine promise of Christ Himself that “the gates of Hell will not prevail.”
Author: Ken Gordon [ Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:42 pm ]
Post subject: Re: Sedevacantism and the visibility of the Catholic Church
James Schroepfer wrote:
The length of the current interregnum
The length of the current interregnum is no objection to its factuality.
We have seen Paul IV foresee, in Cum Ex Apostolatus, “the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation” of a sede vacante that is due to the invalid election of an antipope.
Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly wrote regarding the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), that it is not impossible that there should have been an interregnum throughout the entire period, of around forty years. At this time, all of the cardinals went over to an antipope, an antipope ruled from Rome, most theologians recognized an antipope and the true pope was the weakest of three concurrent claimants. The “schism” of competing claimants continued through the pontificates of four successive popes.
Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis by A. Dorsch, 1928:
“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head, [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manei]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body. . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (de Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Also Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, SJ, in The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882 stated in regard to the time of the Western Schism:
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
As for your question about the impossibility of future papal election, please consider Monsignor Charles Journet in “The Church of the Incarnate Word,” who quoted Cardinal Cajetan, O.P.:
“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
In the opening paragraph of your letter, you misunderstand statement No. 4 of the CMRI position. Of course, the Catholic Church possesses and will always possess the four marks: one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; however, this new Conciliar Church of Vatican II is not the Catholic Church. Infallibility and indefectibility are properties of the true Catholic Church.
I mean to say “automatic excommunication” not athematic. It was a type o
ASB,
Again, no traditionalist Bishop that I know of has tried to lay claim to a canonical appointment. You’re trying to equivocate scenarios that are of entirely different categories.
Furthermore, given the Modernists that were trying to run rampant through the ranks of the clergy at the time, it was quite reasonable that Pius XII tried to mitigate their carnage by setting legislative limits on what could and could not be done during an interregnum (as such are typically short), fully knowing that his lawful successor to the Chair would have the Divine Promises to safeguard the flock from error and heresy.
But if you believe he would be of the same opinion regarding his ecclesial legislation in the face of an interregnum lasting over seven decades (and counting)…well, I certainly can’t stop you from thinking that.
But neither do you have the authority to bind others to that belief.
Because in the end, it’s a binary choice: if a papal mandate is impossible to obtain, then either episcopal consecration is impossible (in which case the sacraments are impossible to attain in their prescribed form, beyond the ramifications this has regarding the indefectibility of the Church), or the legislation loses its binding force in that regard (for a law which cannot be enforced is no law at all).
Until Christ returns or His Vicar returns, the lack of proper authority means we will be wanting for a definitive answer settling the matter one way or another.
You clearly seem to believe that what these traditionalists have tried and are trying to do is worthy of anathema. Others (including myself) believe such are motivated by charity for the sake of saving souls.
But we’ll *all* find out one day.
So true Lynda, I was thinking of St. John Eudes quote myself regarding this apostasy. When you look at how many Catholics contracept and abort there babies it is very sad. Of course serious sin like this cause an automatic excommunication and you have to go to a Bishop to get permission to come back into the Catholic Church, go to confession and do your penance before say the excommunication for participating in an abortion is lifted. I think the Apostate Bergoglio tried to lift that in his phony “Conciliar church” of Vat. Ii if I am not mistaken.
Also a Simple Begger
Didn’t Jesus say he would not leave us orphans?? So you believe I guess that the sheep are scattered and I do also because there is NO true pope yet but if we are to have “successors of the Apostles till the end of time and apostolic succession till the end of time” then why don’t you believe he wouldn’t give us some emergency ration Bishops and priests just like he did from 1415-1417???
Just how do you think that they got valid sacraments from 1415-1417? You home aloners keep saying “NO Pope- NO jurisdictions NO BISHOPS. If you have VALID bishops the Church would supply when in doubt during a state of emergency which is why all the sacraments of the ANT-Pope Benedict XIII during the Great Western schism were NEVER redone or his Bishops or priests re-ordained like St. Vincent of Ferrer because of Epikeia or supplied Jurisdiction or The Principle of Intrinsic Cessation of Ecclesiastical Law. So in a state of emergency in order that apostolic succession occurs until the end of time God will permit emergency rations so that the faithful can save their souls. This probably happened in England also during the protestant revolt the Catholic clergy may have been giving out sacraments during a papal interregnum and the Church supplied the jurisdiction. In fact all the diocese were totally taken over by protestant heretics even to a large extent when good Queen Mary took over after when bad Queen Elizabeth died. So they would NOT have even had a true Bishop to give them ordinary jurisdiction and yet people like Edmond Campion administered sacraments (true pope I know but there have been many interregnums when true sacraments were supplied by the Church itself which is the “living magisterium). And the protestants were and are still in Charge in England including the NO Diocese.
Furthermore, In Caritas and James_o & A Simple Man I agree when the anti-Christ comes on the scene the sacrifice of the Mass will seemingly disappear although the original The Original & True Rheims New Testament from the 1582 version with updated type set which I quote below by – Dr. William G von Peters does admit that the Mass even in a small area may be done during the Antichrist’s reign along with what the Haydock version said which I mentioned in my other post. Here it says in the Commentary on the Original Doughy Rheims ”
“For although he may have his principal seat and honor in the Temple and city of Jerusalem, yet HE SHALL RULE OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, (well In Caritas this has NOT happened yet that all the governments are ruled by one ruler so that the Mass would cease. ), and specifically prohibit that principal worship instituted by Christ in his Sacraments, as being the proper Adversary of Christ’s person, name, law, and Church, the profanation and desolation of which Church by taking away the sacrifice of the altar, is the proper abomination of desolation, and the work of Antichrist only.
Below Annotation Commentary on Matthew 24 in 1582 D.R.
“15. Abomination of desolation.] This abomination of desolation foretold, was first partly
fulfilled in diverse profanations of the Temple of Jerusalem, when the sacrifice and service of God was
taken away. But specially it shall be fulfilled by Antichrist and his Precursors, when they shall abolish
the holy Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, and the only sovereign worship due to
God in his Church: as St. Hippolytus writeth in these words: The Churches shall lament with great
lamentation, because there shall neither oblation be made, nor incense, nor worship grateful to God.
But the sacred houses of Churches shall be like to cottages, and the precious body and blood of Christ
shall not be extant (openly in Churches) in those days, the Liturgy (or Mass) shall be extinguished, the
Psalmody shall cease, the reciting of the Scriptures shall not be heard. Hippol. de Antichristo. By which
it is plain that the Heretics of these days be the special fore-runners of Antichrist.
22. Shall be shortened.] The reign of Antichrist shall be short, that is, three years and a half.
Dan. 7, Apoc. 11. Therefore the Heretics are blasphemous and ridiculous, that say, Christ’s Vicar is
Antichrist, who hath sitteth these 1500 [now almost 2000, ed.] years.”
So “ Louie and Company” it would seem that the Mass for the most part would cease for 3 1/2 years but there is NOT an anti-Christ yet who has rule over all the world and in Jerusalem who has prohibited the worship of Christ. ( Small anti-christ’s in the past 50 years who implemented Vatican II changes or say Communist dictators sure but they were not the BIG Anti-Christ.) We know Cardinal Manning talked about the Mass being prevented in the “The Pope & the Anti-Christ” and we know from Daniel 11: [31] And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.”
Also this 1582 DR commentary does not say there will be NO Priests & NO Bishops left during the Reign of Anti-Christ. Nor in original Douay-Rheims does it say that Apostolic succession will cease. More below:
Annotations The Gospel of St. Mark- Chapter 13 (1582)
Calvinism tendeth to the abomination of desolation. Verse 14. The abomination of desolation.] No heresy doth so properly and purposely tend to this
abomination of desolation which by Antichrist shall be achieved, as this Calvinism: which taketh away
with other Sacraments and external worship of God, the very sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Which being taken away (as St. Cyprian saith) no religion can remain.
Verse 4 Most ancient writers expound this of the Temple in Jerusalem, which they
think Antichrist shall build up again, as being of the Jews stock, and to be acknowledge of that
obstinate people (according to our Saviour’s prophecy of John 1) for their expected and promised
Messias. Iren. li. 5 in fine.; Hyppoly. de consum. mundi.; Cyril Hieros. Catech. 15 Author pop. imp. ho.
Antichrist shall suffer no worship or adoration, but of
himself only, therefore the Pope cannot be Antichrist.
Dan. 6. In what temple
Antichrist shall sit.
49) in Matt. See St. Jerome in 11 Dan.; Grego. li. 31. Moral. c. 11. Not that he shall suffer them to
worship God by their old manner of sacrifices, (all which he will either abolish, or convert to the only
adoration of himself: though at the first to apply himself to the Jews, he may perhaps be circumcised
and keep some apart of the law) for it is here said that he shall sit in the Temple as God. That is, he
shall be adored thereby sacrifice and divine honor, the name and worship of the true God wholly
defaced. And this they think to be the abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel, mentioned by our
Saviour, prefigured and resembled by Antiochus and others, that defaced the worship of the true God
by profanation of that Temple, specially by abrogating the daily sacrifice, which was a figure of the
only sacrifice and continual oblation of Christ’s holy body and blood in the Church, as the abolishing of
that, was a figure of the abolishing of this, which shall be done principally and most universally by
Antichrist himself )as now in part by his forerunners) through out all Nations and Churches (though
then also Mass MY BE HAD IN SECRET, as it is now in nations where the secular force of some Princes
prohibiteth it to be said openly.) [THIS INDICATES IN CARITAS THAT EVEN DURING ANTI-CHRIST ONE MASS MIGHT CONTINUE TO BE SAID AND YOU NEED A REAL PRIEST FOR THIS!]
The 1582 D.R. Commentary Continues: “For although he (anti-Christ) may have his principal seat and honor in the Temple and city of Jerusalem, yet he shall rule over the whole world, and specifically prohibit that principal worship instituted by Christ in his Sacraments, as being the proper Adversary of Christ’s person, name, law, and Church, the profanation and desolation of which Church by taking away the sacrifice of the altar, is the proper abomination of desolation, and the work of Antichrist only.
St. Augustine therefore li. 20 de civit. c. 19 and St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam. do think, that
this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in
Solomon’s temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ, or a special part
of his body mystical, and be Antichrist and yet withal continuing within the Church of Christ, as the
Heretics feign, to make the Pope Antichrist (whereby they plainly confess and agnise60 that the Pope is
a member of the Church, & in ipso sinu Ecclesia, and in the very bosom of the Church, say they:) for
that is ridiculous, that all Heretics whom St. John calleth Antichrists as his precursors, SHOULD GO OUT OF THE CHURCH, and the great Antichrist himself should be of the Church, and in the Church, and continue in the same. And yet to them that make the whole Church in revolt from God, this is no absurdity. But the truth is, that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, SHALL BE AN APOSTATE AND A RENEGAT OUT OF THE CHURCH, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof, so that himself shall be adored in all the Churches of the world which he list to leave standing for his honor. And this is to sit in the temple or *against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries call him Antichrist.
Marie,
The Pastor WAS struck and the sheep WERE and ARE scattered.
Obviously none of you who are fixed in your errors even READ what Pius XII said. He clearly states that this is not just about China, but that the law applies to the Universal Church (obviously!!) I have told you, Marie, over and over more of the obvious – what happened in the past is irrelevant, but you can’t even comprehend THAT much.
Your profuse words and those of others are worthless as they only express your opinion. I often sit here and shake my head in utter disbelief at how ludicrous and nonsensical is much of what is written around here, especially lately.
Carry on now with being good little disobedient tools of Satan, while awaiting your impending fantasy of some wondrous and perfect little Catholic world on earth, as if any of us even deserve such a thing. You reject Christ and so therefore, of course, you reject the Way of the Cross and the DESOLATION of Calvary. Carry on…
Joseph A Christian,
“The Vatican 2 unfaithful bishops and popes, oppose our Lord Jesus. Therefore they are adversaries to all Catholics, who are striving to live for and in the Holy Word.”
If Catholics understood the truth of what you said above then God would stop sending us these false popes and false Bishops. During the election of Roncalli the Bishops were true Bishops and Cardinals but so many of them had become modernists and to the extent that they went along with Roncalli and imposed false sacraments and new rites they went out of the Church with him. I think that many of the Bishops and the Cardinals did not understand what had really hit them. Some were naïve but others thought it was great and they were the ring leaders- people like Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Suenens. But we have to remember that Pius XII himself had Cardinal Bea as his personal confessor and advisor and guess what the seeds of the apostasy from the Church were carried out by Bea and the Rhine group- people like Ratzinger and Konig and whole host of others. I think that Bishop Castro Mayer was disgusted with the whole bunch of them and he like Romeo thought they were a bunch of heretics in pectoral crosses who didn’t even believe in the Virgin birth or the Immaculate Conception.
I really think that the trads who think that Benedict Arnold Ratzinger was on the road to “saving” the “Conciliar church” from the rot believe in a myth and they need to wake up and realize I think like Cardinal Mindszenty did that they were had by the conciliar false popes.
What the Vatican II false popes and Vatican II documents which were orchestrated by them and their ecumenical sillon movement cronies was this to create a double Dutch VII lingo so as to appear to please the two opposing factions namely the Conservatives thought they got some good things added in the documents then the liberals got there stick so that then in the Hegelian Dialectic you could take the conserving force statement then the liberals anti-thesis statement and you could synthesize the two creating a new synthesis and paradigm of dynamic language to confuse and revolutionize the Church. It was a shell game- the conservatives thought they were getting their Church when they got some guard rails inserted in the VII documents then it was actually replaced by more liberal phraseology like In.sec 8 DEI VERBUM we see an example of the Holy Spirit inspiring the growth or development of tradition as coming from the “prayer and experience” of the believers which contradicts what Pius X condemns in his encyclical on Modernism Pacendi. 6. The Modernists apply experience to Tradition and thus destroy it.(my paraphrase I can give you the exact quote if you want it)-
they were “hoodwinked” by Gnostic forces. Many of the Vat II fathers voted on drafts in the beginning which were totally changed into something different by the time they voted on the final draft when they did not carefully read it. Some of them were outright heretics at Vatican II when it came to the verbose VII documents (like Nancy Pelosi and Obama Care ) and said just vote on it and we’ll read, understand & know how to implement in the most liberal way the over 900 pages later . It has to be good because my fellow liberals say it is. I have to get back to my Diocese right now and revolutionize the system. Ratzinger did just that. He was the master of ambiguity. How was that Paul VI gave him the Cardinals hat at age 50 if he wasn’t one of his smoke of Satan the UN Is the last hope for mankind line of successor. If it is a CATHOLIC COUNCIL RATIFIED BY A LEGITIMATE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IT CAN NOT DESTROY THE FAITH OR EVEN LEND ITSELF TO HERESY. A true council will clarify not cause confusion which is from the Devil.
AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION COMES FROM THE DEVIL AND THE EVIL MACHINATIONS OF HERETICS
See The sources of CatholicDogma by Denzinger 1955 Edition
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei,” August 28, 1794 : “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.”
Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual–such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error.
Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
AMBIGOUS LANGUAGE USED BY HERETICS TO CONFUSE
Pius VI Bull “Auctorem fidei CONTINUED: “It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.” Christian Classics in 1981
This is why Vatican II and all the Vatican II false popes were villains and the only thing they were victims of was their own PRIDE. For that is what the modernist VII popes were puffed up with. That is why Ratzinger Benedict XVI said that “original sin” was “problematic” because he was a heretic.
PRIDE IS THEIR KEY MOTIVE- THEY KNOW MORE THAN THE DOCTORS AND FATHERS OF THE CHURCH WITH THEIR NOVEL DOCTRINE
Pope Pius X in Pascendi #3 “To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.”
Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
“Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted….Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity are to be brought about. The static semper of Vincent of Lerins no longer seems to Vatican II adequate to express the problem.” (Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche , Vol. 13, p. 521) http://www.sspx.org/Superior%20Generals%20Ltrs/supgen_62.htm.
Pius X warned us in Pacendi , #42 “The Modernists pass the same judgment on the most holy Fathers of the Church as they pass on tradition; decreeing, with amazing effrontery that, while personally most worthy of all veneration, they were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.”
I’ll take Trent any day over Vatican II and the like of St. Vincent of Lerins & Pope St. Pius X over false pope RATzinger Benedict betrayer Arnold.
AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION COMES FROM THE DEVIL AND THE EVIL MACHINATIONS OF HERETICS
See The sources of CatholicDogma by Denzinger 1955 Edition
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei,” August 28, 1794 : “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.”
Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual–such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error.
Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
Get that Marie, your opinion is worthless but ASB’s opinion is not because ASB thinks her opinion is fact. If anyone is shaking their head in utter incredulity it is those that read ASB and IC diatribes. How they continue to confuse their opinions with fact is beyond us. Maybe they do have gnostic powers gained from their personal prayer experiences. Or maybe they are simply deluding themselves.
Marie, you are absolutely correct in pointing out the principles of cessation of laws. It is a well known principle of law that is wholly lost on several self proclaimed authorized interpreters of papal documents who comment on these pages.
ASM, I have been arguing that point of law for a long time. If there is no one to enforce the law, no law exists. But ASB and IC need to point to laws to justify there position. So they make the error of thinking that somehow Pope Pius XII still metaphysically sits on the Chair of Peter when they need a law enforced to justify their position. Ironically, it is the very principle of cessation of law that gives them an actual valid reason to stay at home. There is no longer any authority to command anyone to attend any mass. Only Divine Law remains.
Tom,
Again, nothing has been my opinion (except that which I have stated to be so) but has been the teaching of the Popes and the Church. Is the quote from Ad Apostorum Principis my opinion in any way, shape or form? Hardly. Stop lying and committing what could technically amount to calumny and slander, along with the blasphemies you’ve already incurred.
The laws don’t cease because there is no Pope, but those in place as of 1958 remain in effect to this very day. This is your opinion and as such you present no proof. Christ has not abandoned us to our own devices and will, but Eternal Rome with Christ as the Supreme Head of HIS Church remains WITH US via His Magisterium unto the consummation.
Those who like to throw prophecy around (which cannot be known to be true until after it happens; and much of which having to do with our times was likely CONDITIONAL), think on St. Malachy, whose thus far astoundingly accurate prophecy of the Popes would tell us that we are AT THE END OF THE LINE.
Follow Tom A, and revel in his flattery regarding your OPINIONS at your own risk – that of screeching and gnarling your teeth in his direction and despising him and your miserable self for all eternity. Reject the Magisterium which is PERPETUAL, and therefore you reject Christ, Himself. “My ways are NOT your ways.”
ASB, I would like you to go back and actually find a post where I state a position. My only position from day 1 of this “debate” has been that you and IC cannot say sacraments are invalid if they lack proper legal authorization. Any first year seminarian should be able to draw that easy distinction between valid/invalid and licit/illicit. But apparently you two lack that ability. When that point of distinction was proved to you over and over, you two reverted to the ad hominems which have yet to cease and have only multiplied as more and more readers witnessed the idiocy of your arguments. Now if you observe a recent comment on cessation of law, you will actually find a legitimate argument for your home alone position. I doubt you will heed the advise and predict you will continue with your self proclaimed dogmatic approach to defend your position. As you may notice, I do not call your position “untenable,” I only object to your flawed reasoning in making that conclusion.
Sincere and confused readers take note that this is ONLY Tom’s lousy opinion for which he has and presents NO PROOF.
Tom A’s opinion vs. the Living and Perpetual Magisterium of Holy MOTHER Church.
The CHOICE is YOURS.
It matters not because even IF Sacraments are “only” illicit, one commits grave SACRILEGE by receiving them and will be damned should they die unrepentant.
Explain for all here to see 2 things:
1) How it is that Bishops and Archbishops who fell OUTSIDE the Church for heresy and apostasy (ala Thuc & Lefebvre – member of Novus Ordo church and one who signed the most heretical documents of Vat II) can create bishops who are INSIDE the Church?
2) How, exactly, the Sacrifice will FAIL (Daniel) IF NOT due to there being no Pope and no way to validly and licitly consecrate Bishops so that we can then have VALID and LICIT priests to offer the Mass? How else, Tom???
ASB,
“Obviously none of you who are fixed in your errors even READ what Pius XII said.”
And let’s be honest, the only reason you say this is because we’ve come to different conclusions than you have as to how it applies after an interregnum of 70+ years.
The difference is that some of us recognize that in ambiguous times of confusion, without the ordinary authority, definitive answers will **necessarily** be lacking. That’s why I cannot bind your conscience or ***definitively*** say that you’re wrong with regards to your “home alone” position.
But you are certainly ready and willing to anathematize those who profess obedience to the Church and her Magisterium, yet have come to a different answer than you as to how the Church still retains her indefectibility, and how one should live the Faith in these trying times.
“The laws don’t cease because there is no Pope, but those in place as of 1958 remain in effect to this very day.”
Do you believe that Pius XII would have wanted or desired his legislation to be the means by which Apostolic Succession came to an end?
A law that is impossible to enforce has no force at all: this is a legal principle that has withstood the test of time both in ecclesial and secular worlds. The only law which can be said to apply at all places and all times is Divine Law, which is unchanging. Canonical legislation, insofar as they deal with matters of existence instead of essence (in the Scholastic sense), is subject to change, and therefore can lose their force if the conditions they presuppose no longer hold.
“Carry on now with being good little disobedient tools of Satan”
We love you too, ASB. 🙂
“while awaiting your impending fantasy of some wondrous and perfect little Catholic world on earth,”
And where has **anyone** in this combox ever intimated that they expect this life to have a “perfect Catholic world”? This is simply a non-sequitur.
“You reject Christ and so therefore, of course, you reject the Way of the Cross and the DESOLATION of Calvary.”
I’m going to give you a little insight, ASB: being a “home alone” sede would actually make my life easier and simpler (given the current duties I have). It would also expand my options by quite a bit, as I would be able to pretty much live anywhere and still work out my salvation with fear and trembling.
However, I think the “home alone” position is erroneous, and I believe that the sacraments of groups like CMRI and SGG are valid; as such, the places where I can live and work are more limited. There are also the obligations that come with attending these places, as would be the case when attending a parish in ordinary times. Yet I do this out of loyalty to the Church, and out of the desire to be obedient to God.
Just because your transition to the “home alone” position came about as the result of immense emotional and spiritual struggle doesn’t mean that position would be as difficult for others to hold.
It’s unwise to assume others have the same struggles that you have.
my2cents
Pride prevents Ratzinger B16 from doing this because then how could he justify his Vatican II career on because he staked his whole life on it false precepts -religious indifferentism, ecumenism, universal salvation, religious liberty and the CULT of MAN.
Guess what he blames the media for how Vatican II turned out! What did the media have to do with that??? Benedict Arnold XVI said, “And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized … and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. ” https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/pope-offers-final-view-of-council.html
No you liar Benedict XVI Arnold there was NO virtual council created by the Media. You and your modernist heretic cronies created Vatican II- you interpreted it, you implemented it, you fooled people and you lied about it all along allowing the Catholic populous to be raped and pillaged and Church properties as in the day of Fat Henry the Eight ball, allowing the Church to as you Ratzinger said in 5 September 2003 with Raymond Arroyo “So, I think also today it should be an error to think now or in 10 years with the new springtime, all people will be Catholic. This is not our future, nor our expectation. But we will have really convinced communities with élan of the faith, no? ” the New Springtime according to Ratzinger the infiltrator was all the false secret societies’ inside the Church that he helped built up like as he told Arroyo “Communione e Liberazione, Focolare, and the Charismatic Renewal.” You know folks all the bad ones that he and JP II helped to promote Legionaries of Christ and Opus Dei. So you see folks Ratzinger and his cronies were the raise the bastions’ revolutionary crowd. You, closed the seminaries, the Churches, caused Catholics to leave, you let the pedophiles run rampant and did nothing. you caused the heresies. Folks that is Ratzinger’s code about his 10 year comment that he will remake all Catholic theology into his own modernist mindset that he was hoping there would be NO true Catholic minds left that would ever have to ask people to “return to the Catholic faith” proselytism must die according to Benedict & Bergoglio birds of a feather who flock together as a “dynamic duo” FOR SPIRITUAL DEATH. They have tried to bury the Church and now they want to bury you and me and themselves with it. The movie “Death Wish” has nothing on these guys only they wanted it for the Church. We need some Saints folks that is all there is to it. Come on “make my day.”
Realize this Loui and Company- Ratzinger orchestrated the Reduction for he was the gate keeper for the Vatican II doctrine of the UN-faith Office the ROT wheeler UN-protector of the watchdog church of Apostasy which OUR Lady of Fatima tried to tell you about but they put the lid on the secret and lied about it and put a fraudulent Sr. Lucy in there who would support Vat II and the VII false popes. It is a SCAM!!!!
By the way folks, Ratzinger’s no proselytism or no return to the Catholic faith because HE BELIEVES THAT the Novus Ordo or protestant faith is just great precisely because he believes like Rahner HIS BUDDY AT THE COUNCIL (they both showed up together in suite and ties) & Roncalli that the Church is one big concentric circle and everyone is in it! How is that organized OTO naturalism for you below when he told the youth not to bother to tell people to become Catholic.
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?… this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (Just deny the Catholic faiths folks and the truth so we can all be one big ecumenical happy family! How is that for you JPeters & Romanus sum!)
Benedict XVI is the one and his buddies who implemented Vatican II NOT the Barque of Peter. No way in a pigs eye. He has to apologize to us not we to him. He has to apologize to true past popes – he and JP II and Bergoglio.
No Ratzinger’s Vatican II Taize, ecumenical, no proselytism Assisi I, II ,III Amazon ship is sinking and all the rats eventually will drown with it and believe you me their won’t be a Bergoglio around left to rescue it from the Tiber river like he did with Pachamama. Ratzinger was on the losing side during WW II and he is on the losing side with Vat II which like the first two World Wars was meant to usher in the New World Order.
That is reality Louie & Company- the Great Apostasy of Vatican II is the virtual church NOT the Catholic Church and it is NOT the Council of the Media but it is the Council of Ratzinger/Bergoglio the two headed Medusa touch that we have to hold up the shield of faith for Our Lady of Fatima who is the crusher of this Council of Apostasy ratified by Apostate false popes who were NOT popes.
Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…” The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, translated by Dr. Edward Von Peters, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001, canon 2314, p. 735.
Joseph a Christian, Tom A & A Simple Beggar & A Simple Man
While we debate about the technicalities of Pope Pius XII directives in a papal Conclave the real Apostates are busy trying to destroy the institutional Church using Vatican II and the a Novus Ordo liturgy which embodies the “enculturation with their Amazonian Teilhardian Mass on the Word. which in fact is laid out in their theology of “Concentric Circles which is displayed by ALL THE CONCILIAR FALSE POPES
CONCENTRIC CIRCLE CONCEPT- IDEA OF MASONIC LODGES & JOHN XXII & CARRIED ON BY JOHN PAUL II, BENEDICT XVI, & Francis the Fake
John XXIII: His Council and Achievement Remembered by J. Robert Nelson http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1342
“A flash of heavenly light,” the pope called it in his opening address to the council.
Francis X. Murphy, the erudite Redemptorist also known as “Xavier Rynne,” wrote in his widely read journal of the council that it was the pope’s desire “to give the world an example of peace and concord.” Methodist theologian Albert Outler has proposed a much different reason: when Pope John realized how thoroughly the Roman Curia controlled the papal office, this “shock of recognition” made him think of a council. Perhaps Murphy and Outler are both correct, if their remarks are understood in light of the pope’s triple purpose. Pope John’s conciliar purpose applied to three concentric circles: human unity and peace, the broadest circle; the unity of all Christians, with Special hope for the reunion of Orthodox and Catholics, the ecumenical circle; renewal and reform of the Church of Rome, beginning with the Curia itself, the inner circle
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN CONCENTRIC CIRCLES COSMIC CRAP OF THE DYNAMIC DUO – Benedict XVI Arnold Bride of FrankiStein “counter-church”
below Joseph Ratzinger Collected Works Theology of the Liturgy Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger http://www.ignatius.com/Products/JRCW11-H/joseph-ratzinger-collected-works.aspx
Table of Contents
This major volume is a collection of the writings of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) on the theology of the Liturgy of the Church, a subject of preeminence to him as a theologian, professor and spiritual writer. It brings together all his writings on the subject, short and long, giving his views on liturgical matters and questions over many years and from various perspectives.
He chose to have his writings on the Liturgy for the first volume published of his collected works (though listed as vol. 11) because, as he says in the Introduction: “The liturgy of the Church has been for me since my childhood the central reality of my life, and it became the center of my theological efforts. I chose fundamental theology as my field because I wanted first and foremost to examine thoroughly the question: Why do we believe? But also included from the beginning in this question was the other question of the right response to God and, thus, the question of the liturgy.”
By starting with the theme of liturgy in this volume, Ratzinger wants to highlight God’s primacy, the absolute precedence of the theme of God. Beginning with a focus on the liturgy, he said, tells us that “God is first”. He quotes from the Rule of St. Benedict, “Nothing is to be preferred to the liturgy”, as a way of ordering priorities for the life of the Church and of every individual. He says that the fundamental question of the man who begins to understand himself correctly is: How must I encounter God? Thus learning the right way of worshipping is the gift par excellence that is given to us by the faith.
The essential purpose of his writings on the liturgy is to place the liturgy in its larger context, which he presents in THREE CONCENTRIC CIRCLES. First, the intrinsic interrelationship of Old and New Testament; without the connection to the Old Testament heritage, the Christian liturgy is incomprehensible. The second SECOND CIRCLE IS THE RELATIONSHIP OT THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. The third circle is the COSMIC CHARACTER OF THE LITURGY (Teilhard de Chardin’s Mass on the world folks), which is more than the coming together of a circle of people: the liturgy is celebrated in the expanse of the cosmos, encompassing creation and history at the same time.
Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is widely recognized as one of the most brilliant theologians and spiritual leaders of our age. As Pope he authored the best-selling Jesus of Nazareth; and prior to his pontificate, he wrote many influential books that continue to remain important for the contemporary Church, such as Introduction to Christianity and The Spirit of the Liturgy.
Pope Francis’ Message for the Year of Consecrated Life zenit of http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-message-for-the-year-of-consecrated-life Vatican City, November 29, 2014 (ZENIT.org) |
At times, like Elijah and Jonah, you may feel the temptation to flee, to abandon the task of being a prophet because it is too demanding, wearisome or apparently fruitless. But prophets know that they are never alone. As he did with Jeremiah, so God encourages us: “Be not afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you” (Jer 1:8).
3. Men and women religious, like all other consecrated persons, have been called, as I mentioned, “experts in communion”. So I am hoping that the “spirituality of communion”, so emphasized by Saint John Paul II, will become a reality and that you will be in the forefront of responding to “the great challenge facing us” in this new millennium: “to make the Church the home and the school of communion.”[5] I am sure that in this Year you will make every effort to make the ideal of fraternity pursued by your founders and foundresses expand everywhere, like CONCENTRIC CIRCLES.
Communion is lived first and foremost within the respective communities of each Institute. To this end, I would ask you to think about my frequent comments about criticism, gossip, envy, jealousy, hostility as ways of acting which have no place in our houses. This being the case, the path of charity open before us is almost infinite, since it entails mutual acceptance and concern, practicing a communion of goods both material and spiritual, fraternal correction and respect for those who are weak … it is the “mystique of living together” which makes our life “a sacred pilgrimage”.[6] We need to ask ourselves about the way we relate to persons from different cultures, as our communities become increasingly international. How can we enable each member to say freely what he or she thinks, to be accepted with his or her particular gifts, and to become fully co-responsible?
james_o,
While we argue about “jurisdiction” the real heretics are perpetuating their “liturgical suicide” by running circles around the unsuspecting Catholic Novus Ordo blind led by the blind Vatican II false popes with their false Mass below
“In 1995 Pope John Paul II, in an account of his own priesthood, Gift and Mystery, wrote that the Eucharist is “celebrated in order to offer ‘on the altar of the whole earth the world’s work and suffering’ in the beautiful words of Teilhard de Chardin.” And the pope retained the image, for the phrase, “on the altar of the world,” is found in his 2003 encyclical on the Eucharist.” “Teilhard makes Christianity most exciting thing on block.” by Thomas M. King, National Catholic Reporter; 4/22/2005 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:132053418/Teilhard+makes+Christianity+most+exciting+thing+on+block~R~(ESSAY).html?refid=ency_topnm
This is perhaps why we saw the big image of a host in Bari on May 29, 2005 at Pope Benedict XVI’s Mass at a Eucharistic Congress in Bari, Italy. http://www.catholicpressphoto.com/servizi/29-05-2005-bari/default.htm
A Simple Beggar, Tom A has provided plenty of proof but you don’t want to believe that Apostolic Succession continues in real priests and real Bishops today walking on the face of the earth. No one is attacking you for your Home Alone position, but you are making it a DOGMA for everyone- you and In Caritas and you are wrong. A Simple Man has brought up many good points and Tom A and you just don’t want to see it. I have proved to you using the Original Rheims bible (modern lettering by von Peters last weeks posts of mine) that even when the anti-Christ comes Catholics will attend at least one Mass even though virtually all of them will be suppressed. You just totally ignore that key point. Not only that we are NOT even yet at the time where the anti-Christ is in total control of the World. God help us when he gets here. These Amazonian Masses and Teilhardian Mass on the World concentric circle liturgies could very well be a parallel to what Dr. Franco Adessa talks about here as” The road to self-deification is also the blasphemous and Satanic Masonic “Triple Trinity” of which the Third Trinity consists of the three Beasts of the Apocalypse in his magazine Chiesa Viva. We sure see this Masonic symbolism all over Conciliar false Papal tiaras, vestments, and architecture. It is time for JPeters and folks like him to wake up and open their eyes. I know A Simple Beggar that you think the real scary thing is that there are NO priests left who can say public Masses but that is not the case yet and even when it gets to that point the Rheims Bible said there still would be some offered in “Caves” Ok!!!
james_o
My grandma was from Canada. It is very sad how downhill Canada has become with its pro homosexuality and socialism but I must say the US is not that far behind. At least in the US they have not taken all their guns away yet. I think that is coming though. I am very glad that you now are no longer an “Orthodox” but have become a Catholic. There are even “Orthodox priest who are divorced and if the Novus Ordo lets their phony priests get married they will also have some divorced ones.
If IC and Simple Beggar are so sure that their dogmatic home alone position is the Truth, then I would like to see them tell Louie in his own combox that he is committing sacrilege and a mortal sin by assisting at his traditional clergy’s mass. I would like to see them tell Louie that, because of this, he is a “heretic”, “not Catholic”, “outside the Church”, etc…..and then (despite using the word “objectively”) tell him he is on the certain path to Hell, is a tool of Satan, rejects Christ, etc, etc…..if he does not change his ways and beliefs.
ASB, As it has been pointed out over and over, sede clergy use the concept of epikea to address the issue of saying a licit mass. Of course, you are not bound to accept this and can certainly choose to stay home. Some folks accept their claim and go to their chapels for sacraments. Other folks do not believe epikea justifies their public masses and choose to stay home. I support either logical conclusion but adamantly oppose anyone who dogmatically claims their position is the only one allowed. I also adamantly oppose the ridiculous reasoning you and IC use to arrive at your conclusions. To actually think Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII wrote laws that would one day be used to end apostolic succession is sheer ignorance of the principals of law.
Yes, Tom A. Not sure if you refer to this idea that In caritas has mentioned that a Pope wrote that we have 15 days to get into Conclave and elect a Pope or else. If we mess that up we’re done, no more Popes. I guess they didn’t take into account the fact that we live on earth and all manner of horrendous events can mess things up. Or they just wanted to make sure that the Church didn’t have to last until the end of time, every good thing must end? Or In caritas is taking tremendous liberties to make a good idea, a quick conclave, into an infantile idea, no way to elect a Pope. The Church is here on earth and we can elect a Pope, I think he is just one of the many many people trying to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Tom,
Of course, you didn’t answer my questions, because it would blow you entire deadly position.
There’s another aspect to Supplied Jurisdiction, of which there is none to supply as there is no Pope, and that is called Common Error. There is NO Common Error among trad “priests”, because they all admit to themselves and their captives that they do not possess jurisdiction. A priest at a chapel I attended even emphatically stated to all that he was NOT our pastor, and that we were merely their “guests”.
One of us is right and one of us is wrong. I’m simply playing it safe by going with the Voice of Christ in HIS Perpetual and LIVING Magsterium IN THESE LAST DAYS and you can go with “the operation of error to believe lying”.
A Mark of the Church is Unity; as evidenced here there is NO unity among those not following the de Fide teachings of the Catholic Church via the Magisterium,, once known by ALL but pushed aside and forgotten since the (well-prophesied) chastisement with the usurpation of the Pacacy and installation of the false church of Antichrist which fooled the masses, including you and including me.
Anyone wanting to be Catholic and avoid sacrilege has to have first WANTED the Truth and then has had to FIND it, and mercifully this is all occurring in this age of the Internet. YOU dare to say the Truth of these matters cannot be found, contradicting Christ who tells us, “Seek and you SHALL find.”
The true Church can only be comprised of those who know these BASICS and thus obey Christ in His Living and Perpetual Magisterium, which you CLAIM is dead with the Pope. One doesn’t need to be a theologian to know that the Pope supplies Jurisdiction and only with a Papal mandate can bishops be validly AND licitly consecrated, as proven ad nauseaum. This was always known BEFORE and that is how the faithful knew true priests and bishops from thieves and robbers, as we were directed to make the distinction by the Holy Apostles and Christ in Scripture. The Papal election law is just another HUGE clue to be found in this age of the Internet, and it proves to us how dire these times really are, as a valid conclave was NOT convened within the required 18 days, and now 61+ years has passed and we have all of the horrifying events before our very eyes. No one is about the business of electing a Pope, because there IS NO ONE TO DO SO.
If St. Malachy is to be found 100% accurate, then as I said we are at THE END OF THE LINE. If so, then next comes the destruction of Rome and then Judgment. Which side will you end up on? I shudder to imagine.
You are the one “doomed to wander” as you, yourself, accurately stated; a “wandering star” keeping NOT your place.
2Vermont–I agree. I hope in the coming days, Louie would add his voice to the concerns, thoughts and debates of those who comment here. I wonder how involved he gets in reading the combox. Time, I’m sure, prevents him from reading every comment thoroughly. Perhaps, he could shed some light regarding his own position on the confusion which exists in what the world believes to be the Catholic Church.
ASB,
“Anyone wanting to be Catholic and avoid sacrilege has to have first WANTED the Truth and then has had to FIND it, and mercifully this is all occurring in this age of the Internet. YOU dare to say the Truth of these matters cannot be found, contradicting Christ who tells us, “Seek and you SHALL find.””
1) You’re awfully presumptuous in assuming those who haven’t arrived at your conclusions didn’t want to find Truth to begin with.
2) No one has said that the Truth cannot be found. What **has** been said is that we lack the authority to bind others on the conclusions we reach, that we lack the authority to speak definitively on matters that require a true Pope to resolve. Those are very different things.
“There is NO Common Error among trad “priests”, because they all admit to themselves and their captives that they do not possess jurisdiction.”
Given that (for example) CMRI’s public position **explicitly invokes** supplied jurisdiction for their mission and actions, I doubt that they “all admit to themselves” that they do not possess jurisdiction. You’re essentially attesting that you can read their minds on a universal level.
“A priest at a chapel I attended even emphatically stated to all that he was NOT our pastor, and that we were merely their “guests”.”
Without knowing who you spoke to, I imagine he said that for much the same reason sede chapels do not call themselves “parishes”: a parish is definitively a portion of a canonical diocese that a priest has been ordinarily appointed to lead as its ‘parochus’. Not being the actual head of a parish, this priest sounds on the face of it like someone who’s particularly scrupulous about canonical terminology.
“The true Church can only be comprised of those who know these BASICS and thus obey Christ in His Living and Perpetual Magisterium, which you CLAIM is dead with the Pope.”
Non-sequitur: no one in this conbox has claimed that the Magisterium is dead.
To argue that certain ecclesial legislation currently being unenforceable implies a “dead” Magisterium is as fallacious as saying a comatose person being incapable of acting implies they’re actually dead.
“A Mark of the Church is Unity; as evidenced here there is NO unity among those not following the de Fide teachings of the Catholic Church via the Magisterium”
There is unity in doctrine and dogma; however, unity in government (which involves ecclesial laws in their entirety) has been eclipsed without a true Pope to serve as visible head.
And note that this objection you make regarding unity just as equally applies to you; unless you intend to imply “home alone” sedevacantists bear the Mark of Unity in its fullness, which is quite simply absurd.
“I’m simply playing it safe by going with the Voice of Christ”
And so am I. 🙂
I imagine that the combox debates are providing further data for Louie to form his own position, whatever it ultimately may be.
A Simple Beggar, Jorge and Ratzinger are both really old. What if they die and the world doesn’t end. Doesn’t it seem more sensible to just leave the end of the world up to God and elect a Pope. I don’t see why these Bishops that come from +Thuc and +Lefebvre can’t elect a Pope. The election of Popes hasn’t always been pretty, these guys were consecrated Bishops and they are Catholic. If they just elect a Pope, then he can make things licit. I know why nobody is doing it, because it’s going to require violence and people are scared of that. We all die anyway, we need to elect a Pope.
ASM,
The Church has always taught how we are to know valid and licit priests vs. thieves and robbers who enter through another way, and that stands today whether you choose to believe it or not. God has, of course, given you free will and thus you are free to believe the lies others have told you, as much as I am free to choose to obey the Perpetual Magisterium in order to avoid committing sacrilege.
True Catholics are obedient little children who obey Christ’s in His Magisterium (which IS Christ’s Voice), with or without a Pope. God did NOT abandon us and leave us with NO guidance as the MANY think. Good little children don’t decide for themselves and make excuses but OBEY, and Christ told us that only those (FEW) who are like little children will enter heaven. It’s really that simple. I hope to be one of them and thus I refuse to take the risk that you so willingly take.
And again, no one has explained to me how it is that bishops who fell out of the Church due to heresy and apostasy (i.e. Lefebvre and Thuc) can then create bishops who are INSIDE the Church. Once they fell out of the Church they lost all power and per Cum ex…ALL of their actions were null and void and there was NO way for them to recover what was lost. These are simply the FACTS which you choose to ignore at your own peril.
Because you (for example) publicly show that you deny these facts, then objectively speaking it’s fair to say that it seems you do not in fact seek the Truth, but instead seek only to dig your heels into the lies which you’ve been told.
Marie,
Yeah, I converted from the Eastern Orthodox to The Roman Catholic Church, because I learned the absolute necessity of being in communion with Christ’s Vicar on earth, The Pope. I wanted to be in Christ’s Church, it sounded real easy at the time, all I have to do is bring my family & convert, right? The Eastern Orthodox have more schisms and different groups than one could number. They deny the Papacy. They are heretikes on many points. And don’t tell me I spelled it wrong.
Well, I find out while trying to convert to the Catholic Church that I can’t be in communion with the Pope after all, because I can’t find him there either. I can’t find him and don’t know where he is. Surprise, surprise. We can’t even be confirmed.
Then I find out that most Roman Catholics are quite used to functioning without a Pope, ironically, and most just kind of choose their own Bishops and Priests, exactly like the Eastern Orthodox, so I’m kinda left in a frozen state on that one. Which is exactly where I live, way up in the sticks in Northern Canada anyway.
So now I can live in two frozen states at once. I hope we have an early spring.
Hi Melanie,
Just seeing your question to me now. Sr. Lucia told us that we are in the last days (as of Dec 1957), and Christ told us that we should be able to “read the signs of the times” if we can do so much as read the weather. With all that’s going on now and since Oct 1958, I don’t see how we can logically come to any other conclusion than we are approaching the end. In addition to the obvious, the fact that Bergoglio and the RATzinger are very old, should lend to us an extreme sense of urgency where getting ourselves and our souls in order is concerned.
Now Thuc and Lefebvre fell outside the Church and so as I have repeatedly asked, how can they then supply supply bishops who are inside the Church? The answer is that they cannot. There is absolutely no getting around that.
Per 2 Thess ch. 2, the Pope is taken out of the way so that Antichrist can assume power. That has already happened and he’s not coming back, because the fact is that per Scripture the abomination lasts UNTO THE END. Once it’s here then it’s the end.
That being said and in light of that, I believe (here now is my opinion) that we missed the boat as far as any sort of renewal or revival of Christianity when Our Lady of Fatima’s requests went largely ignored by most or were performed too late (consecration of Russia), AND the 3rd Secret was not revealed by 1960. Had it been revealed we would have seen a great battle with the good side victorious and the Abomination would have been delayed for perhaps another generation, as described in many (conditional) prophecies. We know that the 3rd secret deals with exactly what has taken place.
This is a hard pill to swallow, especially if we have been hanging our hat on some glorious time to come, as I once did. We all want a wondrous world, but we don’t deserve it and of we are a member of Christ’s Body then we have to instead renounce ourSELVES and what we’d LIKE and follow Him ALL THE WAY to the total desolation of Calvary.
Please let us pray for the persecuted Catholics in China (and elsewhere). Please circulate Cardinal Zen’s please to fellow bishops to act to defend these persecuted brothers in Christ. [Lifesitenews has something one can sign to support Cardinal Zen in his efforts on behalf of true Faithful in China.] Lord, have mercy.
All laws of the Church are for the purpose of giving God His Due Glory and for the salvation of souls.
Just some thoughts to add:
We who have been born into this mess (Vat II and the N.O.) have often thought how “unfair”…we didn’t know anything else. Well, the sins of the fathers are passed down to the 7th generation (if I have that exactly correct) and so we are paying for the sins of our parents and grandparents and so on, and it was to be up to us to come to desire and love the Truth enough to right these wrongs of theirs and discover the straight and narrow path to heaven.
That being said, it seems to me that what the Blessed Virgin Mary meant when stating that “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph”, is that her Immaculate Heart will triumph over the Elect – her true children whom the Satan/the dragon will NOT be able to snatch from her arms, try as he may.
St. John, chapter 20,
[20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
[22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
[23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Yes, indeed, dear brother in Christ.
St John Chrysostom, Homily LXXXVIII:
” ‘He breathed on them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’
As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power. But how says He, If I go not away, He will not come John 16:7, and yet gives them the Spirit? Some say that He gave not the Spirit, but rendered them fit to receive It, by breathing on them. For if Daniel when he saw an Angel was afraid, what would not they have suffered when they received that unspeakable Gift, unless He had first made them learners? Wherefore He said not, You have received the Holy Ghost, but, Receive the Holy Ghost. Yet one will not be wrong in asserting that they then also received some spiritual power and grace; not so as to raise the dead, or to work miracles, but so as to remit sins. For the gifts of the Spirit are of different kinds; wherefore He added, Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, showing what kind of power He was giving. But in the other case, after forty days, they received the power of working miracles. Wherefore He says, You shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa. Acts 1:8 And witnesses they became by means of miracles, for unspeakable is the grace of the Spirit and multiform the gift. But this comes to pass, that you may learn that the gift and the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is One. For things which appear to be peculiar to the Father, these are seen also to belong to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. How then, says some one, does none come to the Son, ‘except the Father draw him’? John 6:44 Why, this very thing is shown to belong to the Son also. I, He says, am the Way: no man comes unto the Father but by Me. John 14:6 And observe that it belongs to the Spirit also; for No man can call Jesus Christ Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3 Again, we see that the Apostles were given to the Church at one time by the Father, at another by the Son, at another by the Holy Ghost, and that the diversities of gifts 1 Corinthians 12:4 belong to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
JPeters & Company
The reality is this that Benedict XVI will be added as another “Superhero” in the Vatican II pantheon of “Saints” ie. false popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II.
No doubt that whoever of the Dynamic Duo Benedict XVI or Bride of FrankieStineBergie dies first he will be added to the pantheon of Vatican II Modernist Saints” because the term Superhero is a fictional comic strip Batman, Superman, Robin Spider man type characters of whose purpose was very similar to August Compte’s phony French “Religion of Humanity” for his “Saints of Humanity” in the
“positivist calendar” of continual reform. The Vatican II popes BEING THE “good humanists that they are” picked up on this concept of Compte’s revolutionary reformers who become the “new models” replacing the true Catholic Saints of Old so you get to make the revolutionaries the “new Saints” especially the Conciliar Popes who all promoted the Church of the Eclipse which is their Concept of Concentric Circles as found in Lumen Gentium here as an explanation of why the Vatican II hierarchy believes and teaches that EVERY religion eventually subsists in the Catholic Church:
There are apparently two different sources which were compiled by Cardinal Ratzinger for this text in Lumen Gentium Pastor Schmidt and/or Fr. Sebastian Tromp SJ originated this phrase:
“LUMEN GENTIUM Sec. 8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11 https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
SEC 8 of LM”…This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,( (13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are FORCES IMPELLING TOWARD CATHOLIC UNITY.” LG.
OK folks the above paragraph is the code for the CONCENTRIC CIRCLES OF THE WORLD RELIGIONS are really “impelling toward Catholic Unity according to these modernists for which ALL THE WORLD RELIGIONS THEN SUBSIST IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THEY IMPLEMENT THIS WITH PACHAMAMA AMAZONION RITES, ANGLICAN RITES , TRADITIONALIST RITES, CALIVINIST RITES YOU NAME IT THEY GOT IT.
Instead of continuing the battle against Protestantism, and the successful counter reformation the Vatican II Council fathers abandoned the Church militant and became the Church “dialogue” then finally the Church full circled incorporating protestant ideas themselves as this sad story demonstrates. Another curious phrase at Vatican II is explored here: The progressivist theologians at Vatican II, to the delight of the Protestant observers at the Council, changed the sentence [from the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church] to “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” This new wording was hailed as a great victory for Ecumenism.” 29. See Pope John’s Council by Michael Davies, (Angelus Press, Kansas City) pp. 60-61. I would add the Church in “consensus building” and in “compromise” with the lowest common denominator which eventually leads to humanism and atheism.
On this point, Ratzinger said recently, “When the Council Fathers replaced the word ‘is’ with the word subsist, they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist’. ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.” Interview in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, Sept. 22, 2000.
Both stories may be true. Theologians do after all talk to each other. That Tromp proposed “susbsitit in” does not exclude the possibility that Ratzinger had spoken to him about it. Tromp may have thought that it could be read in an orthodox sense (or an infiltrator?) basing it after “corporis compago subsistit.” something Pope Saint Gregory the Great “On the Seven Penitential Psalms “ which may have sounded similar but no doubt the liberals knew how to twist it
Evangeline,
The hoofbeats are in the double Dutch VII language in Lumen Gentium are here and it is the plan for their “CONCENTRIC CIRCLES” application and interpretation:
Regarding the Lumen Gentium “consists in” problem WE SEE THAT FEW orthodox theologians left at the Council were hoodwinked and they thought there were no problems with the “subsist in” text; but equally why the modernists knew just how to interpret it into their “religion of Concentric Circles” THE New Age smoking bowl Amazonian aspect.
German newspaper “Frankfurter Allgemeine,early October 2000 ” Cardinal Ratzinger revolutionary explained, “Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because,” he said, “it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church AS SUCH IS A LARGER IDENTITY THAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Church’.” SEE http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/unity.htm#42
AND http://www.katolsk.no/nyheter/2000/10/09-0001 Cardinal Ratzinger Says «Dominus Iesus» Unjustly Criticized In an Interview, He Responds to Criticism of Declaration VATICAN CITY, OCT. 8, 2000 (ZENIT.org).
Lynda,
You are so right to say “When attempts are made to change the Holy Faith, right reason disappears very quickly.”
They changed the unchanging Catholic faith by telling people in Lumen Gentium code that all the religions “subsists” in the Catholic Church. They did it in a round about way so as not to get caught with their hand in the modernist cookie Jar.
Here is just one example:
The novel claim that non-Catholics need not convert because they are “in some mysterious way” part of the Church of Christ scorns the Church’s perennial teaching on the necessity of non-Catholics to abandon their errors and return to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, as was summed up in Pius XII’s 1949 Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement: “True reunion can only come about by the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ”55 (the Catholic Church).
The verbal ambiguity used by Vatican II which forwards a false idea found in Lumen Gentium 8 wherein it says “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” rather than Pope Pius XII’s definition that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church [Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII]. Fr. Franz Schmidberger revealed, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who has always been a progressivist, recently admitted that the word subsists was used at the Council in order to advance the [false] notion that the Church of Christ is actually bigger than the Catholic Church. What happened during the Council was the-then Father Ratzinger, acting upon the advice of the German Protestant, Pastor Schmidt, [who was an observer invited by Cardinal Bea] replaced the word “is” with the word “subsist” and through Cardinal Frings, [Ratzinger was his peritus] submitted this new formula to the Council Fathers to vote on. This was part of the scheme by the progressivist theologians and prelates to give the Council document Lumen Gentium an ecumenical dimension and to propound the lie that the Church of Christ is somehow a broader entity than the Catholic Church. Now, you see the difference immediately. If the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church but only subsists in the Catholic Church, it subsists perhaps today, but tomorrow it could be otherwise. It could subsist in another denomination, for example, with the Orthodox, or it could be shared among many. That was, for example, the position of Cardinal Newman when he was still an Anglican. He thought that the true Church of Christ was composed of three branches – the Roman Church, the Orthodox, and the Anglican. He gave up this error and he became Catholic.”
“So it has its origin from the Protestants. We were made aware of this fact by a priest from South Tyrol [old Austria, annexed to become today’s northern Italy – Ed.], who wrote last year saying that he knew this Protestant pastor, and that he was still living. We asked him to send us the address. So we wrote to this Protestant pastor, and he confirmed by a letter of August 3rd that he was the one who handed over this proposal to Fr. Ratzinger. So we see that Fr. Ratzinger had taken a very active role to introduce the words “subsistit in” and rewrite a very important definition of the Catholic Church.”
See http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2001_April/An_Update.htm The Angelus April 2001, Volume XXIV, Number 4 An address of Fr. Franz Schmidberger Also see Fr. Paul Kramer’s http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch6.htm
2Vermont & A Simple Man, Louie and company,
I agree that Benedict’s resignation is totally irrelevant as you say and his election was clearly invalid because he was one of the chief instigators of implementing John XXIII “Church as Concentric Circles” theory. This was in essence the false church of Organized Naturalism- the Cult of Man- Bankrupt church of Vatican II, Cosmic nebulous Christ of pantheistic Teilhard the NO -prophet!
The clever liberal Council Father Yves Congar gives us the reason for this theological vagary:
“The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman” missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. ‘ [emphasis added] Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) by Fr. Yves Congar p. 160.
Another source says it was http://www.catholic-legate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/subsist.pdf below
Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium 8, the significance of which has been the subject of considerable debate since The Council. Father Hardon provided both the Latin original and an English translation. Here is the Latin original with the two telltale Latin words from Lumen Gentium:
“Sicut namque Christus, qui est caput Ecclesiae,
de Spiritu sancto conceptus est, sic sancta Ecclesia
quae corpus ejus, eodem Spiritu sancto repletur
ut vivat; ejus virtute firmatur ut in unius fidei et
charitatis compage subsistat.” 2
I was surprised to notice the names of two other persons on the dissertation of Father Hardon, including “R. P. Sebastianus Tromp, S.J.” as his Director, and Archbishop “Paulus C. Schulte” of Indianapolis as the prelate who provided the Imprimatur.3 Father Sebastian Tromp was the same famous Jesuit priest and theologian who suggested that the Second Vatican Council use “subsistit in” instead of another Latin verb, either “est” or “adest in” within one of the sentences defining the Church. By comparing the two (2) texts, both in Latin and in English, one can readily discern similar wording. Fr. Tromp also assisted in the writing of Mystici corporis Christi and possibly Mediator Dei.
Both stories may be true. Theologians do after all talk to each other. That Tromp proposed ” subsistit” does not exclude the possibility that Ratzinger had spoken to him about it from the suggestion of the Protestant Pastor Schmidt or Vice versa. These guys knew exactly how to interpret their false “virtual Council” and it wasn’t the media that did it- it was Ratzinger, Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, & Bergoglio.
Correction Of “Lumen Gentium is the ecumenical catch all for every religion “consists in”
I meant to say : Lumen Gentium is the ecumenical catch all for every religion “subsists in”
Marie,
Please copy/paste here ALL of the proof you claim that Tom A has presented. He has already admitted that he has none and that he can’t and won’t argue with anyone “staying home” (i.e. acting like a Catholic under the circumstances, just as true Catholics did – for the VERY SAME REASONS – during the French Revolution, the type of our time).
All you do is ramble on and on with your opinions in tremendously long posts (while no one complains, or likely even reads) and things which you pick and choose as “proof” which are nothing of the sort.
You reject the perennial Church teaching that we MUST KNOW from whence our Pastors come, and you ignore the UNDENIABLE FACT that Thuc and Lefebvre placed themselves OUTSIDE the Church and thus COULD NOT make bishops who would then be INSIDE the Church. Obviously.
Someone else who reads here called this a “loony bin” and quite frankly I must agree with that assessment. Satan is having a good laugh, too.
Awe. Look at the defiant little ones who are always whining and seeking attention from Louie, or rescue from that which makes them uncomfortable down to their very bones. The Truth only hurts those who are in error.
Louie has stated that he has recently discovered the “old” Papal documents and he is currently studying and praying. He is in search-and-discovery mode, just as I once was. Where he ends up I don’t yet know, not to mention this often happens in stages as it did in my case and that of many others, so I’m not going to attack the blog owner who is obviously searching, nor would I ever. What he (or any of you) thinks is of no consequence to me except that I hate lies and heresy and all that causes the loss of souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ. To me, he seems to be of good will. The likes of you all who are obstinate, just simply think YOU have the Truth, in the FACE of all the EVIDENCE to the contrary, while stating that WE dare to think that WE have the Truth. Give me a break! SOMEONE here has the Truth as IT IS ATTAINABLE, says Jesus Christ who is the ONE who REMOVES BLINDNESS.
You couldn’t pay me enough to have me join you in your Sacrileges. You just run along now to happy hour or to watch your evening shows on the idiot box which constantly blares noise into your living space and material which is highly offensive to Almighty God – you know, the One you claim to follow, as long as He doesn’t take away your undeserved “sacraments” in these last days, that is.
Don’t waste your time replying if your show isn’t on yet, because I’m not going to read nor reply to this. I have better things to do outside of this loony bin.
james_o
May God bless you for coming into the Catholic Church and knowing it to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ outside of Which no One Can be saved during this Great Apostasy when people mistakenly think the Vatican II church is the Catholic church and they follow what appears to be a hierarchy in once Catholic Diocese around the World but are now taken over by dupes of the Conciliar false church thinking this church to be the Catholic Church. The have not been given the grace to understand as you do that Bergoglio and Company including RATzinger are really part of the Novus ordo Seculorum Concentric Circle church of the New Age externalization of Alice Bailey’s One World Hierarchy. The Dynamic Duo wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
God gave you James-o a real grace to see through this falsehood. I read your posts and In Caritas. The more I study and pray to ask God to give me the truth and live the truth I know that He will do this if I stay faithful and obedient the Christ’s Holy teachings as past down by all the true Popes before Vatican II.
Most people even 80 year old’s who have been in the Church before Vatican II can not see what you see James_o. And may God bless and help Canada to see the truth of these frauds the land of my Grandmother who with open arms took in her Irish Catholic grandfather just before the Great Irish Potato Famine.
You see this New World order has been trying to starve Catholics both physically and spiritually since Christ first commissioned the Apostles to go out an make converts to the Holy Catholic faith. Keep the faith and God help you and your family. I would never condemn you or anyone who stays home during this Great Apostasy. I can see why you do. They will not kill all of us or the spirit of the Catholic faith inside our souls- this ancient faith of our Fathers who died rather than give it up. I become disgusted when I think about how the Balamand Statement is a slap in the face of the Catholic Saints who died as martyrs because they would NOT BECOME ORTHODOX. For example the former Orthodox Josaphat Kuntsevych, O.S.B.M who converted to the Catholic faith became a monk and a Catholic Archbishop and was martyred on 12 November 1623- killed by an angry mob in at the hands of Orthodox jealous at how many Catholic Converts he was getting in Vitebsk, in Belarus. So I guess Ratzinger would have put down Josaphat’s “theology of the return” of his lost Orthodox countrymen and subsequent martyrdom.
Balamand Declaration approaved by JP II June 17-24, 1993 “35. By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself altogether again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.”sec 10. The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions. Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as “to bring them back” to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of “the separated brethren” it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.
On June 29, 1990. Metropolitan (now Patriarch) Bartholomew to Pope John Paul II at the Patronal Feast of Rome: “It is commonly recognized today that ‘the solutions of the future are found elsewhere’: in the model of ‘Sister Churches,’ within the context of the eucharistic ecclesiology of communion.” see Episkepsis, no. 4443 (July 15, 1990) p.4 http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand.pdf
So james_o we know why they don’t want to convert people from the Orthodox to the Catholic Religion. It is because these Conciliar false popes believe the Catholic Church is a CONCENTRIC CIRCLE that embraces every schismatic, heretical and false religion.
ASM,
My last (cautiously optimistic) stop was CMRI. There’s more I could add about that place but I won’t, however, if I thought for a minute that they had valid bishops I’d be first in line for my sacraments,, but the FACTS (the obvious) about Thuc and Lefebvre are the facts, and those two could not possibly produce valid and licit CATHOLIC bishops. Illogical and impossible.
ASM. You come across to me as a sincere, decent and reasonable man, but you are allowing yourself to be deceived. And if you think for one minute that “staying home” is easier in any way, shape or form, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I truly hope and pray that God grants you the time you need to at least re-examine the issue of Jurisdiction in the light of all that has been presented here.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
ASB,
Given that no one’s brought up watching television at all on these threads AFAIK, bringing up commenters watching the “idiot box” as an insult comes a little out of left field. It’s completely irrelevant to everything being discussed, and just makes you look petty unnecessarily.
At any rate, this is Louie’s own blog, so it’s only natural for some people to wonder what his thoughts are on certain topics: it’s not exactly worthy of saying someone’s “whining” for his attention. (Personally, I don’t care one way or another if he does respond; he doesn’t owe us anything, given that he runs this blog for free.)
“The likes of you all who are obstinate, just simply think YOU have the Truth, in the FACE of all the EVIDENCE to the contrary, while stating that WE dare to think that WE have the Truth. Give me a break! ”
Given that you’ve professed belief in a flat earth on previous threads. you’re not exactly in a good position to condemn others for believing something “in the FACE of all the EVIDENCE to the contrary.” Just saying.
And regarding the “undeserved” sacraments? The funny thing is, I completely agree with you: humanity doesn’t deserve them. We didn’t deserve them when they were originally instituted, either; just like we didn’t deserve to have a Savior.
But God, out of His perfect gratuitousness, still found ways to provide regardless.
His infinite Love is kind of mysterious, that way.
ASM,
That wasn’t aimed at you – consider your reply vs the others. Perhaps it was poorly placed and yes out of left field. There is a reason I bring up TV, though, and that’s because it gets eerily quiet around here in the evening yet it’s hopping during the day. I suppose all that TV watching assists one in hearing the Voice of God, and in making decisions to throw out the Magisterium because there’s no Pope, I’m just saying… If the shoe fits, wear it; if it doesn’t then ignore.
Now you attack me with “flat earth” when I never claimed it to be necessarily flat, using this to attempt to discredit me on the Jurisdiction matter. This is simply you under the influence of the demonic. I do not believe we revolve around the sun as that makes God a liar. I have seen plenty of evidence to support my position. There’s a good reason why there are only something like 7 official photos of earth so far. LOL
God doesn’t owe us Sacraments and Scripture and the Church Fathers tell us the Sacrifice will cease. No one is making this stuff up. Do as you will, ASM & the rest. It really makes no difference to me.
Hi ASB,
I just wanted to mention that we have to keep in mind Ezekiel 18.
There the Lord says if we convert, He will not hold the sins of our fathers against us.
So that’s much encouragement.
Good evening, James.
I hope you’re keeping warm. Thank you for that. I assumed that to be the case but I will look it up tonight. Ezekiel 18. 🙂
May God bless you and keep you.
ASB,
“Now you attack me with “flat earth” when I never claimed it to be necessarily flat, using this to attempt to discredit me on the Jurisdiction matter. This is simply you under the influence of the demonic.”
1) From the “fertile sedevacantist soil” post, you said the following on November 25, 2019:
“There is no curvature and this has now been proven with lasers (along with pilots letting the cat out of the bag). The spinning ball THEORY and LIE only lends itself to the whole evolution thing and aliens.”
That seems to be a pretty firm affirmation on your part that the Earth is flat.
2) All I did was point out that you don’t really have any ground to stand on to criticize others for not believing something ‘in the face of evidence to the contrary.’
If it discredits anything, then all I’ll say is that professing a flat earth after “investigating both sides” (as you also professed in the same thread) speaks poorly for your capacity to reason and derive a logical conclusion from the evidence. “Diabolic influence” has nothing to do with it.
“I do not believe we revolve around the sun as that makes God a liar.”
No it wouldn’t.
“I have seen plenty of evidence to support my position.”
Hence my prior comment regarding your ability to actually evaluate the evidence.
(This is also why Tom A, coincidentally, is constantly harping on the issue of authority to definitively settle matters of ecclesial ambiguity: none of us “armchair theologians” have the training or the **authority** to say that our conclusions are binding when it comes to matters involving canonical legislation. And that’s **far removed** from a purely empirical subject like the Earth’s geometric shape and physical motion.)
“There’s a good reason why there are only something like 7 official photos of earth so far. LOL”
Your statement is patently false.
Lynda here is an example of a man namely Paul VI who used a false CONCENTRIC CIRCLE theology to embrace all the world religions as part of the church of Christ under the guise of “dialogue” which is why I don’t understand why so many on this blog think that any of these conciliar popes like Benedict XVI would be better than Bergoglio when they are all of them carrying out the Vatican II Concentric Circle plan of John XXIII and Paul VI see below
CONCENTRIC CIRCLES OF PAUL VI ECCLESIAM SUAM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE CHURCH AUGUST 6, 1964
ECCLESIAM SUAM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE CHURCH AUGUST 6, 1964 below
Paul VI THREE CONCENTRIC CIRLES 1) Mankind, 2) Monotheistic Religions 3) Christians the phony “dialogue” is the way the Vatican II Church actually promotes these false religion through enculturation techniques as in the Amazonian Synod and Assisi I, II and III- it is Teilhardian, John XXIII’s MASONIC “CONCENTRIC CIRCLES”
Paul VI”In Terms of Concentric Circles
“96. You may say that in making this assertion we are carried away by an excessive zeal for Our office and are not giving sufficient weight to the true position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the world. But that is not so. We see the concrete situation very clearly, and might sum it up in general terms by describing it in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us.
First Circle: Mankind
97. The first of these circles is immense. Its limits stretch beyond our view into the distant horizon. It comprises the entire human race, the world. We are fully aware of the distance which separates us from the world, but we do not conceive of it as a stranger to us. All things human are our concern. We share with the whole of the human race a common nature, a common life, with all its gifts and all its problems. We are ready to play our part in this primary, universal society, to acknowledge the insistent demands of its fundamental needs, and to applaud the new and often sublime expressions of its genius. But there are moral values of the utmost importance which we have to offer it. These are of advantage to everyone. We root them firmly in the consciences of men. Wherever men are striving to understand themselves and the world, we are able to communicate with them. Wherever the councils of nations come together to establish the rights and duties of man, we are honored to be permitted to take our place among them. If there is in man a “soul that is naturally Christian,” we wish to respect it, to cherish it, and to communicate with it.
98. In all this, as we remind ourselves and others, our attitude is entirely disinterested, devoid of any temporal or political motive. Our sole purpose is to take what is good in man’s life on earth and raise it to a supernatural and Christian level. The Church is not identical with civilization. It does however promote it.
Second Circle: Worshippers of the One God
107. Then we see another circle around us. This too is vast in extent, yet not so far away from us. It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship. We would mention first the Jewish people, who still retain the religion of the Old Testament, and who are indeed worthy of our respect and love.
Then we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God.
And finally we have the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions.
Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion, and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him.” The last paragraph here is a phony “guardrail” Paul VI set up which he himself ignored and his Vatican II sect.
Common Ideals In Many Spheres
108. But we do not wish to turn a blind eye to the spiritual and moral values of the various non-Christian religions, for we desire to join with them in promoting and defending common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare, and civic order. Dialogue is possible in all these great projects, which are our concern as much as theirs, and we will not fail to offer opportunities for discussion in the event of such an offer being favorably received in genuine, mutual respect.
Third Circle: Christians
109. And so we come to the circle which is nearest to us, and which comprises all those who take their name from Christ. In this area the ecumenical dialogue, as it is called, is already in being, and there are places where it is beginning to make considerable progress. There is much more that could be said on this complex and delicate matter, but this will not be Our final word on the subject. So for the moment We will merely refer in passing to a few fairly obvious points .
Ready to Meet Legitimate Desires ( FOLKS THESE ARE THE IILLIGITIMATE DESIRES OF AN ILLIGITIMATE POPE HELL BENT ON CHANGING THE UNCHANGING DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)
We readily accept the principle of stressing what we all have in common rather than what divides us. (MORE NEWSPEAK FOR PROMOTING HERESY) This provides a good and fruitful basis for our dialogue, and we are prepared to engage upon it with a will. We would even go further and declare our readiness to examine how we can meet the legitimate desires of our separated Christian brothers on many points of difference concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship, for it is Our dearest wish to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity.
We must stress however that it is not in Our power to make any concessions regarding the integrity of the faith and the obligations of charity. We realize that this may cause misgiving and opposition in certain quarters, but now that the Catholic Church has on its own initiative taken steps to restore the unity of Christ’s fold, it will not cease to exercise the greatest prudence and deliberation. It will continue to insist that the claims it makes for itself-claims which still have the effect of alienating the separated brethren-derive from the will of Christ, not from any spirit of self-aggrandizement based on the record of its past achievements, nor from any unsound theological speculation. Rightly understood, they will be seen to be for the good of all, for the common unity, liberty and fullness of the Christian life. The Catholic Church will never cease to prepare itself by prayer and penance for the longed-for reconciliation.”above http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html
Folks the whole Vatican II religion is one long concession to false religions and the “surrender of no proselytism” when Christ gave to His Church the great commission that “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Paul VI was a fan of Teilhard’s spiral of the “Cosmic Christ” and the “United Nations as the “last hope for mankind” .
Dear A Simple Beggar,
If this combox gets quiet when it’s evening in America, this simply might be explained by the fact that by then night has fallen in Europe where some of the people who comment here live.
I also would have thought that most of those who comment here no longer watch TV (I got rid of mine 7 years ago), otherwise they would not have come this far and would still be stuck in the New (World) Order.
It’s 8.30 am now here, I’m about to start work, while it is still night in America.
God bless you!
Marie,
Thanks for taking the time to share that. The Eastern Catholics are no help either, they are right on board with VII & rub shoulders with the Eastern Orthodox, even removing the filioque from the creed in the local missals, so that they would cause no offense to them.
The Lord is offensive to them.
“Louie has stated that he has recently discovered the “old” Papal documents and he is currently studying and praying. He is in search-and-discovery mode, just as I once was. Where he ends up I don’t yet know, not to mention this often happens in stages as it did in my case and that of many others, so I’m not going to attack the blog owner who is obviously searching, nor would I ever. ”
No, you both are just cowards. You and IC sure have a lot to say to the rest of us whether you consider us searching or not. Meanwhile, not one pen stroke to Louie himself.
Again, if you’re so sure that your dogmatic home alone position is the truth and Louie is “searching”, shouldn’t you warn him that he is committing sacrilege and in a state of mortal sin? Shouldn’t you warn him that he is at least an “objective” heretic? Shouldn’t you warn him that if he dies in this state he will go to Hell? I mean, why don’t you strike while his iron is hot? You don’t waste any time striking while the iron is hot with any other poster here.
I have no problem ignoring the two of you. In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t posted to either of you in quite some time now. I just think you two have taken over his combox, and I find that quite ironic given the things you throw at many of us you could be saying to him….but you don’t.
Lucky for you both, he doesn’t actively moderate this combox (and you have certainly taken advantage of that). I don’t know of any Catholic forum moderator that puts up with posters that repeatedly call other Catholic posters non-Catholics or tell other Catholics that they are in a state of mortal sin and heading to Hell because they receive sacraments from traditional clergy.
Dear Marie,
As someone with Irish roots you deserve to know the truth about why your great great grandfather was forced to leave Ireland in the mid 19th century.
A “Great Potato Famine” in such a fertile land as Ireland? Did they not have anything else to eat?
It actually was a holocaust/genocide perpetrated against the Irish people.
I’ll post a link to an interview with someone who researched this later today when I get home, I’ll probably post it at the end of the blog. It will be useful also for others to see how such a spectacular lie has become the “official account of Irish history”.
2Vermont, this is unfair. Neither ASB nor IC have ever called out anyone who is seriously searching the truth, only those they consider “obstinate”. Because they know and have repeatedly stated that they were once in the same boat.
Hogwash Ursula. It”s absolutely fair. You just don’t see it because you didn’t take long before you agreed with them.
Big bang cosmogony is just another part of the big, big, deception. It comes in one package, if you accept part of it you must accept all of it.
Unfortunately, the vast majority will believe it, without question, without looking at any empirical scientific evidence at all.
Blind faith in man.
You have no idea, and you judge easily.
It took me a long time to agree with their principal conclusion. Especially on the basis that Catholics must not attend doubtful sacraments.
There is doubt whether or not epikeia applies, doubt about the Thuc consecrations, doubt about Lefebvre etc.
It is ridiculous to ask IC and ASB to attack Louie just so they get banned. If you don’t want to engage with their argument, just ignore them as you did before.
Dear Ursula,
Point taken, thank you. I was tired yesterday and I brought that up for a reason I didn’t expound upon and it did come up in the past. I’m aware that certain individuals are here in North America if not the USA.
ASM,
I’m not getting back into the topic of how God arranged the world. This is diversion on your part.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is that Bishops who fell out of the Church due to heresy and apostasy (such as Lefebvre and Thuc), if they ever were true bishops in the first place, can create valid and licit bishops who are INSIDE the Church.
I won’t be back for the rest of the day. I have to watch TV (just kidding).
I couldn’t possibly care less whether or not you post to me. I only care about the Truth and saving my wretched soul.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is that Bishops who fell OUT of the Church due to heresy and apostasy (such as Lefebvre and Thuc), if they ever were true bishops in the first place, can create valid and licit bishops who are INSIDE the Church.
Attack Louie Ursula? If they believe they have the Truth, why would informing him of it be “attacking”? Why would it be attacking to let him know that he is in state of mortal sin if they are as concerned about his soul as they are concerned about everyone else’s soul here?
Hi Marie, and anyone of Irish descent,
as promised, here is a link to an interview with author Chris Fogarty who published a book on the Irish Famine, titled “The Perfect Holocaust”:
https://gemmaodoherty.com/videos/ if you click on “playlist” and look for the video dated 10/1/2020, it should take you there.
The great famine in Ireland was not a natural disaster (a “potato plight”) as we are told, it was a holocaust/genocide perpetrated on the Irish people.
Just one example of how history has been rewritten to make everyone believe even the most outrageous lies.
2Vermont,
Stop being ridiculous.
Thanks Ursula.
ASB, it has been explained countless times. In or out of the Church does not effect validity. Then, they claim supplied jurisdiction to fix the matter of licitness. That is the argument of the sede clergy. You are free to reject their claim since there is no actual authority to rule on the matter. What you and IC are not free to do is act as that authority on their claim. And before you anathematize me for the umpteenth time, I am not advocating one position over the other. I am trying to explain to you the lines of reasoning sede clergy us as justification.
While I have a moment, Tom A:
Again, it matters not, and again you FAILED to answer my question. In order to avoid committing sacrilege when it comes to your sacraments, bishops must have been BOTH validly AND licitly consecrated (same for ordinations of priests). The Church has ALWAYS taught this and nothing has changed merely due to the loss of the EARTHLY head, who REPRESENTS Christ on earth, while Christ is ULTIMATELY the Voice and the ONE in charge – for ALL time and He has spoken and continues to speak through His Magisterium.
IF all that matters is your (imaginary) validity, then why not use any old Novus Ordo Bishop, consecrated prior to 1968, or, better yet, 1959? You’re only concerned with validity, RIGHT, Tom A?? Why not, then, hit up some Orthodox bishop, or whomever you all FEEL are “valid” bishops?? Actually I know for a fact that some groups out there actually do this!
Heresy and Schism DESTROYS APOSTOLICITY, period, end of story. Lefebvre and Thuc were OBVIOUSLY heretics and schismatics. They were not members of the Church and therefore it’s IMPOSSIBLE for them to have provided bishops for the CATHOLIC Church when they were not members themselves. Your thinking is completely illogical.
As you say, “they claim” Supplied Jurisdiction (and here you express your own doubt). I already brought up the “Common Error” problem with that…. which OBLITERATES the possibility of its use.
I simply think it would be better and more honest of you, when replying, to say “this is what they claim” as you did here (expressing doubt). I understand that you don’t direct anyone to or away from either position, or denigrate anyone who abstains, but to intentionally MISLEAD others into thinking that just because clergy MAY be “valid” (and much more than doubtfully so) that they do not, still, run at minimum the RISK of committing sacrilege is wrong and that is the only we even bother replying to you.
Lastly, stop lying by trying to make it look like IC and I came up with this all on our own and made this all up and are own own authority, when we’re actually very “late to the party” and are only following the Voice of Christ in the clearly UNambiguous and Perpetual Magisterium AS MANY HAVE BEEN DOING WELL BEFORE US. How much more ludicrous can this get? Just say the truth: YOU reject the Magisterium because there is no Pope, and “they” choose to follow the Magisterium without a Pope. There’s no making stuff up on our end; it’s your side that’s left with making mere “claims” because you feel that we are left orphans with NO authority WHATSOEVER.
We, on the other hand, KNOW we were NOT left ” orphans doomed to wander”, as you stated, as that contradicts the very promise of Jesus Christ. You may be doomed, but we aren’t orphans and we certainly aren’t the ones wandering.
Ursula,
Thank you so much I will check out that link you posted on the Potato Famine.
It was carefully orchestrated by the Freemason Lord Palmerston to cull the Irish Catholic populous. This shows you how Palmerston treated his own tenants https://archive.org/stream/TheGreatIrishFamine/The%20Great%20Irish%20Famine_djvu.txt and if you go you-tube and type in “The Palmerston’s Zoo (full lecture)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBqKgnTx1h8&list=PLv8FF2p-r_fAxArcSm7K6ZRiGgZX6gqn3&index=11 you will see how Webster Tarpley describes how the freemason Lord Palmerston used genocide in the Potato famine to kill as many of the Irish Catholic people that he could get away with. It is very sad to realize how they were targeted.
It was a hatred of the English Masonic powers that controlled the British empire in the19th century that were against what they termed “priest-craft and the Roman Pontiff ” and the Irish Catholic populous who followed them. What we are seeing now in the “institutional” neo-catholic ” Conciliar church” is also meant to accomplish a spiritual genocide so as to accomplish the goal of the Catholic Church’s final destruction by infiltrators who have hijacked Her, so as to make her a totally different church of HUMANITY where the anti-Christ will sit on the throne of The Whore of Babylon’s “temple”. The Church will be restored eventually and these forces will be destroyed by Christ Himself.
ASM: “Given that you’ve professed belief in a flat earth on previous threads you’re not exactly in a good position to condemn others for believing something “in the FACE of all the EVIDENCE to the contrary.” Just saying.”
Good point.
Marie,
Thank you for the link.
ASB, you are the one who asked for an explanation. I simply gave you an answer as to how they justify validity and licitness. Obviously you don’t agree with them and they don’t agree with you. Too bad we don’t have a Pope to consult. An actual living one that is. Anyone can cite a past Pope and claim it means whatever they want it to mean. You and IC do that with basically every post.
james_o,
You are very welcome.
A Simple Beggar
Can you answer me this- I have been wondering this for years. How can you be “schismatic” from resisting a false pope???? Please answer me that.
Catholics only have to submit to a true pope and I know that you would agree with me on that one.
I thought the teaching was that you are only schismatic from A TRUE POPE- if you don’t obey his commands.
Now as far as what a man thinks in his mind about the question of who might or might not be a pope is another story and the level of culpability that he will incur due to his false thinking that is something else.
Of course schisms can come from groups of anti-popes or one anti-pope who opposes a true pope and then people follow him. Schism is refusal to obey a LEGITIMATE POPE.
Also A Simple Beggar,
If there is NO pope the schism would come when people don’t follow the teachings of the Church or the valid Bishops put there by the last true pope in an interregnum or Bishops who continue to elect “illegitimate successors of Peter” who were heretics before they fraudulently usurped the papal chair.
2Vermont,
Do not let others opinions of you get too much under your skin. It is natural for us to want others to have a good opinion of it and we suffer when they do not but God uses this to humble us.
You have a very good point that In Caritas does NOT attack Louie but he does go after you and me and others and probably everyone including himself.
In the end we will be held accountable to God for what we believe and we will be accountable for how we treat others.
I see truth in what you say especially here “The problem with this position is that it gives credence that the man was ever pope in the first place. If he was never pope, then his resignation is irrelevant.”
I don’t know why you are attacked by some posters like In caritas but I think it is for the same reason why they attack some of my stuff- it is because we don’t think like they do that there is no magisterium walking the earth. Correct me if I am wrong but you don’t necessarily agree with the Home Alone position right?
I am new to the forum and they told me that I should talks less and listen more. They have a point but they could take there own advice. I think what they say bothers you because you don’t want to go to Hell. That is a good thing that you don’t want to go to Hell. In fact a Holy fear of Hell is what has kept many a Saint out of it. But perfect love casts out all fear. We can pray for that and work for it. I can tell you that being confronted by In_Caritas sure got me researching “apostolic succession” and the “End Times” and the final Anti-Christ. I have read many books on these things trying to understand what has been happening over the years. I think in the end the problem is that mankind has NOT put God as the first commandment but rather put himself and his own SELF interests.
Only when we properly love God can we love others. It is frightening for In Caritas to think that Apostolic Succession is dead so he wants to warn people that they are going to Hell because he fears he could also since he can not get the sacraments since He believes there are NO MORE apostle successors that are valid and licit.
This is so very serious isn’t it? If what In Caritas believed was true. So actually he wants to save others by scaring them. The prophets of old did this in the Old Testament but what they said was totally true and the people stoned them for it.
Maybe you think In Caritas is throwing stones at us and he is. What he needs to realize though is that St. Stephen had stones thrown at him by the Pharisees who believed they were following the right way and one of those guys was St. Paul. I don’t think In Caritas is right and I pray that he isn’t. He got me thinking that is for sure. In the end though if it is the “Great apostasy” we will get a good many stones thrown at us so, maybe God is using others to show us that we live in a glass house ourselves and we should not throw stones back in retaliation.
None of us have the mind of God or the never failing faith that he gave St. Peter and his successors and so if the Home Aloners are right and you or or I go to a traditional clergy well we would be in trouble. However I don’t think things are as neat and tidy as what they present. In fact you would really have to be Holy and a genius to figure out this Mystery of Iniquity wouldn’t you??
I read your posts and I think that you are right about the V2 church “Yes, many R&R types hold that Peter was pope from the moment of Matthew 16:18, but he was not. The Church (and therefore the papacy) was not founded until the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.” Although I do think when Jesus was asking Peter Do you love me three times and then just before he ascended into Heaven he was commissioning them as Bishops to go out into the world and teach his Gospel and Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Now the Home Aloners thinks that ends right now when you don’t have a visible pope but I just don’t agree. I am going to keep studying the issue. They keep asking just like M.C. does “Where is the Church?” and they attack Lefebvre and Thuc that is there favorite whipping boys because they vacillated between whether JP II and company were true or false popes but I never hear them say much about Castro Mayer.
They seem so clear about what God did with Lefebvre and then they are so clear and they attack Fr. Cekada Fr. Jenkins and other traditional Catholic Church who oppose the Novus Ordo Religion and they claim they are NOT valid AND licit but they ignore the fact that if the Church has gone underground maybe things don’t quite operate under the “appearance” of how they operated in normal times and they claim that the people “stayed home during the French Revolution when that wasn’t really true either because some did go to priests who took the bad government oath but later they repented and the Church forgave them like say Tallyrand the Masonic Cardinal who was given the sacrament of penance before he died.
Here are some quotes about the priesthood ”
‘St. Bernard tells us that everything has come to us through Mary; and we may also say that everything has come to us through the priest; yes, all happiness, all graces, all heavenly gifts. If we had not the Sacrament of Orders, we should not have Our Lord. Who placed Him there, in that tabernacle? It was the priest. Who was it that received your soul, on its entrance into life? The priest. Who nourishes it, to give it strength to make its pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, by washing that soul, for the last time, in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest — always the priest. And if that soul comes to the point of death, who will raise it up, who will restore it to calmness and peace? Again the priest. You cannot recall one single blessing from God without finding, side by side with this recollection, the image of the priest.’ St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars
Yet here we are reminded about the bad ones ”
‘There is not in the whole world a monster to be compared with a priest in the state of sin, for the unfortunate man will not bear with correction.’ St. Jerome
Ad Catholici Sacerdotii On the Catholic Priesthood Pope Pius XI – 1935
Pope Pius XI – 1935 “6. This matter, indeed, is of so great and universal importance that We think fitting to devote to it a special Encyclical; since it is Our DESIRE THAT THE FAITHFUL, who already possess the priceless gift of Faith, MAY APPRECIATE THE SUBLIMITY OF THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD and its providential mission in the world;”
And finally
Pius XII Magisterium in MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, 1943
43. That is why We are deeply pained when We hear that not a few of Our Brother Bishops are being attacked and persecuted not only in their own persons, but – what is more cruel and heartrending for them – in the faithful committed to their care, in those who share their apostolic labors, even in the virgins consecrated to God; and all this, merely because they are a pattern of the flock from the heart..”
I do not understand the level of attack towards Archbishop Lefebrve and Archbishop Thuc both of whom were in good standing under Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII. They had their faults to be sure but they were against the false reforms of the New Mass and I understand the waffled about the issue of sede vacantism regarding the false Conciliar Popes but they did everything they could at the time to fight against the Vatican II religion and I really don’t think Catholics should be throwing stones at hierarchy who sounded the alarm. Have any of you Home Aloners for instance written a letter as the Abe de Nantes did calling the Conciliar Popes heretics and that they should resign? They think the hierarchy died in 1958 and so do the one who think that if the sede vecanstist position is the correct one then that would mean we have NO visible church and the church would have defected because they do NOT believe the Church would ever allow for a very long interregnum like this one as there would be no pope to give jurisdiction. AS Fr. O’Reilly said “that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises. We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment.” Truth really is stranger than fiction folks but we know that God chooses His priests and Bishops to carry out Apostolic Succession till the end of time even if they are reduced to what He started out with.
Marie, The only thing that gets under my skin here is that there are a couple of posters who have taken over the combox. They push their opinion on what the Church teaches to the point where if you don’t listen to and agree with them then you are (objectively, of course ;-)) anathematized and called all kinds of names. I am morally certain of my position, so they do not scare me. I am not concerned that being sedevacantist and assisting at traditional masses will send me to Hell.
I just think they are cowards here because they don’t address Louie directly. They just use his combox knowing full well that he doesn’t actively moderate it. If I were to speak as they do on any other forum, the forum owner/moderators *would* ban me. I have seen a number of dogmatic sedevacantists banned on CathInfo for example. Things go over a line when we tell others they will go to Hell if they do not agree with our position (even if we feel strongly that we have the correct position). And here? It happens over and over and over again. I suspect that after some time, if it continues, I will move on.
As I can’t find now Marie’s post on the importance of Priests, I’d like to send here a link to a letter written by a Priest, Fr Demaris, during the French Revolution, which contains invaluable advice for Catholics who have been deprived of a Priest, for the many Catholics today who are in this situation:
http://www.calefactory.org/tea-liv-withoutpriest.htm
“Catholics Without a Priest. God’s Providence Will Provide.”
Ursula,
I watched that show with Christ Fogerty and Gemma Doherty. It was really good. A real eye opener and I might read his book “The Perfect Holocaust. Thanks for the link.
You are more than welcome Marie. When I read your comment about your grandfather leaving Ireland at the time of the Great Potato Famine, I thought of this very good interview and wanted to let people know what really happened, but you already knew this anyway!
2Vermont,
I agree with you. It would seem their opinion is literally everyone is outside the Church- Lefebrve, Thuc, Padre Pio, the Abbe De Nantes unless they think exactly like them that there is NO longer Apostolic Succession and the priesthood is dead on this earth. This seems to me to be a hopeless orphan like faith when Jesus told us he would NOT leave us orphans.
Pius XII, “38. While still on earth, He instructed us by PRECEPT, COUNCEL AND WARNING IN WORDS THAT SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY, and will be spirit and life [54] TO ALL MEN OF ALL TIMES. Moreover HE CONFERRED A TRIPLE POWE ON HIS APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, TO TEACH, TO GOVERN, TO LEAD MEN TO HOLINESS, making this power, defined by special ordinances, rights and obligations, the fundamental law of the whole Church.” (Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, 29 June 1943)
“The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis” by Abbot Combe, 1906: “The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground.”
Those are the emergency ration priests we have now. But things will get worse as Reve. P Huchede reminds us History of the Anti-Christ on pg 26 Tan books “Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished. [Don. 9:27). The sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars. The church shall be devastated: the sacred vessels desecrated, the priest shall be scattered and separated from their flocks and put to death. The beauty of the new Sion has vanished! Her priests sigh; her streets resound with wailings and lamentations because there is no one found to assist at the solemnities of the Lamb. The church has taken up her abode in the catacombs. (Jerem. Thren.). ”
What did the Early Christians do in the “catacombs”??? They worshipped in secret Masses when they could get a scarce priest to offer it. More proof below
The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians 1582 D.R. by von Peters Commentary page 418-419 Verse 4 In the Temple] “Most ancient writers expound this of the Temple in Jerusalem, which they think Antichrist shall build up again, as being of the Jews stock, and to be acknowledge of that obstinate people (according to our Saviour’s prophecy of John 1) for their expected and promised Messias. Iren. li. 5 in fine.; Hyppoly. de consum. mundi.; Cyril Hieros. Catech. 15 Author pop. imp. ho. 49 in Matt. See St. Jerome in 11 Dan.; Grego. li. 31. Moral. c. 11. Not that he shall suffer them to worship God by their old manner of sacrifices, (all which he will either abolish, or convert to the only adoration of himself: though at the first to apply himself to the Jews, he may perhaps be circumcised and keep some apart of the law) for it is here said that he shall sit in the Temple as God. That is, he shall be adored thereby sacrifice and divine honor, the name and worship of the true God wholly defaced. And this they think to be the abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel, mentioned by our Saviour, prefigured and resembled by Antiochus and others, that defaced the worship of the true God by profanation of that Temple, specially by abrogating the daily sacrifice, which was a figure of the only sacrifice and continual oblation of Christ’s holy body and blood in the Church, as the abolishing of that, was a figure of the abolishing of this, which shall be done principally and most universally by Antichrist himself ) as now in part by his forerunners) throughout all Nations and Churches (though then also Mass MAY BE HAD IN SECRET, as it is now in nations where the secular force of some Princes PROHIBITETH IT TO BE SAID OPENLY.)”end of quote taken from “Original and True Douay-Rheims Bible of Anno Domini 1582” copyright 1998 & 2004 assigned to VSC Corp. with Commentary transcribed into modern English spelling & script by William G. von Peters page 418-418. [ Mr. von Peters took his version from the Original one titled “The Nevv Testament of Iesus Christ : translated faithfully into English, out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages : vvith arguments of bookes and chapters, annotations, and other necessarie helpes, for the better vnderstanding of the text, and specially for the discouerie of the corruptions of diuers late translations, and for cleering the controversies in religion, of these daies, in the English College of Rhemes by Martin, Gregory, -1582]
Correction G. von Peters page 418-418.
to G. von Peters page 418-419
Ursula,
I will look at your post. I have been on that site before. But if you are trying to compare the French priests who took an oath to the bad government during the French Revolution I do not think it is fair to compare them to Thuc, de Nantes, Archbishop Lefebvre, de Laurier, or Castro Mayer and the priests who might get their Holy Orders through them . They all fought against the Vatican II false popes in their own ways.
I have already proven to you that even during the time of Anti-Christ there will be a few priests offering the Holy Sacrifice in “secret” catacombs under the radar of the anti-Christ system. But in most parts of the world the Mass will NOT be said. I think that we are seeing this now or at least the beginning stage. The New Mass has pretty much squelched the True old Latin Mass as it was practice before 1958. You say stay home but I don’t agree at least not yet. We are not at that stage.
Marie,
Please excuse me for “butting in” to your post to ASB, but I would like to point out that your use of the word “resisting” is quite ambiguous (unless you strictly define it first), because of the likes of M. Matt & Crew.
They say you can “resist” a so-called heretical “pope”, (total contradiction of language) march into “mass” every Sunday, and even confess him to be Pope before Almighty God, in the very Canon. Is that not insane?
And to say you could resist a real & legitimate Pope at all, is heresy, why would you? It’s just stupid.
But of course, you cannot be a schismatic for rejecting a false pope, no question there. But you can also be a schismatic for following one.
Dear James,
Feel free to “butt in” in response to whatever-it-is that Marie has written to me ; I rest my case in defense of Jesus Christ and His instructions via His Holy Church Magisterium, which has no expiration date. His visible Vicar has departed and now His Voice is left with us few who will to follow Him – the Truth.
For the few who by the Grace and mercy of God alone believe, no further explanation is necessary; for those many who do not, no explanation will ever suffice.
Carry on with receiving your sacraments “in peace”, as you will, Marie, et al.
VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
(For those who might ‘miss it”, the departure of the Vicar on earth, with the Voice being then left to us in His Holy and Perpetual Magisterium, can be likened to the Ascension, whereby Christ departed and the Holy Ghost was to then sent to His disciples to remain with them and teach them all things… in His Physical absence.)
There is nothing at all “secret” or “catacombish” about very public chapels on streets with public phone directory entries and advertisements and 10+ people in their congregations. Just because you “think” we aren’t there yet doesn’t mean we aren’t, and in all reality we are. Your beloved bishops were very public apostates and heretics (Novus Ordo; outside the Church) and as such fell from office – if ever they were even Catholic or had an office – which Christ through His Vicar Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex…” says they did not, thus all of their actions were null and void.
The 1st Epistle of St. John, and that of St. Jude, convicts you.
“In like manner these also defile the flesh, and (v) DESPISE DOMINION, and blaspheme majesty.
When Michael the Archangel, disputing with the Devil, made altercation for the body of Moses: he first not infer judgment of blasphemy, but said, OUR LORD ‘COMMAND’ thee.
But these, what things soever certainly they are ignorant of, they blaspheme: and what things soever naturally, as dumb beasts, they know, in those they are corrupted.
Woe unto them, ‘which’ have gone the way of Cain: and with the error of Balaam, have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradictions of Core.
These are in their banquets, spots, feastings together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, twice dead, plucked up by the roots,
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusions, WANDERING STARS: to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever.”
v Such be Heretics that will not be subject to any superior, OR THAT REFUSE TO OBEY THE LAWS of Spiritual or Temporal rulers, in which kind (SPECIALLY IN BLASPHEMING THE SUPREME SPIRITUAL MAGISTRATE) the Protestants do pass.
Alas and again, approach your sacraments “in peace”, as you will.
VRSNSMV
“6. In this we know. ]. This is the most SURE and general Mark to KNOW the true spirits and prophets from the false: those that be of God, will HEAR and OBEY their Apostles and LAWFUL pastors succeeding the Apostles, and SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CHURCH OF GOD: the OTHER, that BE NOT OF GOD, WILL NOT HEAR either Apostle, pastor, OR CHURCH, but BE THEIR OWN JUDGES.” Annotation for 1 John 4:6, Douay Rheims New Testament 1582.
VRSNSMV
ASB,
This is where Church history comes quite in handy, because it tells us how she has conducted herself in concrete reality, and not just hypothetically.
With regards to Georges Darboy – former bishop of Nancy and Archbishop of Paris – how would *you* have applied Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, in light of the following?
—-
In 1865 Mgr. Darboy, archbishop of Paris and member of the French senate expressed in an important speech to the senate ideas clearly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, which, unlike papal infallibility, already belonged to the corps of Catholic doctrine. The speech was a public defiance of the pope and a refusal to recognise the pope’s ordinary and universal jurisdiction in the dioceses of France.
Pope Pius IX, already aware of the ideas of this wayward bishop, reprimanded him sternly in a private letter in which he reminds him that his stated ideas are comparable to those of Febronius (already condemned) and opposed to the teaching of the IVth Lateran Council. In the same letter the pope complained also of the presence of Mgr Darboy at the funeral of a freemason and other scandals.
Darboy did not reply to the pope for some months and, when he finally did so, adopted a haughty tone to justify himself and to rebuke the pope! He retracted nothing whatever of the errors which had been reported throughout France with glee by the anti-Catholic press! He wrote to Cardinal Antonelli (the pope’s secretary of state), for transmission to the pope, that the doctrinal question amounted tonuances of expression and that the other accusations were no more than puerile gossiping and insidious calumnies.
Nothing was done and in 1867 he met the pope in Rome, but, contrary to the hope he had given, did not mention the subject of this conflict at all.
In 1868 a new clash ensued between Mgr Darboy and Rome, when the private letter of the pope dated 1865 was “leaked” and widely published. Still Rome allowed the situation to continue and meanwhile the Vatican Council was in preparation.
Predictably, both before and during the council, Darboy opposed the project of promulgating the dogma of papal infallibility. For more than five years, despite the rebukes of the pope and of the nuncio, he never withdrew his extremely public errors against the faith. And then when the council proclaimed the dogmas concerning the pope, in 1870, he did not adhere to them. On 2nd March 1871 (more than seven months after the vote), he at last informed the pope privately of his adherence to these dogmas, and even then he continued to delay before carrying out his duty of promulgating these decrees in his diocese. Only that promulgation at last constituted an implicit withdrawal of the false doctrines he was on public record as holding, despite the rebuke of the pope, since 1865.
Now was Mgr. Darboy during that period a public heretic or not? If one answers “yes”, one is in manifest disagreement with Pope Pius IX. And of course those who not only accuse others lightly of heresy, but even hold that remaining in communion with uncondemned heretics is an act of heresy, schism or at best a grave public sin entailing exclusion from the sacraments, must conclude that all the Catholics of Paris, laity and clergy, simultaneously fell from grace by continuing to recognise Darboy as their bishop even when they deplored his behaviour.
(Ami du Clergé, 12th December 1907)
—-
As quoted from John Daly’s Romeward article “Heresy in History”.
To interpret “Cum ex” with the severity you do, does it then follow that Abp. Darkly automatically lost his office? Furthermore, did that render all of his liturgical and ecclesial actions as null and void, objectively sacrilegious, and thus ruinous to the salvation of ALL those who remained in communion with him, from the laity on up?
Because Pope Pius IX apparently didn’t think so, as he never removed Archbishop Darboy from his post despite the publicity of their confrontations.
It wasn’t until Darboy died in prison – executed during the brief and terrible reign of the Paris Commune after the Franco-Prussian War – that a new Archbishop of Paris was elected in 1871, one Joseph Hippolyte Guibert.
Perhaps you’d be bold enough to insinuate Pius IX was less learned about “Cum ex”, its decrees, and how to apply them than you are?
Marie,
I wish you had taken a look at the link to Fr Demaris’ letter before making your comment dismissing its relevance for our times out of hand.
There are many many Catholics all over the world who do not have access to a Catholic Priest.
Please note that regular sedevacantist chapels (putting aside any concerns about jurisdiction for the moment) don’t exist outside the US and very few other countries. Some countries have a priest visiting perhaps one or two locations countrywide about once a month, others have no Priest visiting at all.
So, the option of attending Sede chapels is not available to a large number of Catholics even if they wanted to.
It is indeed important to state the necessity of Priests, and you may be in a fortune position to have a true Catholic Priest, but the vast majority of Catholics do not have what you have.
Fr Demaris’ letter is highly relevant for Catholics without regular access to a Priest; it gives excellent guidance, hope and consolation. God has provided for us and he really is with us always.
ASB,
“(For those who might ‘miss it”, the departure of the Vicar on earth, with the Voice being then left to us in His Holy and Perpetual Magisterium, can be likened to the Ascension, whereby Christ departed and the Holy Ghost was to then sent to His disciples to remain with them and teach them all things… in His Physical absence.)”
Except not really.
Christ’s physical absence was a common factor both then and now, so the analogy’s already broken down. For that matter, Peter already received the prerogatives of papal primacy before the Ascension, and is present to visibly confirm his brethren, whereas now Peter’s successor is vacant. Furthermore, the time between the Ascension and the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was less than two weeks, while we’re now over seven decades past the death of Pius XII.
So likening our current situation to that the Apostles faced between Ascension Thursday and Pentecost Sunday is just a **bit** of a stretch, as far as analogies go.
(One more part where the analogy breaks down: the Magisterium is still present in the body of Catholic doctrine, and has been since the death of Pius XII; we’re not waiting for the Magisterium to descend as the Holy Ghost did at Pentecost…and when the Holy Ghost did descend, it did not do so invisibly.)
ASM, et al
I popped in and quickly skimmed over some of the comments directed at me and such and I must admit – I had a bit of a chuckle…
You people are flat out OBSESSED.
There can be only one logical reason for this: you are not arguing with or trying to convince me/us; subconsciously you are arguing with and trying to convince yourselves that you are not committing sacrilege.
I’m not biting and I do not care what you have to say so save your energy beginning now; I care only what Christ tells me, and apparently none of you believe that it IS actually HE Who Speaks TO US in His Magisterium. Was Jesus Christ NOT given ALL POWER in heaven and in earth? Or, was that only… on earth until Pius XII died, which, by the way, the impending death of whom he apparently didn’t foresee when one of those pesky ‘ol, irrelevant documents you literally despise was released on June 29, 1958.
I rest my case on the ROCK of the authentic Chair of Peter and the PERMANENT Magisterium of Holy MOTHER Church, which is THE CHURCH*. Why let the likes of “us” bother you so much? Be “at peace” now and do as YOU will, in DISunity, with “nothing” left to guide you but your UNLAWFUL pastors; doomed, wandering stars keeping not your place.
“6. In this we know. ]. This is the most SURE and general Mark to KNOW the true spirits and prophets from the false: those that be of God, will HEAR and OBEY their Apostles and LAWFUL pastors succeeding the Apostles, and SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CHURCH* OF GOD: the OTHER, that BE NOT OF GOD, WILL NOT HEAR either Apostle, pastor, OR CHURCH*, but BE THEIR OWN JUDGES.” Annotation for 1 John 4:6, Douay Rheims New Testament 1582.
ASM,
I’ll oblige you one last time, then please, don’t waste anymore of your energy:
The Pope > represents Christ on earth
The Pope > was taken “out of the way”
Christ sent the Holy Ghost to remain with them and teach them “all things”
We are NOW left with Christ’s Magisterium (the Voice of Christ AND the Holy Ghost) to teach us all the things we need to know to save our souls
Get it? Pick it apart as it could be, like everything else you attempt to explain away so as to do your own will. Maybe it’s not perfect but it is still a fair enough analogy, although maybe not in your “opinion”.
You choose to reject the Voice of Christ; I do not. Simple.
================================================
“6. In this we know. ]. This is the most SURE and general Mark to KNOW the true spirits and prophets from the false: those that be of God, will HEAR and OBEY their Apostles and LAWFUL pastors succeeding the Apostles, and SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CHURCH OF GOD: the OTHER, that BE NOT OF GOD, WILL NOT HEAR either Apostle, pastor, OR CHURCH, but BE THEIR OWN JUDGES.” Annotation for 1 John 4:6, Douay Rheims New Testament 1582.
Ursula,
Exactly.
There are many of us isolated, with no chance of access to a Catholic Priest, ever. Who must have “a hopeless orphan like faith” as it was called in the post above.
It’s the “hopeless” part that really hurts. But I wouldn’t think that having to sacrifice everything, if done for the honor of Christ, is “hopeless”.
Marie,
Lefebvre, for one example, was a schismatic -in conscience- for consecrating bishops without a Papal mandate from the man he always considered to be an actual Pope of the Catholic Church.
Of course, he was also an heretic and apostate for signing the Vatican II documents. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that he was an infiltrator or agent, because his writings and statements are all rife with contradiction and duplicity, all of which I was once blind to but now they are absolutely glaring.
ASB, there is one glaring error in your reasoning, “I care only what Christ tells me.” The whole purpose of the Church is that there would be authority to teach and obligation to assent. All of us can make a similar claim that we are listening to Christ. But what happens when what you hear contradicts what I hear? You are simply advocating a protestant method of discerning the will of God based on your own personal relationship with Jesus. A good analogy as to our current situation is a classroom with no teacher. We the students walk into a classroom and all we find are the text books but no teacher. We can all sit down and start reading those text books but without a teacher with authority to tell us how to understand what we are reading we are all simply left to our own personal understanding. So please stop thinking you have the Great Apostasy all figured out and you know exactly how to apply the stuff in the text books to our current situation. And please stop thinking that you and a few others are the only ones immune to being deceived.
One final point to ASB, and I believe that will do it for this thread:
“You people are flat out OBSESSED.”
Given your rhetoric on this thread and others, this comment is actually quite funny.
Also, obsessed with what? Pointing out errors or gaps in your argumentation? (Such as your apparent idea that a law or collection of laws can result in the end of the power undergirding those laws, when those laws derive their existence and force from that power to begin with! It’s a self-defeating proposition.)
“There can be only one logical reason for this: you are not arguing with or trying to convince me/us; subconsciously you are arguing with and trying to convince yourselves that you are not committing sacrilege.”
Or, just maybe, it could be that (based on what the Church has taught about herself), we legitimately believe that Apostolic Succession has not ceased, and that you are unnecessarily depriving yourself of many of God’s graces.
Even if you’re not going to be convinced, our arguments are still available for others who may not be actively posting, and are simply interested in trying to figure out how best to reconcile the current crisis with the Catholic Faith. Our back-and-forth will serve as valuable data for whoever’s reading. Contrary to what you may think, my posts here aren’t all about me and my desires.
“I care only what Christ tells me, and apparently none of you believe that it IS actually HE Who Speaks TO US in His Magisterium.”
Substitute “Magisterium” with “Holy Scripture”, and how does your approach differ at all from the average Protestant?
Not that you ascribe to the tenets of Protestantism by *any means*, but the point remains that you are making interpretations of what the Magisterium says and concluding that your interpretations are the only right one, in much the same manner of the average Fundamentalist who reads the Bible and concludes that their interpretations are correct, for they’re “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
Meanwhile, those like Tom A, Marie, and myself likewise profess submission to that same Magisterium, yet also recognize that we lack the authority to bind others to our own conclusions on matters that may admit of ambiguity (such as whether Pius XII would have still wanted his legislation to be enforced after 70 years of sede vacante), and make our points accordingly.
In short: we don’t act like the Pope. You (and others like IC), however, do.
“Or, was that only… on earth until Pius XII died, which, by the way, the impending death of whom he apparently didn’t foresee when one of those pesky ‘ol, irrelevant documents you literally despise was released on June 29, 1958.”
The enactment of ecclesial legislation by a Pope is not equivalent to clairvoyance in general.
But, for those who might not be aware: ASB is referring to Ad Apostolorum Principis, which was mentioned and addressed elsewhere in the thread above.
And again, just because I find your analysis and application of this encyclical in a particular circumstance (one far removed from the circumstance that AAP **was actually addressing**) to be erroneous does not mean I “literally despise” it or find it “pesky and irrelevant”. You should really get out of the habit of assigning ill motives to people who disagree with you in good faith.
“I rest my case on the ROCK of the authentic Chair of Peter and the PERMANENT Magisterium of Holy MOTHER Church, which is THE CHURCH.”
And we profess to do the same. But ecclesial legislation, inasmuch as it deals with matters of existence and not essence, is not **permanent**, as it has been subject to change. That key distinction is something you apparently do not want to grasp.
“Why let the likes of “us” bother you so much?”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I find the back-and-forth to be quite edifying, for iron sharpens iron. 🙂
“Be “at peace” now and do as YOU will, in DISunity, with “nothing” left to guide you but your UNLAWFUL pastors; doomed, wandering stars keeping not your place.”
As has been pointed out to you before, the same lack of unity in governance will increasingly apply to **all Catholics** the longer the Chair of Peter remains vacant, by **necessity**. In that light, to insinuate that the “home alone” position intrinsically possesses more unity than those of sede apostolates like CMRI/SGG is logically absurd.
Ultimately, in the practical order, you deride us for listening to “unlawful” pastors, while you yourself ARE your “own judge”, determining by thine own will what the Magisterium authoritatively says; deeming what the *only* true way there is to apply it; all the while anathematizing all those who disagree with your conclusions.
You’re not the Vicar of Christ. Stop acting like you are.
Also. as one final postscript regarding Thuc and Lefebvre; if Pius IX chose not to carry out the enforcement of “Cum Ex” (and yes, I know the text of Cum Ex speaks of automatic losses without the need of any recognition, but we’re speaking in the practical order here, and history speaks of subsequent Popes not carrying out the dictates of this legislation against those it would seem to apply to) against Darboy (despite how public the Archbishop’s heretical position and seemingly schismatic behavior was), then how exactly can you claim to enforce it against Thuc and Lefebvre when there was no Pope at all, and when the confusion facing the Church was churning in a time before instant Internet communication was even a thing? Thuc didn’t even have the option of having a superior to make his abjuration to, unlike Darboy. (Lefebvre is admittedly a different case, since he was a schismatic in the practical order and seemed to change his mind multiple times; however, this is not the same as being a schismatic in the absolute sense, seeing as how you can’t be schismatic toward someone who’s not the true Pope.)
May the Peace of Christ be with you all.
James_o I never meant to imply whatsoever that your Catholic faith is “hopeless”. I believe from what I have read in your posts that you do the best you can on this earth to be a faithful Catholic. But what I do mean is that the CONCEPT that you and Ursula and IC. ARE PROPOSING THAT there are NO LIVING PRIESTS OR BISHOPS on the face of this earth THAT GOD APPROVES OF is a hopeless concept- especially if the end of the world might be 50 years or 200 years from now. (The reign of Terror in France really was not that long and there were many priests during that time although many were persecuted but only 25 percent of the priests went with the false Masonic French Government) Ursula I did read that web site from Fr. Demaris 1801 and I think what he was telling them is if you have a priest that is a Masonic Government signing priest stay home and trust in God and I agree with him but I don’t think that all of the trad priests today are Pro Masonic government signing priests. I am braking this post up into parts so as to address the whole issue of staying home and “apostolic succession and the current crisis”.
All of the theologians, popes and saints which I quoted in various posts tells us that APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ON THIS EARTH WILL LAST till THE END OF TIME – so your idea is patently false.
THEREFORE, TO HAVE THE CONCEPT THAT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET TRUE BISHOPS AND TRUE PRIEST BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL RULE OF PIUS XII IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE CHURCH MILITANT ON EARTH IS DEAD except for the laity which lends itself to a PRO LAITY ANTI CLERGY VATICAN II WAY OF THINKING-(i.e YOU DON’T NEED PRIEST the sacraments come from the community making them happen!!!!!). Now I know that you are going to tell me that going to priests today WITHOUT a pope supplying jurisdiction is doing that but I have already proven to you that we have had interregnum’s in Church history and the Church itself supplied the jurisdiction as in the Great Western Schism when we HAD NO TRUE POPE FOR TWO YEARS! A man’s life time or even two life times is NOTHING in God’s concept of “Perpetual” and I do not think we as human’s can tell God what he can and cannot allow. He can allow the CHURCH TO be eclipsed and look like it is dead and buried with barely ANY PRIEST left.
Now sadly the folks that use the argument AGAINST SEDE- VANTISTM also use your same arguments In Caritas and Ursula they say well the WHOLE CHURCH WOULD HAVE Died IN 1958 IF WHAT YOU SEDE VECANTIST SAY IS TRUE BECAUSE THE WHOLE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS HAS BEEN ELECTING ANTI-POPES/ FALSE POPES EVER SINCE THEN AND THE WHOLE CATHOLICS INSIDE THE CHURCH ARE FOLLOWING THEM. Therefore there is NO VISIBLE CHURCH.
BUT YET FOLKS WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS A NOVUS ORDO CHURCH THAT IS VERY VISIBLE AND COVERING UP AND OBSCURING THE TRUE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS WHO HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM ELECTING A TRUE POPE BY ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH WHO ARE BEING ALLOWED TO DO THIS BY THE WILL OF GOD IN ORDER TO EVENTUALLY MAKE HIS BRIDE OF CHRIST SHINE FORTH TO MEN EVEN MORE TRIUMPANTLY AT THE END OF TIME. GOD ALLOWS THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY BUT AS CHRIST IS ETERNAL AND HIS CHURCH WILL LIVE ON FOREVER IN HEAVEN AND ON THIS EARTH TILL CHIRST ENDS HUMAN HISTORY ON THIS EARTH THERE MUST BE SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS ON THIS EARTH TO CARRY OUT CHRIST’S MISSION EVEN WHEN THE ANTI-CHRIST ARRIVES. MOST OF THEM WILL BE KILLED BUT THERE WILL BE A FEW. IF WE CAN NOT GET TO ONE SO BE IT. GOD WILL NOT LEAVE US ORPHANS AND I DO BELIEVE WHAT Fr. Demaris SAID that God will provide Himself IF WE ARE FAITHFUL. It is better to say home if you cannot find a true priest with apostolic succession in union with “eternal Rome” & the Catholic Church.
PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE SEDE VECANTISM SAY FIRST THAT WE KNOW WE HAVE a true pope because there is some “majority acceptance or unanimous consent”
I SAY no to that IDEA in a state of emergency because history proves this is NOT always the case as in what is happening now and what happened in the Great Western Schism as there was practically Unanimous consent of Benedict III an anti-Pope and also a false pope during the Great Western Schism because from 1415-1417 THERE WAS NO POPE SO DURING THOSE YEARS BENEDICT XIII WAS JUST A FALSE POPE and now we have these false Conciliar Popes who most Catholics accept but NOT ALL JUST A MAJORITY. THE MAJORITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE CHURCH, CHRIST constitutes THE CHURCH AS THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH TILL THE END OF TIME.
How do you know you have a true papal election “in a minimalist bare bones state as we are in now???? A true papal election is known If the electors are NOT manifest heretics and they do NOT elect a manifestly heretical pope and they were electors put into place by the Church after the death of the preceding pope and the election was NOT DONE BY COERCIVE MEASURES and they followed the rules set up perennially by the Catholic Church to achieve a valid true Catholic pope (follow as much as the current situation allows what Pius XII set up on rules for papal elections realizing that we are way overdue the 18 day rule this is where Epekie comes in as in would the mind of Pius XII be let the church die on earth because of a bunch of bone headed heretics) and the Bishops involved to achieve this papal election would be true Catholic, adult males with the use of reason under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. When God wants us to have this pope he will make sure that we get him. Until then I don’t think Apostolic Succession is dead and the Unity is with those Catholic Bishops, priests and laity who follow the Catholic Church whole and entire. I know there is very little “apparent” unity, but I do know that it is NOT IN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH OR THE VATICAN II FALSE POPES AND HEIRARCHY AS THEY ARE WOLVES AND HIRELINGS .
James_o and Ursula, To continue my answer to you -Say that possibly the end of the world is in 20 years from now (we don’t know when it will be- it could be 200 years ), and we are in the middle of the apostasy so that the anti-Christ comes , followed by the judgement of the world by Christ on the last day. If that read on things occurs it still does NOT mean that apostolic succession ends now in 2020 as IN Caritas believes – it means that apostolic succession ends when human history ends (because you don’t need to keep propagating Bishops and priests on the earth for the sacraments as they will be in Heaven when human time ends). The Catholic priest and Bishops and laity are already in heaven after Christ judges the world at the end of time and things are on the “eternal mode” when human history ends (thus no need to reproduce new ones for more faithful “to be born” as everyone has already arrived who God allows into Heaven. Till time ends we still have apostolic succession. How does got work this out in His Church??? You can barely see it but it has to be there. I don’t have all the answers. I know that but I also know that it is NO ANSWER TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE NO REAL PRIESTS OR BISHOPS when we have a CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THIS EARTH WE HAVE TO HAVE TRUE PRIESTS AND TRUE BISHOPS. Pius XII NEVER EXCOMMUNICATED THUC OR LEFEBVRE OR CASTRO MAYER, Abbe George de Nantes, Proenca SIGUAD OR Bishop Guérard des Laurier, Gommar DePauw, Fr. Wathen and called them MANIFEST HERETICS and I am NOT either. Any one of them could have repented for any way they may have compromised with the Conciliar Church on their dead bed and the sacraments they gave people in their lives helped to save souls. I think “A Simple Man” was trying to tell you with his 1865 Mgr. Darboy, archbishop of Paris story.
I know that papal elections are NOT TRUE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS ACCEPT IT BUT BECAUSE CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH APPROVES THEM as the MAJORITY IS OFTEN WRONG Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself told us “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Matt. 7:13, 14)
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the MAJORITY OF HER MEMBERS, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
This below shows us that a ‘MAJORITY APPROVING PAPAL ELECTIONS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT”
Pope Julius II (1503-1513)and the V Lateran Council decreed that PAPAL JULIUS II said, “the election of the Roman Pontiff is made..giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony….EVEN IF the election resulted in a MAJORITY of two thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, ELECTIONS ARE INVALID if obtained through simony. As in Cum Ex Apostolatus of Paul IV, it was recognized that someone could be invalidly elected to the papacy by the UNANIMOUS CONCENT of all the cardinals and that he would not be pope even if he were enthroned, acted as pope and was recognized as pope by all of the cardinals for any length of time. His appointments and his acts would all be entirely void….
…or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is THIS IS ELECTION OR CHOICE ITSELF NULL, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy…”
There is also historical precedent for a large majority falling away from the Faith. This happened on a universal scale in the 4th century during the time of the Arian heresy. William Jurgens, Faith of Our Fathers:
“At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Saint Gregory Nazianzus’ present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by POPULARITY, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”
“In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Saint Basil the Great was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes NO ACCOUNT OF POPULARITY AND NUMBERS IN SHAPING AND MAINTANING DOCTRINE: else, we should long since have had to abandon Saint Basil and Saint Hilary and Saint Athanasius and Saint Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”
IN EXTREME EMERGENCIES CHRIST SUPPLIES THE JURISDICTION IF THERE IS NO POPE–GREAT WESTERN SCHISM
How could a bishop invested by an anti-pope, who clearly lacked the power to invest, acquire jurisdictional authority? According to theologian Fr. Zapelena, Christ Himself would have intervened and supplied jurisdiction, even to the anti-popes themselves (I think provided they are NOT manifest heretics otherwise it goes back to Christ himself as the supplier of emergency apostolic succession in an interregnum as I don’t think Zapelena knew what was coming) :
“For the rest, if you figure those three popes to be null, you ought to admit jurisdiction to have been supplied (on account of the color of title) not indeed by the Church, which lacks the supreme power, but by Christ Himself, Who would have conferred jurisdiction on each of these anti-popes as much as was necessary.” (De Ecclesia Christi Summarium, Thesis 13, p. 267, 1932)
Melanie excellent point on
January 20, 2020
“Or they just wanted to make sure that the Church didn’t have to last until the end of time, every good thing must end? Or In caritas is taking tremendous liberties to make a good idea, a quick conclave, into an infantile idea, no way to elect a Pope. The Church is here on earth and we can elect a Pope, I think he is just one of the many many people trying to ensure that doesn’t happen.”
And here Melanie This one really was slam dunk great to “A Simple Beggar, “Jorge and Ratzinger are both really old. What if they die and the world doesn’t end. Doesn’t it seem more sensible to just leave the end of the world up to God and elect a Pope. I don’t see why these Bishops that come from +Thuc and +Lefebvre can’t elect a Pope. The election of Popes hasn’t ALWAYS BEEN PRETTY, these guys were consecrated Bishops and they are Catholic.” God is waiting for us to see the truth of this crisis Melanie so that we can accept and follow a true pope instead of “recognize and resist ” him as we have been falsely told by the Pseudo trads.
Melanie- You really have a good sense of humor and a way of simplifying things to get to the meat of it whereas I go on and on. Good job I couldn’t have put it better myself about how the Church IS going to continue with priests and bishops till the end of time and a pope should be elected so the faithful need to wake up and stop accepting the frauds (then maybe God will stop sending us the “operation error”). I may not understand exactly how the Church continues with this apostolic succession during this emergency but she is doing it and SHE WILL DO IT. I have already proven to everyone using quotes from the popes, theologians and the Rheims bible 1582 (von Peters modern transcription PAGES 418-419) that even during the time of anti-Christ himself (and we really don’t know if he has arrived yet, most likely has NOT as in the final one) that the church will be in the CATACOMBS.
“The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis” by Abbot Combe, 1906: “The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the HOLY SACRIFICE HAS NOT REALLY CEASED: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, AND UNDERGROUND.”
Ursula I know your statement below. “Most Catholics around the world have NO traditional Latin Mass or Latin Mass priest that is VALID.” URSULA when the authority figures themselves rejected past popes and elected first a non heretic Siri who Pius XII liked and then forced him to resign to put Roncalli on the Chair an OTO heretic Ordo Templi Grand Orient every Thursday former Papal Nuncio of Paris Cardinal, well then of course things aren’t going to be “licit”; of course they are going to set up as Archibishop Lefebvre said “Bastard Rites” and a false Conciliar Church of “Concentric Circles” so as to “encircle the faithful” and try to lead “the Majority” out of the Catholic Church with “false reforms and a “new springtime” which is more like a nuclear winter “phony global warming” notwithstanding. Siri should have been a martyr but so many would have been killed so he allowed the status quo to go on. God allowed it so that His glory would shine through all the more when the eclipse lifts.
Ursula you state:
“Please note that regular sedevacantist chapels (putting aside any concerns about jurisdiction for the moment) don’t exist outside the US and very few other countries. Some countries have a priest visiting perhaps one or two locations countrywide about once a month, others have no Priest visiting at all.” I know that you can barely find them. That is true. I totally agree you can hardly find a Bishop or a priest left but there are still a few.
A Simple Man
That was an excellent comment about 1865 Mgr. Darboy, archbishop of Paris and how we should not be so quick to declare our fellow Catholics outside the Catholic Church UNLESS they are manifest heretics and apostates. This is why I do not attack Archbishop Lefebvre and I see that he had a right side and a left side and he tended to go with his “wrong left side” when it came to these false Conciliar pope clowns and he should have listened to Castro Mayer more.
Marie,
I never said there are no more Catholic Priests on this earth.
I never said anything negative about Padre Pio, the Abbe de Nantes, Fr Gommar de Pauw etc, I have no idea where you got this from.
Fact is most Catholics worldwide do not have access to a Catholic Priest. Some true Priests may be in hiding, so we don’t know who they are and don’t have access to them.
Sede priests (mostly of the Thuc and Lefebre line) are very few overall, most Catholics do not have access to them, even if they wanted to (many cannot relocate or travel long distances for numerous reasons).
I did not post Fr Demaris’ letter to make any comparisons whatsoever or to prove any point whatsoever.
I posted the link for the many Catholics who do not have access to a Catholic Priest to give them some guidance and hope.
A Simple Man,
Your statements above were simply the truth when you said for those who believe there is no priesthood left on this earth now or only “priests saying private masses with no faithful attending you reply to those folks with said position
“Ultimately, in the practical order, you deride us for listening to “unlawful” pastors, while you yourself ARE your “own judge”, determining by thine own will what the Magisterium authoritatively says; deeming what the *only* true way there is to apply it; all the while anathematizing all those who disagree with your conclusions.”
This opinion of NO Clergy on Earth seems to me to be a “laity” would then be the “Majority” and the ONLY ones left on this earth. Now on the face of it that doesn’t seem CATHOLIC to me – our CREED is the “APOSTLES CREED” NOT “The LAITY CREED”.
How can we use our “private judgement” to say WE HAVE NO MORE APOSTLES ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH when Christ said he would not leave us orphan??
A Simple Man when you said here”Thuc and Lefebvre; if Pius IX chose not to carry out the enforcement of “Cum Ex”” did you get the Pius IX right?????
or did you mean Pius XII -Pacelli????? I am a bit confused.
Also I think it is important to realize that Thuc may have signed something that he did not realize he was signing when he did that with JP II there is some evidence by Bishop Neil Webster when he (Bishop Webster) was a seminarian in I think it was upstate New York and that Thuc wanted to be with his fellow Vietnamese folks and a not so nice Vietnamese guy who was a friend of the Bad ” papal Nuncio” Pierre Longie and they took him to a hotel I think in Washington D.C. (might be wrong on the city) don’t know spelling of Longie too tired to look it up but this Cardinal Loungi was a Mason and bamboozled Thuc to go with him and tricked him into signing the paper to “abjure” his “schism” with JP II. I don’t know if that story is true or not but it is possible. I think that Thuc did what he thought he had to do at the time. He definitely made some bad choices in consecrated that bad Palmar de troya group but hey the made Tallyrand a Bishop to just before the French Revolution when there was a true pope. God’s glory shines through the wheat and the tares.
Marie,
There was a post I made in response to ASB the other day referencing historical events involving the Archbishop of Paris, Georges Darboy, and his disputes with Pope Pius IX in the 19th century. I was using that as an example of how the Church previously engaged her disciplinary laws with regards to wayward clergy (even with an archbishop), and how it seems on the face of it that Pius IX chose not to enforce the edicts of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (even though it would have absolutely been within his rights to do). That example was then applied to the cases of Thuc and Lefebvre (the former particularly), who certainly faced more mitigating circumstances post-V2 than Darboy did in the 19th century (at least insofar as the fact Darboy had reigning Pope, whereas all Thuc and Lefebvre had was an antipope).
That was the post I was referencing.
Hope that clarifies any confusion.
Tom_a
ASB, there is one glaring error in your reasoning, “I care only what Christ tells me.” The whole purpose of the Church is that there would be authority to teach and obligation to assent. All of us can make a similar claim that we are listening to Christ. But what happens when what you hear contradicts what I hear?
I think A Simple Beggar has told us regarding your above statement that “and apparently none of you believe that it IS actually HE Who Speaks TO US in His Magisterium.” And ASB believes that the Living Magisterium it telling you that it is a DEAD MAGISTERIUM as in NO more priests and Bishops walking on the earth to give the flock some emergency rations so they don’t starve.
ASB believes that his INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT AND OURS IS WRONG BUT YOU AND A SIMPLE MAN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO BIND OR LOSE THAT ON ANYONE JUST AS THOSE OF US WHO TAKE THE SEDE VANTIST POSITION SO AS TO UNDERSTAND WHA T IS GOING ON WITH THE CRISIS CAN NOT DO THAT FOR THE RECOGNIZE AND RESIST CATHOLICS BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A LIVING POPE TO COMMAND US TO BELIEVE IT.
I don’t’ think that just because ASB and In- Caritas state that NO earthly Bishops or Priests that a person can go to because there is NO pope to give them jurisdictions MEANS that they think like a PROTESTANT necessarily, but it does mean that they have to use their own “private judgement” in the light of Catholic perennial teaching TO COME TO A CONCLUSION WHICH MAY BE a misinterpretation thus AN ERROR. Now this reason also was why Archbishop Lefebvre when it came to his resistance of the New Mass and his protest of Vat. II said DO we have to become Protestants so as to remain as Catholic? Or words to that effect and I think what Lefebvre meant was that what Paul VI and company DID was pretty Protestant : to make a New Mass, change Church teaching on Religious Liberty, teach a subsist in Church with “Concentric Circles” AND SUPRESS THE OLD LATIN MASS- then you had his United Nations heretical statements and his successor JP II Assisi I UN. Prayer Meeting.
You cannot square the belief in NO CURRENT MAGISTERIUM (however much it may be stripped and curtailed with these below Church statements:
Catholic Encyclopedia “St. Irenaeus in his time was in admiration of it and he expressed his admiration in language of such brilliancy and poetry as is seldom to be met with in the venerable Bishop of Lyons. The outer and visible cause of its diffusion and unity is the splendid organization of the living magisterium. This magisterium was not instituted to receive new truths, but to guard, transmit, propagate, and preserve revealed truth from every admixture of error, and to cause it to prevail. Moreover the magisterium should not be considered as external to the community of the faithful. Those who teach cannot and should not teach save what they have learned themselves, those who have the office of teachers have been chosen from among the faithful and they first of all are obliged to believe what they propose to the faith of others. Moreover they usually propose to the belief of the faithful only the truths of which the latter have already made more or less explicit profession. Catholic Encyclopedia- Volume 15 – Page 11 – 1912 https://books.google.com/books?id=9sZAAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=St.+Irenaeus+in+his+time+was+in+admiration&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl7M6M55rnAhXPB50JHRSQBSAQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=St.%20Irenaeus%20in%20his%20time%20was%20in%20admiration&f=false
Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260
“ Like all the fomenters of heresy and schism, they make false boast of having kept the ancient Catholic faith while they are overturning the principal foundation of the Faith and of Catholic doctrine. They certainly recognize in Scripture and Tradition the source of Divine Revelation, but they refuse to listen to the EVER- LIVING MATISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, although this clearly springs from Scripture and Tradition, and was instituted by God as the perpetual guardian of the infallible exposition and explanation of the dogmas transmitted by these two sources. Consequently, with their false and limited knowledge, independently and even in opposition to the authority of this divinely instituted magisterium they set themselves up as judges of the dogmas contained in these sources of Revelation.”
As Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum 29th day of June, in the year 1896 THAT Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted:
sec 9 “IF IT (meaning the living magisterium) COULD BE IN ANY WAY FALSE- AN EVIDENT CONTRADICTION WOULD FALOOW, FOR THEN GOD WOULD BE THE AUTHOR OF ERROR” .” Below Is the above citation in context
sec 9″…Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the CHURCH A LIVING, AUTORITATIVE and PERMANENT MAGISTERIUM, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. IF IT COULD IN ANY WAY BE FALSE, AND EVIDENT CONTRADICTION FOLLOWS; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm
AD CAELI REGINAM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON PROCLAIMING THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE
45. For the rest, in this as in other points of Christian doctrine, “the proximate and universal norm of truth” is for all the LIVING MAGISTERIM OF THE CHURCH, which Christ established “also to illustrate and explain those matters which are contained only in an obscure way, and implicitly in the deposit of faith.”[60]
60. Pius XII, litt. enc. Humani generis: AAS XLII, 1950, p. 569.
POPE PIUS XII HUMANI GENERIS 12 August 1950
8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.
21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260.
21. …Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a LIVING TEACHING AUTHORITY to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”
Pope Pius XII “The Church has received in totality…all the means of salvation left by the Redeemer…Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth and all grace…it is the unique, the absolutely true religion. Being by the divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of Sacred Scriptures, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation and depository of the sacred Tradition LIVING within Her. She alone, by Herself under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of Truth.” Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953)
correction “”WHO TAKE THE SEDE VANTIST POSITION SO AS TO UNDERSTAND WHA T IS GOING ON WITH THE CRISIS CAN NOT DO THAT FOR THE RECOGNIZE AND RESIST CATHOLICS BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A LIVING POPE TO COMMAND US TO BELIEVE IT.
Corrected to mean SEDE VACANTIST POSITION
A Simple Man, Tom_a Melanie, Ursula, Louie and Company
This one proves we have to have apostolic succession today and for all times in the hierarchy :
“Pius XII, “38. While still on earth, He instructed us by PRECEPT, COUNCEL AND WARNING IN WORDS THAT SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY, and will be spirit and life [54] TO ALL MEN OF ALL TIMES. Moreover HE CONFERRED A TRIPLE POWER ON HIS APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, TO TEACH, TO GOVERN, TO LEAD MEN TO HOLINESS, making this power, defined by special ordinances, rights and obligations, the fundamental law of the whole Church.” (Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, 29 June 1943)
Folks there is NOTHING in the above encyclical that says apostolic ends or that we will have no more Bishops during a time of the Great Apostasy. The apostolic succession till the end of time is done “to lead MEN to HOLYNESS”. I know we see very few HOLY MEN but that does NOT mean that that there are NON. So I believe that we DO HAVE a “living magisterium” and we have to have “apostolic succession” till the end of time,” SO THERE MUST BE SOME EMERGENCY RATION Bishops to teach, govern and lead men to HOLYNESS. Thus they do a have authority although it is paired back as they have no jurisdiction at least not that I see but if there needs to be one somewhere then I believe it. Folks this triple power is NOT the triple Concentric Circles of the Novus Ordo subsist in false structure meant to embrace the whole world.
Marie,
That’s wonderful, I’m much relieved to hear it.
Now, if you could teach us all how to identify the legitimate and valid, Bishops and Priests, with Apostolic Succession, & what method you use to determine them, so that we can then apply it in the real world, and find them with the confidence enough to receive the Mass and Sacraments.
This would drive home all that you have written, and prove to be most helpful to many who seek.
We must find them now.
Good Friday morning, james__o,
I pray this reflection finds you on your journey into the Peace of Christ Jesus our Lord and our God, not to be found in this world, as witnessed here par excellence’, at aka. Amen. Please find the following quote now from the most eminent Thomistic theologian of the 20th century, Fr. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange, and as from his summa and summit of a brilliant, simple, Catholic life’s work, “The Three Ages of the Interior Life”, Amen. Alleluia. Please pray for Christ’s true children dear Fr. LaGrange. When you contemplate these words, you will immediately see the likes of JPeters, Tom A, mothermostforgiving, and with a lesser repugnance, 2Vermont, my2cents, Marie Tageye, etc. The, “reality as it is, truth thus”, as we are commanded by Jesus the Christ to, “know them by their fruits”, as this is objective witness. Amen. Alleluia. As The Christ commanded, the road to perdition is WIDE and many there are that go there, and the path which leads to the Kingdom of God has a narrow gate, and few there are that will find it. Amen. Alleluia. As this is the command of the God-Man. I implore you james__o, seek not the affirmation of any of these here, as they witness the utter lack of the reception of the divine and Catholic Gift of supernatural Faith. This is to be objectively witnessed. Amen. Only one who actually holds the Catholic Faith can see the hideous nature of those, who in their own abysmal, as Satanic deception, believe that they too actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith, yet their utter blindness to Truth does speak, as res ipsa loquitur. The philosopher, absent the divine Light of Faith, is blind to supernatural Truth, and can only understand that which the natural light of reason allows for, as the pagan Aristotle from Antiquity. Amen. He can see the acquired, moral virtues, yet is utterly blind as utterly absent, the infused moral virtues. Amen. Alleluia. These realities as they are, do indeed speak, and with a violent cacophony, as one can bear witness here, and particularly again through the witness of JPeters, Tom A, and mmf. Amen. May Almighty God bless and keep you on your journey into Him, james__o. In caritas.
“But the egoist knows little about the spiritual part of his soul, that which is common to the angel and to man. Even if he believes in the spirituality of the soul and of the higher faculties, intellect and will, he does not live in this spiritual order. He does not, so to speak know experimentally this higher part of himself and he does not live it sufficiently. If he knew it, he would find in it the image of God and he would begin to love himself, not in an egotistical manner for himself, but for God. His thoughts almost always fall back on what is inferior in him, and though he often shows intelligence and cleverness which may even become craftiness and cunning, his intellect, instead of rising, always inclines toward what is inferior to it. It is made to contemplate God, the supreme truth, and it often dallies in error, sometimes obstinately defending the error by every means. It has been said that, if life is not on a level with thought, thought ends by descending to the level of life. All declines, and one’s highest convictions gradually grow weaker.
The intimate conversation of the egoist with himself proceeds thus to death and is therefore not an interior life. His self-love leads him to wish to make himself the center of everything, to draw everything to himself, both persons and things. Since this is impossible, he frequently ends in disillusionment and disgust; he becomes unbearable to himself and to others, and ends by hating himself because he wished to love himself excessively. At times he ends by hating life because he desired too greatly what is inferior in it.”
James, you are changing the subject. Marie is discussing whether valid Bishops and Priests still exist and you are deflecting the issue by bringing up how to identify these valid clergy. You are implying that since Marie may not be able to identify valid clergy, then the rest of her argument is erroneous too. It is akin to setting up a straw man. This is what is so frustrating about arguing with dogmatic home aloners. When challenged you shift the discussion elsewhere. It is exactly how the R&Rers defend their heretical non binding “Pope.”
How am I changing the subject? If there is proof that legitimate and valid Priests and Bishops exist, why would one not want to find them? Wouldn’t that follow?
You call that “frustrating”, and consider I should be knocked down for even asking?
I give up. Enough already.
James is right,
What is the point of this theoretical point scoring if this does not help us locate a Catholic Priest?
We also want to go to Mass and receive the Sacraments, and I would travel to the end of the earth for this.
We stay at home, because we do not have access to true Catholic Priests (and have serious doubts about those that are presented to us as the solution. Fr Jenkins of the SSPV calls the Thuc line “non Catholic” and refuses to give sacraments to those who attend the Thuc line chapels, so there is doubt expressed by other Sedevacantists about them and not only the by the so-called “home aloners”).
We want to live and die Catholic. We know we must not attend doubtful Sacraments.
Dear James-o,
TomA is a sophist snake.
Ignore him.
It is pointless. These obstinates just want their sacraments. Any old bishop or priest that they consider “valid” will do. They are more than willing to deny the points raised, which are part and parcel of the Catholic Faith and being Catholic, in order to have them. Since they won’t hear the Church, God abandons them to their willful blindness.
There is NO “Common Error” to be found to supply Jurisdiction, either. All Sede and SSPX types publicly admit that they do not possess Jurisdiction.
Let’s leave them alone now in the “peace” of their false sense of security.
VRSNSMV
Folks,
not to disturb your inner discussion,
but to save you some time.
essence:
Mt: I believe that we DO HAVE a “living magisterium” and we have to have “apostolic succession” till the end of time,” SO THERE MUST BE SOME EMERGENCY RATION Bishops to teach, govern and lead men to HOLYNESS
James_o: Now, if you could teach us all how to identify the legitimate and valid, Bishops and Priests, with Apostolic Succession
—
You can not find anything to support “EMERGENCY RATION” in the Church teachings. You will find contrary.
You have make up something to uphold appearance of being Catholic.
I’m sure that with attitude: if “I believe” then “THERE MUST BE SOME EMERGENCY RATION ” you will find some ‘proof’ for what you believe.
Please, for your benefit, consider Sedevacantism as a false premise, just theoretically, and see what will happen. Don’t assume _anything_ just explore possibilities.
Marie Tageye, I hope there are valid Bishops. I’ve been fooled for decades thinking that some creepy Luciferian church was the Catholic Church so I don’t really trust that those words guaranteed specifically that we would have Sacraments, a Pope, Priests, or Bishops until the end of time. Maybe it is the end of time and we don’t. There have been times that whole countries have been placed under interdict, maybe God decided to place the world under interdict. I certainly am only guessing that based on the fact that I have no Priests or Pope. Others think that they have Priests and Bishops and I think that would be amazingly wonderful and that if it is true then they will elect a Pope and then I will have Priests and Bishops too. I’ll even make every attempt to move wherever I need to in order to be close to them. But my Bishops come from the Pope and until I see him, I don’t see Bishops, period. I don’t know who the heck wants to jump around from one cult to another. I am Catholic and I follow the Pope, that is it.
James, because the order of business is to determine if there can be valid priests in the day and age. Finding them would the second order of business. It is the Thomistic order of reasoning to deal with issues in their proper order. There is no sense looking for something if is known not to exist. I know you think otherwise, but I actually sympathize with the home alone position and think it is perfectly defensible using logic and reasoning based on Catholic principles. Where I disagree is when those who adhere to your position claim it is dogmatic and de fide. If you are not convinced that there are valid and licit priests, then there is no use searching for what is not there. That is why I claim you changed the subject. You do not need anything more than the “jurisdiction” issue to stay home. All you need to ask a sede priest is, “by whose authority do you say Mass?” Their only answer will be, “supplied jurisdiction or epikea.” And with that the discussion will end because there is no Pope to settle the issue. Only Divine Law governs us now, make Holy the Lord’s Day as you see fit. There is no one in authority to tell you how.
Fleur, james is a sede. Last I remember you were an R&Rer.
“Fleur, james is a sede. Last I remember you were an R&Rer.”
And rabidly anti-sede.
A Simple Beggar, Melanie, Ursula, Tom_a, A Simple Man & company,
ASB said here: ,” I will HEAR and OBEY their Apostles and LAWFUL pastors succeeding the Apostles, and SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CHURCH OF GOD: the OTHER, that BE NOT OF GOD, WILL NOT HEAR either Apostle, pastor, OR CHURCH, but BE THEIR OWN JUDGES.” Annotation for 1 John 4:6, Douay Rheims New Testament 1582. ( The annotation is for a statement against Protestant heretics.)
A Simple Beggar, & James_o Is our Catholic faith just something ONLY on paper found in the past or is it alive even during this horrible eclipse of the Catholic Church? The Church is for every age is it not??? Is it not alive in every age? Now further down I will show you what St. Vincent of Lerins said on these questions to prove my point that the clergy is alive and well but greatly reduced.
Even M.C knows that the Catholic Church will always have a magisterium on the face of this earth. Jesus said I will not leave you Orphans. When the head shepherd Pope is struck the little sheep herders the Bishops and priests will be scattered but in order to have as we were promised successors of the apostles till the end of time we will have emergency ration modern day apostles who will give us the sacraments so as to sanctify us and help us to be holy. I quoted you all the statements in my lasts post which proves that we will continue to have an “ever- living magisterium” as Pope Pius IX said TAKE IT UP WITH JESUS CHRIST AND PIUS IX IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I SAID.
Now M.C believes this even though M.C mistakenly believes it is in the FALSE VATICAN II HIEARCHY AND FALSE CONCILIAR POPES WHO MIX MOSTLY ERRORS WITH A FEW TRUTHS SO as to fool conservative Catholics like him to follow the One World Concentric Circle Teilhardian Pantheistic Pachamama Vatican II subsist in church of the Eclipse.
Where can we turn for the truth and where to find the Catholic Church today? Melanie says we should elect a pope so she can go back to Church (I am paraphrasing her) because we all know that a true pope supplies the jurisdiction. But Melanie we also know that during interregnums the Church or Christ himself supplied the “jurisdiction” when we have NO pope. We have to deal with what we have with this Great Apostasy until the Catholic faithful is ready for a true pope, which it clearly is NOT ready.
Look at how we are all arguing about this theological crisis of faith with very little agreement and folks ready to throw stones at counter-revolutionary clergy during Vatican II who tried to keep that Robber Council of V2 Orthodox but they failed because they were fighting against the wolves powered by Satan himself who had gained power and control over the Catholic Church as an “institution” and they did NOT UNDERSTAND these men were manifest heretics and had automatically lost their offices.
By the way I have not heard from In Caritas. I hope he is O.K and I mean that sincerely.
First we have to go to the Saint who lived through a great era of heresy and yes even apostasy in his day. This is what he did during the Great Arian Heresy when maybe only a handful of Bishops and Pope Liberius were Orthodox Catholics and had NOT left the Catholic Church. (The only difference between then and now is we have NO TRUE POPE for decades).
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (CA. 400-CA. 450) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
“What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.” (Commonitorium Chapter 3 verse 7) Go to the hierarchy that attaches itself to antiquity even IF THERE IS NO pope because there is no pope. The Church can survive without a pope in an interregnum even it is EXTREAMLY LONG as Fr. O’Reilly SJ pointed out. Those valid bishops we could turn to would be the Bishops who can trace their lineage to Pius XII both in the Byzantine Rites and in the Latin Rites and any other Rites in the Catholic Church. Do NOT attack me- you look into it yourself and you pray about it. I am not “pope Joan” I am a simple lay woman but God is not going to leave us with only lay people at the end of time because he promised to leave us a Church and she teaches us that “we will have successors of the Apostles till the end of time”. I am only repeating what I heard and saw in the Catholic Church and in the Catholic Church documents IN WRITING and real Bishops and priests who tell me that. If you stay home I am not attacking you. The Church will last folks because as St. Paul told us “it is the Pillar and Bulwark of TRUTH.” The Truth we have always with us in Christ Jesus when we abide in Him.
St. Vincent further says “[59.] BUT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, THE CAREFUL AND WATCHFUL GUARDINA OF THE DOCTRINCES DEPOSITED IN HER CHARGE NEVER CHANGES ANYTHING I THEM, NEVER DIMINISHES, NEVER ADDS, DOES NOT CUT FOFO WHAT IS NECESSARY, DOES NOT ADD WHAT IS SUPERFLUOUS, DOES NOT LOSE HER OWN, DOES NOT APPROPRIATE WHAT IS ANOTHER’S , but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view — if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils — this, and nothing else — she has thenceforward CONSIGNED TO POSTERITY IN WRITING WHAT SHE HAS RECEIVED FROM THOSE OF OLDEN TIMES ONLY BY TRADITION, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name. (Commonitorium)
St. Vincent further says 78] “….ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, we appealed to the example of the holy council which some three years ago was held at Ephesus in Asia, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus, where, when question was raised as to the authoritative determining of rules of faith, lest, perchance, ANY PROFANE NOVELTY SHOULD CREEP IN, as did the perversion of the truth at Ariminum, the whole body of priests there assembled, nearly two hundred in number, approved of this as the most Catholic, the most trustworthy, and the best course, viz., to bring forth into the midst the sentiments of the holy Fathers, some of whom it was well known had been martyrs, some Confessors, but all had been, and CONTINUED TO THE END TO BE , CATHOLIC PRISTS, in order that BY THEIR CONSENTIENT DETERMINATION THE REVERENCE DUE TO ANCIENT TRUTH MIGHT BE DULY AND SOLEMNLY CONFIRMED, AND THE BLASPHEMY OF PROFANE NOVELTY CONDEMNED. Which having been done, that impious Nestorius was lawfully and deservedly adjudged to be opposed to Catholic antiquity, and contrariwise blessed Cyril to be in agreement with it. And that nothing might be wanting to the credibility of the matter, we recorded the names and the number (though we had forgotten the order) of the Fathers, according to whose consentient and UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT, both the sacred preliminaries of judicial procedure were expounded, and the rule of divine truth established.
(Folks the “Unanimous Judgement” of the Early church fathers is a rule of faith but the unanimous judgement of heretical Cardinals is NOT a rule of faith and HAS ALREADY been proven absolutely NULL AND VOID Cum ex apostolatus officio and Pope Julius II (1503-1513)and the V Lateran Council. They are modernists and false fathers. The Church carries on in her laity and in her priest and Bishops until Christ’s return and it is the flocks duty to find them if they can. If you can not find them where you live God understands. The Catholic faith is a living faith NOT just a faith in WRITING.
What is the Church? Attwatter’s Catholic dictionary tells us that “It is a place of worship. The whole visible society in communion with the pope (folks we all know that the Church continues even with the death of a pope), the Church of Christ,,,,, A single family of Christians, the pastors of the Church Those who are in a clerical state and whose lives are devoted to the service of the Church.
BELOW http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73001.htm
The things which must shortly come;. . .and again it is said, ver. 3, The time is at hand. . .This can not be meant of all the things prophesied in the Apocalypse, where mention is made also f the day of judgment, and of the glory of heaven at the end of the world. That some things were to come to pass shortly, is evident, by what is said to the Seven Churches, chap. 2 and 3, Or hat the persecutions foretold should begin shortly. Or that these words signified, that all time is short, and that from the coming of Christ, we are now in the last age or last hour. See 1 John 2.18.
THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE
1:2 Who hath given testimony to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what things soever he hath seen.
1:3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy: and keepeth those things which are written in it. For the time is at hand.
1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace, from him that is and that was and that is to come: and from the seven spirits which are before his throne:
1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood
1:6 AND HATH MADE US A KINGDOM, AND PRIESTS TO GOD AND HIS FATHER. TO HIM BE GLORY AND EMPIRE FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN
1:7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him: and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen.
Correction here I meant to say
St. Vincent further says “[59.] BUT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, THE CAREFUL AND WATCHFUL GUARDIAN OF THE DOCTRINES DEPOSITED IN HER CHARGE NEVER CHANGES ANYTHING IN THEM, NEVER DIMINISHES, NEVER ADDS, DOES NOT CUT OF WHAT IS NECESSARY, DOES NOT ADD WHAT IS SUPERFLUOUS, DOES NOT LOSE HER OWN, DOES NOT APPROPRIATE WHAT IS ANOTHER’S ,
and “but all had been, and CONTINUED TO THE END TO BE , CATHOLIC PRIESTS, in order that BY THEIR CONSENTIENT DETERMINATION THE REVERENCE DUE TO ANCIENT TRUTH MIGHT BE DULY AND SOLEMNLY CONFIRMED, AND THE BLASPHEMY OF PROFANE NOVELTY CONDEMNED.
I am not the best typist. I misspelled Priest and DOCTRINES
Melanie,
The history of the Church is very interesting and papal elections as you aptly stated “not pretty”. Now did you know that from 1415 to 1417 THERE WAS NO TRUE POPE at that time and Benedict III a false pope claimed to be the pope now were the Catholics of that time following a Luciferian church??? Were there priest and bishops from 1415 to 1417???
There most certainly were otherwise we could not have Pius XII right??? They are still here today Marie and yes there will be a handful when Christ returns in “perpetuity”
THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE
1:2 Who hath given testimony to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what things soever he hath seen.
1:3 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy: and keepeth those things which are written in it. For the time is at hand.
1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace, from him that is and that was and that is to come: and from the seven spirits which are before his throne:
1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood
1:6 AND HATH MADE US A KINGDOM, AND PRIESTS TO GOD AND HIS FATHER. TO HIM BE GLORY AND EMPIRE FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN
Marie Tageye, What makes you say that the Catholic faithful, “clearly is NOT ready,” for a Pope? What exactly do you suggest would indicate that the Catholic faithful are ready for a Pope?
I’m shocked that you would compare an interregnum of 2 years to one of >60 even though I shouldn’t be bc I’ve seen this comparison before. I never stop being surprised. And what the heck are you even talking about? Do YOU imply that this antipope started a new religion that he called the New Order, back in 1415? He didn’t, I think we both know that, so I’m not sure what kind of games you’re playing but I’m not playing.
Tom_o, James_o , Fleur de Lis, Melanie, Ursula and others unless a few of you are being sarcastic I think you want to know where to find true Bishops and Priests if they exist which they do.
Tom A January 24, 2020 what you said below is a fact that people are missing but then you got attacked for the truth and called a “snake” which is not very charitable:
“James, because the order of business is to determine if there can be valid priests in the day and age. Finding them would the second order of business. It is the Thomistic order of reasoning to deal with issues in their proper order. There is no sense looking for something if is known not to exist. I know you think otherwise, but I actually sympathize with the home alone position and think it is perfectly defensible using logic and reasoning based on Catholic principles. ”
St. Vincent of Lerins does not tell an untruth James_O, Fleur de Lis and Ursula neither can Pius IX who said we have an “ever living magisterium” SO we must search for true Bishops and priests who reject the Conciliar Church and can trace their Holy Orders and Bishops back to Pius XII. The magisterial powers have been largely rejected do to the magisterium largely adhering to this Great Apostasy. The Home Aloners are right to be very leery of so many of these traditional Bishops and priests. I feel a great deal like people who are suspicious of today’s clergy in terms of you have to square everything you hear by the clergy with what the past Church always taught before 1958, and you have to check there orders.
I can see why so many Catholics who want to follow the traditional Catholic Church just stay home. Who can we turn to? We must turn to Christ and ask him to show us what to do and read the Early Church fathers who in unanimity are the rule of faith unlike the fraudulent majority of modernists who are also descendants of priests and Bishops who fell away from the last true Pope Pius XII teachings and twisted them. It would be better for anyone who could not find a priest or Bishop who adhered to the perennial magisterium as it was always known before 1958 to stay home.
Tom_a what James_a said here to me is the problem below because he wants to pick apart my “method” so as to justify his own position but I think that there most be more to this than what he posits because he is STICKING WITH THIS ALL TOO IMPORTANT TOPIC OF A VISIBLE MAGISTERIUM AN WHERE IT MIGHT BE James_o wrote below to me.
“Now, if you could teach us all how to identify the legitimate and valid, Bishops and Priests, with Apostolic Succession, & what method you use to determine them, so that we can then apply it in the real world, and find them with the confidence enough to receive the Mass and Sacraments. “This would drive home all that you have written, and prove to be most helpful to many who seek.We must find them now.”
James_o you are so right you see because there is NO pope you and I and Tom_o are struggling to be united on who will tell us just what clergy to go to right???
What was the ” method” they used in 1415 when there was NO true pope???
Guess what today is a similar PROBLEM compared to what CATHOLICS HAD FROM 1415 TO 1417 in that they HAD NO POPE AND THE CHURCH WAS IN A STATE OF CONFUSION AND THERE WAS APOSTASY AND HERESY AND PETER WAS NOT IN ROME FOR 40 YEARS.
NOW THERE HAS BEEN NO PETER IN ROME FOR 60 YEARS. Back then BECAUSE POPE GREGORY HAD RESIGNED IN 1415 DURING THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE and a few months later St. Vincent of Ferrer withdrew his obedience from a false pope Benedict III (de Luna) for the good of the Church but he and all the other Catholics went to the Bishops and priests who THEY THOUGHT WERE VALID from whatever LAST pope they may have truly or mistakenly adhered to ok!!!!!!!
We have some degrees of difference now in that it has been about 60 more years than the 2 years of uncertainty that they went through but they knew as we SHOULD know that Christ will NOT leave us orphans and He will leave us with priests and Bishops.
So James_0 was it NO Pope NO jurisdiction from 1415-1417???????????
Stay home if you want to no one is attacking you. God bless you. I never applied to be any “method” for anyone. I want to understand and believe what the Church teaches with the precept of “Apostolic Succession till the end of time” and the EVER-living magisterium and I did the research and I am convinced now more than ever that there are true priests on this earth and true Catholic Bishops.
I can NOT give you any certainty any more than the people back in 1415 had other than they continued to get sacraments and I am also. And NO I am not going to ANY old priest but I am going to a VERY OLD PRIEST who was ordained by a Bishop under Pius XII!!!!!
I am sorry that you and so many are in the situation you are in and that probably the situation I might be in very soon as more and more true priests die off and the younger ones are NOT in our area.
Melanie,
Of course our interregnum is longer that is obvious. I am not playing any games. I take the Catholic religion very seriously as you do. You are calling for a papal election to set things right. I wish they would do that but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. This is what Fr. O’Reilly back in 1882 said about a long interregnum and what might happen in the future (which Melanie we can apply to our time)
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd). They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. BUT THAT THE TRUE CHURCH SHOULD REMAIN BETWEEN THIRTY AND FORUTY YEARS WIHOUT A THOROUGHLY ASCERTAINED HEAD, AND REPRESENTATIVE OF CHIRST ON EARTH, THIS WOULD NOT BE. YET IT HAS BEEN; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that WE MUST NOT BE TOO READY TO PRONOUNCE ON WHAT GOD MAY PERMIT. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises. We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” (The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)
A Simple Man,
Thanks for the clarification I read the article about Darboy. It was very good.
A Simple Man,
Why do you think people want to attack Archbishop Lefebrre and Thuc who take the Sede Vecanstis stand but they believe there is no clergy??? Why do they lump them in with the Key apostates who lead the Vatican II Revolution?
In Caritas, I am glad you are back giving us an important reminder of “hell”. Keep scaring the Hell out of us.
James_o
I believe it is schismatic to resist a TRUE POPE. You have to follow a true pope. But you believe that JP II as I do was a FALSE non POPE. With that in mind how was Archbishop Lefebvre a schismatic from JP II???
I am TOTALLY against RECOGNIZING A FALSE POPE BUT I AM FOR resisting a FALSE pope. The false of the R& R crowd is that the recognize falsely the V2 popes as legitimate and they are ILLIGITIMATE because they are manifest heretics.
I would say my position is call a false pope a false pope or NON pope (if there is a true pope the false guy would be called an ANTI-POPE because he is against a true pope ) so by all means RESIST and do NOT recognize a false pope. DO not have a false resistance based on REBELLION (because the R&R crowd think it is ok to resist a true pope (falsely believing him to be) and this is a rebellious non catholic sort of spirit to have) but simply recognize a manifest heretic usurper as a false pope (as in all the Conciliar false popes).
I would like to know why you say Archbishop Lefebvre was a schismatic?? He did not follow the Conciliar False Church and he did not follow the Conciliar false popes. He resisted it. I think he had a false position and perhaps a schismatic attitude because he believed in recognize and resist but in reality the men he was against were NOT in fact true popes so how was he a schismatic????? It was a time of great confusion and you said yourself that you were not always Catholic. The schism was caused by the false popes Archbishop Lefebvre was just trying to follow the Church as it was always practiced but he was confused about the Conciliar Popes. For that matter Padre Pio who had the stigmata also called Paul VI a “Pope” so was he schismatic also??? I am not sure what your position is. Are you telling me that every Catholic who was confused for the past 60 years is outside of the Church and in Apostasy if they thought all the Conciliar false Popes were popes and called them as such?
Marie,
From what I can see, it amounts to seeing the signatures of Thuc and Lefebvre attached to some of the documents of Vatican 2, and then applying the edicts of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio to them as a result.
A good overview of this is provided by John Daly, who translated Cum Ex into English to begin with in the 80s: https://romeward.com/articles/239752711/archbishop-lefebvre-vatican-ii-and-the-signatures-controversy
Quote:
—-
Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II and the Signatures Controversy
This month’s column is devoted to answering a serious objection raised by more than one reader. Here is how one of them expresses the difficulty in a letter to the editor:
“…while your intention to unite Catholics is commendable, I would like to address a serious problem you have overlooked. You have indicated that the common denominator among the various groups and individuals listed is their rejection of Vatican II and the Modernists. What happens when in the genealogy of at least two of the entities mentioned…we find prelates who did not reject Vatican II and the modernists but instead actually signed the documents of this spurious Council? The answer to this question is found in the BullCum Ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV. Having signed these documents, Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc fell under censure and lost the authority of their office for all time. Any subsequent attempt to ordain or consecrate would be illegitimate and would produce only illicit offspring, whose Masses would be sacrilegious and sacraments unavailing to salvation. As a result, there exists neither Apostolicity nor other marks of the true Church. Without all four marks there cannot be unity.”
As always in this column our intention is to give replies that are solidly researched and founded on solid authority. No slick answers, no second-hand, unproved allegations: instead, the desire to present Catholic truth as clearly and accurately as possible, stating as certain what is certain and as doubtful what is doubtful. Anathema in the face of heresy, but calm debate where honest disagreement is the problem: and no rash confusion of the two. In this spirit we shall today consider the exact import of signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
But before doing so, one clarification is necessary. At no stage has the editor claimed that all those who reject Vatican II and the Modernists are therefore themselves legitimate, orthodox and (if ordained) suitable sources of the sacraments. At no stage has she either pre-judged the often difficult issues dividing traditional groups or affirmed that all such issues are a matter of free opinion. And in fact that is not her conviction. What she doesbelieve is that the rejection of Vatican II and Modernism constitutes a suitable common denominator for readership of a useful monthly journal, one of whose roles is to permit charitable and serious discussion of the points readers are not yetall agreed on. And this columnist shares that view.
Against that background, let us re-state the objection in question form: when a bishop signed one or more documents of the Second Vatican Council, is it certain that he by that very fact forfeited all offices in the Church? Without hope of re-instatement? And in consequence cannot legitimately ordain priests having the right to offer Mass? So that any priests so ordained and the groups they serve constitute or are part of a religious body lacking the four marks of the Catholic Church after which this Catholic newspaper is named?
The present writer has some modest claim to be listened to on these subjects, for it was he who in 1984 first discovered the signatures of Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc and Bishop de Castro Mayer in the Acta Synodalia of the Second Vatican Council and published photocopies of them in a sedevacantist periodical. (The Rev. Dr. Brian Harrison, a scholarly but wrong-headed defender of Vatican II’s orthodoxy, has attributed this discovery to French priest Fr de Blignières, but de Blignières in fact independently made the same discovery several years later.) It was also the present writer who made, in 1983, the most widely circulated translation of Pope Paul IV’s BullCum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559) on which the objector relies.
Nonetheless I do not think it possible to sustain as certain all the objector’s conclusions. Let me state some of the main difficulties that stand in the way:
1. Vatican II promulgated sixteendifferent documents, but there are only six lists of signatures appended to them. This is by any standards a curious proceeding if the signatures are intended to express consent to the whole of the Council’s teaching. There is no doubt that all three bishops who later came to be associated with the traditional resistance to Vatican II signed these six lists (except the first, which seems to relate exclusively to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and which does not bear Archbishop Thuc’s signature). Archbishop Lefebvre spoke inaccurately in saying that he had not signed them, but the cause of his error may have been sincere confusion as to what these lists of signatures in fact meant. There is thus a serious doubt of fact at the heart of the issue: what documents do the six signature lists relate to and what did the bishops understand their signatures to imply?
2. There have been other historical cases in which bishops, united in council or not, have been induced to sign statements incompatible with the Catholic faith, yet the Church has not formed in their regard precisely the same judgment as the objector. One obvious example was that of the Council of Rimini in the year 357 when almost all of the Western bishops were prevailed upon to sign a heretical semi-Arian formula, which, however, some of them had believed to be still compatible with orthodoxy. In his brief Quod Aliquantum of 10th March 1791, Pope Pius VI had occasion to summarize the Church’s attitude on that occasion: “Neither do we wish to allow the Bishop of Autun [Talleyrand] and those who may meanwhile have forsworn themselves after his example, to be ignorant of the Church’s pronouncement upon those Bishops who were present at the Council of Rimini and who, yielding to fear of the threats made by the Emperor Constantius, signed the equivocal and captious formula invented by the Arians to deceive them. Pope Liberius warned them that if they persisted in this error he would deploy to punish them all the authority that the Catholic Church gave him. Saint Hilary of Poitiers had Bishop Saturninus driven out of the church of Arles as hepertinaciously defended the doctrine of the Arian bishops. Finally the judgment of Liberius was confirmed by Pope Damasus…so that even the bishops of the East could publicly retract their errors if they wished to be Catholics and counted as such. ‘We believe,’ says Saint Damasus, ‘that those whose weakness does not allow them to take this step, must be separated as soon as possible from our communion and deprived of the episcopal dignity, so that the people of their dioceses may breathe in freedom from error.’ It cannot be denied that the bishop of Autun and his imitators are in the same situation as the bishops condemned by Liberius and Damasus. For this reason, if they do not retract their oath, they know what they must expect.”
In short, while the Church utterly condemned the heretical council, she did not consider the bishops who had been induced to sign the subtly heretical statement to beautomatically deposed and excommunicated. One would say rather that she treated them asvehemently suspect of heresy and formally enjoined them to recant. Those who refused to withdraw the error when the pope condemned it, and to re-affirm the true faith, were considered to be plainly heretical and duly deprived of their offices.
On the other hand, there was a group which held that all the Rimini signatories were necessarily, permanently and automatically deprived of Catholic communion and authority and that no recantation could save them. A certain school of sedevacantists in our days seem to be animated by the same spirit. But unfortunately this group, known as Luciferiansafter the name of their leader, Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari (Sardinia), are considered as schismatics by the Church!
Now can it not at least be reasonably argued that the case of Vatican II is very similar to that of Rimini, and at least no worse? If so, we have a more complicated situation than the objector realises. We have bishops who had made themselves legitimately suspect of heresy but who, allowing for subtle arguments used to argue that the decrees were orthodox, may not have been manifestly pertinacious heretics even if they actuallyvoted for the decrees. A true pope would have demanded recantation, but none in fact did. And in any event their interventions on the Council floor and their statements and actions after the Council show clear disapproval and rejection of the errors that Vatican II in fact contains – at least in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, if not in that of Archbishop Thuc. And all subsequently expressed public disapproval of Vatican II and its errors.
On this understanding, those who insist, as a condition of Catholicism, on rejection of all those ordained since the Council by any bishop who participated in it, may be closer to the schismaticLuciferian position than to the mind of the Church. For St Thomas Aquinas reminds us that “doubt as to whether certain persons are excommunicated either precedes the sentence of the judges or else follows it. If it comes before, for instance when it has not yet been declared by the consensus of the judges that certain persons areexcommunicated, they are not to be avoided until the matter has been closed by definitive judgment. For in this case it is true that we ought to follow the milder interpretation.” (QuodlibetIV, art. xiv)
3. Automatic excommunication and automatic loss of all ecclesiastical offices are effects of public or manifest heresy. That is the doctrine of Saint Robert Bellarmine, which most sedevacantists regard as one of the clearest authorities authorising, or rather compelling, them to reject the pseudo-popes of the Vatican II revolution. And it is enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canons 2314 and 188). Now the definition of the act of heresy given by Saint Thomas and adopted by the Code ispertinacious dissent from a dogma on the part of a baptised person. “If, after disputed issues have been settled by the authority of the universal Church, one werepertinaciously to reject her ordinance, he would be considered a heretic.” (Summa Theologiæ, II-II, q. 11, a.3) See also Canon 1325§2: “…if someonepertinaciously denies or doubts any of those truths that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith…” And Canon 2197§4 also emphasizes that a public delict is one of which not only the act but also the imputability is public.
Here too the truth falls between two extremes. Quite false is the claim often made by supporters of the SSPX that pertinacity can be known only by official monition and sentence. But no less false is the notion that pertinacity is invariably presumed whenever an erroneous statement is made or accepted by one who sincerely wants to be orthodox. This pertinacity is the awareness that one’s expressed beliefs are not in accordance with Catholic doctrine. When it is truly clear that someone is thus pertinacious, he is no longer a Catholic and no longer holds any office in the Catholic Church (to which he no longer belongs). But there can be no side-stepping the condition of pertinacity. Pope Paul IV was an eminent scholar, theologian and canonist. When he refers in his celebrated bull to the consequences of falling into heresy, he obviously means heresy as defined by the Church. Mere doctrinal confusion does nottrigger excommunication or deprivation and Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio does not suggest that it does.
4. True, some have quoted authors such as Beste and Mackenzie to justify their opinion that by Canon 2200§2 this pertinacity is always canonically presumed. But Cardinal Billot, a much higher authority, demolishes this claim and calls it “absurd” in his de Ecclesia (see Appendix below). Pertinacity is presumed when there are solid grounds for presuming it, and it is presumed in the case of all public members of condemned sects. In the present writer’s judgment, Josef Ratzinger, like Karol Wojtyla and Giovanni-Battista Montini before him, is clearly pertinacious in the rejection of numerous Catholic dogmas and indeed in rejecting the very foundation of all dogma. The same applies to the bulk of the bishops who enforced the post-conciliar apostasy. But it is much more questionable whether that was the case of every single bishop who signed the mysterious six lists at Vatican II. And it is positively out of the question to allege it of all those who deign to receive the sacraments from priests ordained after Vatican II by one or other of the traditional bishops.
I would therefore reply to the questioner and to those who think as she does, that doubtful opinions can be courteously discussed by faithful Catholics who find themselves in disagreement, but should not be erected into dogmas. Those sedevacantists who have most seriously studied the relevant theology, philosophy, Canon Law and Church history are seldom those most vociferous in laying down the law with certitude on every point and declaring all who differ from them to be outside the Church. There may be good reasons for avoiding one or more of the groups she refers to, but the case she presents is not sufficient in itself to impose that conclusion and in any event there can be no reducing the limits of the Catholic Church to “the communion of all those who agree with me in rejecting Fr. X.”
More on the vexed question of establishing pertinacity in heresy for another month: there is enough of it about without having to imagine it to exist among those who are merely confused.
Appendix
Billot on the Nature of Heresy
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin and indeed it is not necessarilyincompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For they may explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the others, though not explicitly, yet implicitly, through their disposition of mind and good will to adhere to whatever is sufficiently proposed to them as having been revealed by God. In fact they can still belong to the body of the Church by desire and fulfil the other conditions necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, as to theiractual incorporation in the visible Church of Christ, which is our present subject, our thesis makes no distinction between formal and material heretics, understanding everything in accordance with the notion of material heresy just given, which indeed is the only true and genuine one. (1) For, if you understand by the expressionmaterial heretic one who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still denies something defined by the Church because he did not know it wasdefined, or, by the same token, holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted. For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case mentioned [of someone who is resolved to believe all that the Church teaches but makes a mistake as to what her teaching consists in — JSD], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially.” (Cardinal Louis Billot S.J. [1846-1931] widely held to have been the foremost Thomistic theologian of recent centuries, in his De Ecclesia Christi, 4th edition, pp. 289-290)
It is clear from this text that a simple error of fact as to what the Church teaches or who is her pope does not constitute even material heresy or schism. A heretic is not one who makes amistake about what the Church teaches, but one who does not admit the principle of submission to the Magisterium at all. Similarly a schismatic is not one who errs in judging whether a given individual legitimately occupies the Holy See, but one who recognizes no duty of submission to the legitimate occupant of the Holy See. So when Canon 731§2 forbids the sacraments to be given to heretics and schismatics who err in good faith, it is referring to those who are in invincible ignorance of the duty of belonging to the Church, not to those who inadvertently err on a point of doctrine or in evaluating the claim of a given individual to be pope. Priests may not administer the sacraments to schismatics even if they were raised in schism and are not culpable. But it would be a total misunderstanding to equate such persons with Catholics who are confused in evaluating the present status of John Paul II.
Footnote
(1) Cardinal Billot is writing in explanation of his eleventh thesis under question 7 of the work in question. This thesis reads as follows:
“Although the baptismal character is sufficient of itself to incorporate a man into the true Catholic Church, nevertheless a two-fold condition is required for this effect in adults. And the first condition is that the social bond of the unity of the faith be not impeded by formal or even material heresy…”
© John S. Daly 2007-2017
This article originally appeared inThe Four Marks.
—-
End quote.
In short, it is not so cut and dry as some would make it seem.
We do have a Pope, he is called Benedict XVI. Rejoice! He never resigned the office.
Ursula:
Yes, might you be referring to this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak070caHfY
Hi James,
I can’t listen to this particular video right now, but yes, I got this from Fr Jenkin’s videos – he has at least three videos about the Thuc line, including an older one when he was much younger, and he also deals with this issue in a few Q&A sessions.
His main points, if I remember correctly, are Archbishop Thuc’s consecration of a non-Catholic to the episcopate thereby incurring automatic excommunication, his concelebration of a Novus Ordo mass (where he (Thuc) said he withheld intent at the consecration) and the bizarre consecration ceremony of Gerard DeLauriers (without proper witnesses, mentioning JPII repeatedly with Gerard DeLaurier repeatedly protesting etc).
Mario Derkson from Novus Ordo Watch has written a refutation, however this does not address all concerns satisfactorily.
Fr Jenkins advises strongly against attending the Thuc chapels and refuses to give Holy Communion to those who go there.
Ok, Thanks.
On this note (Thuc), and for anyone who understands that they need to be sure from when their pastors come, there is an audio series at this link about 2/3 of the way down the page called, “Who is right and who is wrong?”, put together by a former CMRI priest in the 80s. Keep in mind that he has discovered more truths since that time.
You might need to exercise some patience in order to get through it, perhaps use some earphones while doing chores. If you miss even just one “tape” you will miss important information, much of which comes right from the horses’ mouths much of which is shocking and likely no longer discussed much less known by newcomers. This is extremely important to hear.
https://www.jmjsite.com/audiobooks.html
Ursula,
With regards to at least some of your objections mentioned, Anthony Cekada has a rather systematic treatment here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=54&catname=14
Poor, poor, non-Catholic as Gnostic fool, A Simple Man,
You are so utterly steeped in arrogance, masquerading as, “A Simple Man”, that you are utterly blinded to the reality as it simply is, that you deny the living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, just as your friend in sophistry, John Daly, even though you both affirm the deception that you submit to it. These truths simply speak, as res ipsa loquitur, and as the Incarnate Son of God commanded: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.” The evil tree cannot bear good fruit and The Christ commanded that He will cast the evil trees into the everlasting fire. Amen. Alleluia. Your fruits are poisonous evil, A Simple Man, as are those of your mentor in type, John Daly. You actually as literally quote him as denying, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, as vehemently and you then claim his to be a, “Catholic”, voice, you miserable, miscreant, imbecilic fool. The sophist John Daly quotes Church history from centuries prior 1559 when, “Cum Ex…”, became Apostolic teaching and governance, you miserable, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual fool. Pope Paul IV deems it to be unchangeable, holding unto the end of time, and it was later affirmed by Pope Saint Pius V in his Bull, “Inter Multiplices”, December 21, 1566. Amen. This is the Mind of Blessed Peter, you ignorant, jingoistic fool. The Mind of Peter does not change from one Vicar of Christ to the next, you pseudo-intellectual, heretical fool. Blessed Peter’s governance, as in his Successors, cannot bind the faithful to error, as Christ cannot bind His perfectly miserable creatures to error, you fool. This governance can and has changed, but when it is tied intimately to matters deFide, and deemed thus unchangeable by the Vicar of Christ, so it is done. Amen. “Cum Ex….”, stands as the governance of Holy Church unto the Last Day. There is one man in the cosmos who can change Church governance which is not intimately tied to matters deFide, as Church history speaks to this reality as it is, and that is the singular Vicar of Christ. Simply because Church governance can change, does not somehow empower those who hold the divine and Catholic Faith, to change it at their own caprice, you heretical, pseudo-intellectual, faithless miscreant. To change this governance is within the divine as Apostolic Power of Blessed Peter in his Successors alone. As you deny this A Simple Man, you deny the whole of the divine and Catholic Faith, rendering you definitively as objectively outside the Catholic Church where there is no salvation, on your own personal path to an eternity in Hell with your Prince. Amen. Pope Pius XII taught this definitively in, “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, and he did so with the pain of Hell as the punishment for any man who would deny the current governing Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, and instead suggest that because the Church allowed for something other in the past, that the Catholic was somehow free to pick and choose which Church discipline he would follow, you pseudo-intellectual jingoist as heretic. Find Pope Pius XII Apostolic declaration as from, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, here:
“43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.
44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”
You and the man you quote, John Daly, are definitively as objectively outside the Catholic Church and on your own sure as certain paths to Hell for all eternity with your Prince, who fills your mind with utterly poisonous, evil fruit, and you willfully assent to it, as you do not hold the divine and Catholic Faith to protect you from this heresy. Amen. Alleluia. And lastly for now, understand who you are, as edified in the beautiful teaching of the most eminent Thomistic theologian of the 20th Century, dearest Father Reginald Garrigou LaGrange, from his summa, “The Three Ages of the Interior Life—Prelude of Eternal Life”. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you submit to the living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending, deFide, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is Jesus the Christ teaching and governing His tiny flock now present in the world and unto the Last Day. Amen. Alleluia. One simply must hold the Truth to know this and only those who hold the Truth will enter the Beatific Vision, deFide. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Fr. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange:
“But the egoist knows little about the spiritual part of his soul, that which is common to the angel and to man. Even if he believes in the spirituality of the soul and of the higher faculties, intellect and will, he does not live in this spiritual order. He does not, so to speak know experimentally this higher part of himself and he does not live it sufficiently. If he knew it, he would find in it the image of God and he would begin to love himself, not in an egotistical manner for himself, but for God. His thoughts almost always fall back on what is inferior in him, and though he often shows intelligence and cleverness which may even become craftiness and cunning, his intellect, instead of rising, always inclines toward what is inferior to it. It is made to contemplate God, the supreme truth, and it often dallies in error, sometimes obstinately defending the error by every means. It has been said that, if life is not on a level with thought, thought ends by descending to the level of life. All declines, and one’s highest convictions gradually grow weaker.
The intimate conversation of the egoist with himself proceeds thus to death and is therefore not an interior life. His self-love leads him to wish to make himself the center of everything, to draw everything to himself, both persons and things. Since this is impossible, he frequently ends in disillusionment and disgust; he becomes unbearable to himself and to others, and ends by hating himself because he wished to love himself excessively. At times he ends by hating life because he desired too greatly what is inferior in it.”
Marie,
Like Melanie stated above, a 2 year interregnum between true Popes would leave none of us wondering about where we could find bishops and priests.
The current state is unprecedented in history. A true Pope is given the authority straight from the Lord, absolute and immediate, and gathers the Church together.
The long absence of a true Pope is the very worst thing that can happen, and deprives all of the objective means to verify bishops and priests. All we are left with, it seems, is to grasp at the shaky straws of “validity”, and lineages of ordination, and make personal calls based on our own conclusions. But they were supposed to be sent to us, and not chosen by us.
Catholics regularly pray for the conversion of souls, but very few think about the confusion a new convert has to face when finally arriving at the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
I’m weary of the mess, and cannot make any more “judgements” without authority, so I have no other choice but to remain banished outside the gate.
That’s just the way it is.
Good Monday morning dear james__o,
Never forget that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is here today as it was at the time of its nascent genesis, Pentecost, unchanged in Her foundation, as by one iota, as it is the Mystical Body of Christ in Her very metaphysical Substance, in Her Soul. The soul we cannot see, yes. Amen. Alleluia. We have infallible teaching in, “Satis Cognitum”, which warns us as follows:
” 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.”
The Vicar of Christ speaks as Christ in this wretched world and through Christ’s Magisterium. Amen. He commanded thus as above: “..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.” He commanded that the, “foundation”, does not change one iota, and further he commanded that, “each component part”, is vulnerable and as such can be overcome by the powers of Hell, and indeed some already had done so in the Mind of Blessed Peter, in his Successor, Pope Leo XIII. Amen.
Anyone, “outside the gate”, today as since the beginning, is simply not Catholic, does not hold the divine and Catholic Faith and simply cannot see the, reality as it is, thus. This too, Pope Leo XIII warned us of in, “Satis Cognitum”, as here:
” 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).”
Take heed as to what is said here dear james__o. The Vicar of Christ deems this comment of Hilary then into the infallible Magisterium, which condemns those who simply cannot comprehend the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as being tantamount to, “…sterile and worthless sand: THEY CANNOT COMPREHEND.”
So much for needing an, “interpreter”, for the divine Interpreter, as the Vicar of Christ Jesus. Amen. Alleluia. This command condemns all of the heretical, miscreant, imbecilic fools as: Tom A, mmf, A Simple Man, 2Vermont, my2cents, JPeters, Marie Tageye, MC, etc., etc., etc. Amen. Alleluia. They have all claimed or intoned that we need a Pope to interpret that which the Popes of all time, as the Vicars of Christ, in the One Mind of Blessed Peter, have already interpreted for those who hold the divine and Catholic Faith. They simply cannot comprehend this, as they remain damned outside the Holy Catholic Church, where there simply is no salvation, deFide. Amen. Pope Leo XIII clearly as pristinely warns them and in their jingoistic hubris, they cannot even understand what it means when he commands:
“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.”
The divine, living, perpetual Magisterium simply IS THE INTERPRETATION for all those few who ever held or as today hold the divine and Catholic Faith, in this wretched, now scorched and barren world, as without the Vicar of Christ and with the LOSS OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, deFide. James_o, the loss of Apostolic Succession is as clear as there has been no valid Conclave in session since the death of Pope Pius XII. What more is necessary to know? With the implacable as inviolable command of Pope Pius XII in, “VAS”, for an 18 day MAXIMUM time in which the valid Conclave had to meet to begin the business of electing the next Pope, that maximum time limit, as you’ve come to understand, of, “18 days”, expired 61+ years and counting now. Pope Saint Pius X warned us in his very first Encyclical, “E. Supremi”, in 1903, that he believed that we were in the summa of the Great Apostasy, and that the, “son of perdition”, had already been born into this world. What more does one need to hear from a Pope and Saint? The world is deaf to him as it is deaf to the Incarnate Son of God. Amen. Alleluia. We are living the end of time, deFide. We are in the desolation that Antichrist has left the world and this can only be without the Vicar of Christ, as the Apostle warned us in 2 Thess 2. Amen. Further he warned us that the desolation that Antichrist would leave the world in, would last unto the Consummation of the world. Amen. There is no Vicar of Christ returning to this world. To suggest that there is, is the clarion call of cacophony from all the heretics whose hideous opinions you read here, as they remain in Lucifer’s own deception, believing themselves to be Catholic, and yet they remain in doubt and blind. They actually believe that they can be in doubt and get to Heaven, as they deny Jesus the Christ in His command: ” I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.” He commands Himself as, “Truth”, and these heretical miscreants believe that, “doubt”, can actually get them to Heaven. One simply must hold Truth, to get to the Beatific Vision. Amen. Alleluia. Continue your steadfast journey into Truth, james_o. Do not be hindered by the godless heathens who profess to be Catholic, while in Truth, they are no more Catholic than Jorge Bergoglio. Amen. I pray you persevere, as you seek Him, as your fruits are known. In caritas.
In Caritas,
You said here ?A Simple Man, 2Vermont, my2cents, JPeters, Marie Tageye, MC, etc., etc., etc. Amen. Alleluia. They have all claimed or intoned that we need a Pope to interpret that which the Popes of all time, as the Vicars of Christ, in the One Mind of Blessed Peter, have already interpreted for those who hold the divine and Catholic Faith. ” We KNOW THAT WE DON’T HAVE A TRUE POPE. All the conciliar popes are false concentric circle lets all get together and John Lennon’s “No religion too” because when you accept and incorporate all the false religions you are into “religious indifferentism” no proselytism Luciferian system. I have NO doubt about the divine Holy Catholic faith but I totally doubt the false Conciliar Popes and their false Vatican II religion for which they were architects/ and or participants in.
IC, A Simple Man, 2Vermont, my2cents and myself take the sede vecantist if I am not mistaken and – at least A Simple Man and myself and so it is totally false .
YOu are the guy who said “no pope no jurisdiction” and that IS NONSENCE BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN EVERYTIME A POPE DIES OR EVERYTIME THERE IS A LONGER INTERREGNUM THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF CONTINUING HER PERPETUAL APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. You are totally wrong. How do you think from 1415-1417 when they had NO POPE did they continue to consecrate Bishops, dispense sacraments and later elect a pope. And by the way if you can stretch out no pope for 3 and half years you certainly could stretch it out to 90 years. There is NO rule that you may only have a three year interregnum. Ok otherwise the Church would have been dead by now. So you In Caritas just believe in “apostolic succession” in Heaven when we need it on earth.
Also IN Caritas, With the things you say one would think your view is that we would NEVER NEED ANOTHER POPE BECAUSE WE COULD JUST LOOK TO YOU AS TO HOW PAST POPES ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS IN “NO POPE SINCE 1958 SO NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, PRIEST, OR BISHOPS YES WE ARE THE CHURCH OF THE LAYMEN. Sounds like a dead non living church to me if you take your vie because St. Paul talks about first you have apostles, then teachers then and so forth. I don’t have the bible with me right now. But I will get the quote. No you are just wrong and you are influencing James_o to think a wrong way and you call him “dear James” just because he agrees with you but the minute he sees through your error you will start calling him a miserable miscreant fool which by the way you never call Louie that. Others have pointed that out to you like Tom_o
Marie Tageye, You insist on comparing a period of 3 years with a period of up to 90 years now? I’m not sure who you are trying to fool but we’re grown ups here. I think that we are all aware that in a period of 3 years, it’s possible that no Bishop of the Church dies but in a period of 90 years, it’s possible that every Bishop of the Church dies. This is aside from the fact that even the trad Bishops did sign the heretical Vatican II Documents, one of them continued to call heretics Popes whilst being in schism with them, another consecrated a ridiculous candidate Bishop and I read that one of the Bishops that +Thuc consecrated went on to consecrate Sinéad O’Connor a Bishop. And then it is said that he was passive aggressively kidnapped by his New Order Vietnamese friends. I mean, honestly, if someone takes the time, the more you look into the trad Bishops the more hinky weirdness you find. This is life, people are weird, they do weird stuff, this is not Heaven, it’s all messed up here on earth. THAT is why, if these Bishops have validity then they need to elect a Pope bc that is the only think that will prove it, NOT their holiness, their eloquence, how big their cult of personality is, NO, the Pope tells us if they are valid and licit. If they can not or refuse to elect a Pope then I do not believe that they are valid and licit Bishops and I don’t know why anyone else would.
@In Caritas: Happy Monday to you. Tangentially (and, this is of course not dogma/doctrine); nonetheless, it is interesting, if one looks at Paul VI — you see the number “6” seems to surround him throughout his life: i.e. his signature as “Pope” upside down; he was 66 when he was elected. He died on August 6th.
In Caritas, to your point about Pope Pius X opining that the Antichrist was alive in his day (it was 1903 when he wrote these prescient comments)—Montini—who would grow up to be the future Paul VI—was— you guessed it, 6 years old at the time.
And good day to you IC,
I understand what you say perfectly. This is truth. Thanks for taking the time to post, once again.
May the Lord bless and keep you.
Melanie,
Of course there is difference between 3 years and 40, 60 or 90 years for an interregnum but you yourself are calling for a papal election so you must not believe that apostolic succession is dead either. The longer this goes on without a true pope the more the heresy and apostasy gets worse. God will eventually set this right but there is no doubt He will use his Church here on earth with valid successors of the Apostles to correct it. (I do admit that if God doesn’t correct it then he will end it all before his last valid Bishop/priest dies which means the final judgement is very soon.) The men who have “apostolic succession” are obviously not impeccable and never have been but they do have to be Catholics in order to pass that down. You are calling for a papal election right?? What is the point of that if we have no Bishops to elect a pope? That is my main point the people like IC and a Simple Beggar think we have no “living magisterium” on earth to pass down Bishops let alone priests. They don’t think we have any and all I am saying is we have to have a few. YOU call for a papal election and yet you say ” If they can not or refuse to elect a Pope then I do not believe that they are valid and licit Bishops and I don’t know why anyone else would.” so if you believe that why are you calling for them to elect a pope who can even give them that? I agree that “cult of personality is not what makes them licit” but in an interregnum it is the Church that gives them the authority or Christ himself to elect a papal successor whether it is a 3 year interregnum or 70 year interregnum. I have already proved to everyone that the Rheims bible 1582 states we will have a sacrifice of the Mass in secret during the reign of Anti-Christ and or the end of time as Christ will NOT leave us orphans. I know it feels like that for most sede vacantists who are either Home Alone Catholics or they do not live near a traditional priest. It is apparent that you must be one of the ones who does believe we could get a true pope even though you said”
If they can not or refuse to elect a Pope then I do not believe that they are valid and licit Bishops and I don’t know why anyone else would.” The only way you could believe apostolic succession would continue I guess is through very old Bishops under Pius XII electing a true pope and if they don’t do that then apostolic succession is not possible (if you held that opinion). In the end it really doesn’t matter what our “take is on things” what matters is that the Church says “WE WILL HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION TILL THE END OF TIME” The Church said that NOT me so even if all the old Bishops under Pius XII die off before Christ returns we will get true Bishops and priests to be there when Christ returns and how God works that out is his business I just have to believe His promises.
James_o A Catholic would not be outside the gate (meaning the Catholic Church). Only God determines who is in Heaven but here on earth a professing Catholic is a part of the visible church even if he committed a mortal sin he is still in the Church unless he is a manifest heretic or apostate- that is what puts him outside the Church as you know.
M.C. Here “Please, for your benefit, consider Sedevacantism as a false premise, just theoretically, and see what will happen. Don’t assume _anything_ just explore possibilities.” What you are asking people to do is something that you have not done. you have not explored the “possibilities” that a fraud has been perpetrated on you with a false “Concentric Circle Conciliar Church” giving you for the most part fraudulent sacraments, false theology and yes false popes and you obviously must not agree with these statements from men who were powerful in that Church and two of them were in good standing with Pius XII :
Cardinal Ciappi ( Pius XII personal theologian ) tells us The Third Secret is about apostasy.
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
… Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, Pope John Paul II’s personal papal theologian, quoted in the journal Catholic, March 2002
“It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” … Cardinal Oddi, (Bishop under Pius XII)quoted March 17, 1990, in the journal Il Sabato
So in an “apostasy” at the top M.C. do they still get to be “In the Church” ??? You can not have it both ways and be a Catholic. Maybe in the beginning stages of the heresy and apostasy you could plead ignorance but now with Pachamama????
The liberal Fr. Henri De Lubac S.J.made Cardinal by JP II and highly respected by the pope- stated at the Institute of Renewal in the Church at Toronto in 1967, “It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of ‘the new Church,’ ‘the post-conciliar Church,’ a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenism or adaptation,” From Henri de Lubac, S.J. in Témoinage Chrétien (Paris, September 1, 1967) as quoted in Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Trojan Horse in the City of God Sophia Institute Press, 1993 p. 8. Apparently Fr. De Lubac made the rounds with this statement in his lectures. Hildebrand quoted in the Temoignage Chretian (Paris), Sept, 1, 1967. Or see http://alcazar.net/salvation1.html
I think M.C that you are the guy not open to possibilities that you might be wrong and the folks that support Vatican II might be wrong. People who point out what should be the obvious are not “popular” and guess what neither was Jesus Christ. They crucified him.
This is what Jesus said about the apostasy, “Mat24: [24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.”
Correction
from :The liberal Fr. Henri De Lubac S.J.made Cardinal by JP II and highly respected by the pope to
to “The liberal Fr. Henri De Lubac S.J.made Cardinal by JP II and highly respected by the false ” pope””
Ursula,
I am not saying people should or should not go to a “Thuc” line but I do think however that Bishop Kelly who is the Bishop over Fr. Jenkins himself got his consecration “under the table” (just like Thuc’s consecration were only Mendez was even more secretive) so to speak by Bishop Mendez. I think his name was Mendez and he was a retired from Puerto Rico Diocese by the time he consecrated Kelly making him a Bishop. Kelly is the head of the Pius V society. Then when people asked Mendez if he did consecrate Kelly he said words to the effect “Who is spreading these rumors? and would not give the person a straight answer. Mendez priest under Pius XII Bishop under John XXIII (the Bishops consecration rites changed in 1968 invalidating it). But the truth of the matter is that the Bishops consecrations would be done I guess you could say “under the table” although Archbishop Lefebvre was much more “open” and Castro Mayer much more open about what they did than any of the rest of them and more people on this forum enjoy throwing stones at him saying he was a “freemason” and every other name they can give him. Well I don’t think there is any real proof for that- I don’t care really because Tallyrand was a valid Bishop and he was a freemason and he passed down Holy Orders and consecrated Bishops and the Catholic Church NEVER made him redo any of his sacraments. End of story on that phony argument that therefore even IF Lefebvre was a Mason which he was NOT would then make his apostolic succession invalid- we know it would NOT unless he Publically said “I never meant to confer orders on anyone”. Even an atheist if he does what the Church does say the right words over the person being baptized could confer baptism on someone in a state of emergency if someone wanting to be a Catholic. The sacraments re reliant upon Jjesus Christ, & valid form matter and intent no matter what the Catholic priest or Bishop was doing in his personal life. Even a priest excommunicated from the Catholic Church under the old Code of Canon law could give a person the last rites if he were on the verge of dying and the man asked him.
How can something as “illicit” anyways as the Novus Ordo Church be something that would provide “jurisdiction” for Mendez, Thuc or Lefebvre to do anything- so it was the Church that supplied the jurisdiction even for Mendez. God himself through the Church would provide the apostolic succession through her human agents as non impeccable as they were. They all could have been committing mortal sins but still validly passing down apostolic succession if in fact they could prove a line of succession which they could through to Pius XII. I am not a theologian but neither are any of you. Some of you however act like you are the magisterium and you declare that there is NO LONGER Apostolic Succession and you are wrong. I think it is a sad religion to believe that Christ left us as orphans when he said he would not do that. If most of us don’t have priest then he has not left us orphans as long as there is handful of priests and Bishops SOMEWHERE ON THE EARTH then that constitutes the “ever-living magisterium” that Pius IX promised that we would have here:
Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260
“ Like all the fomenters of heresy and schism, they make false boast of having kept the ancient Catholic faith while they are overturning the principal foundation of the Faith and of Catholic doctrine. They certainly recognize in Scripture and Tradition the source of Divine Revelation, but they REFUSE to listen to the****** EVER- LIVING MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, although this clearly springs from Scripture and Tradition, and was instituted by God as the perpetual guardian of the infallible exposition and explanation of the dogmas transmitted by these two sources. Consequently, with their false and limited knowledge, independently and even in opposition to the authority of this divinely instituted magisterium they set themselves up as judges of the dogmas contained in these sources of Revelation.”
As Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum 29th day of June, in the year 1896 THAT Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted:
sec 9 “IF IT (meaning the living magisterium) COULD BE IN ANY WAY FALSE- AN EVIDENT CONTRADICTION WOULD FOLLOW, FOR THEN GOD WOULD BE THE AUTHOR OF ERROR” .” My comment in () for what the meaning of “It” means i.e. the Catholic Church -the LIVING MAGISTERIUM.
What I mean to say here Ursula,
Mendez priest under Pius XII Bishop under John XXIII (Mendez was validly consecrated a Bishop under John XXIII because the consecration rites changed in 1968 invalidating them after 1968.) So I am not really sure why Fr. Jenkins thinks Kelly’s consecration was so “sacred” while Thuc’s was so “profane”. Fr. Jenkins himself received his Holy Orders from Archbishop Lefebvre. Now I do agree with Fr. Jenkins that it was wrong for Thuc to conditionally ordain and consecrate a man who originally received his orders through and “OLD Catholic group who of course had rejected Vatican I and left the Church but he said he thought it would help him to come into the Catholic Church if he consecrated him a Bishop and I think the man told Thuc that he intended on coming back to the Catholic Church. Thuc made some mistakes in his choices to be sure. As Melanie said things are not always “pretty” in the Church. The human element is not always prudent.
To IC from 1/26/2020:
That you would call John Daly of all people a sophist is honestly hilarious.
Furthermore, the prior example of Archbishop Georges Darboy has yet to be spoken of; if Pope Pius IX chose not to enforce the edicts of “Cum ex” against him (despite the Darboy’s more blatant demonstrations of seemingly schismatic/heretical behavior), then what grounds do you have to presume to enforce it against Thuc and Lefebvre in a time where the confusion was much greater? When you look at the historical governance and discipline of the papal hierarchy with regards to their inferiors, why do they come off as far more merciful than you?
In the end, your line of argumentation stands on the following principle: “a law can result in the end of the power from which that law derives its force”. This is an inherently self-contradictory proposition and unsound by any means, yet that is what one must presuppose to accept your argument that Apostolic Succession has definitively and objectively ended by virtue of papal legislation such as Cum Ex, VAS, AAP, and so forth.
But alas, your response likely won’t be too terribly interesting, because based on your track record, it will be another recitation of the same papal legislation, the same anathemas to all who disagree with your interpretations, and the same list of derogatory adjectives that come across like a cut-and-paste from any of your prior posts. It’s gotten old, and honestly comes across as one not interested in talking or debating like an actual human being, but rather one who desires to be a pretend Pope that audaciously presumes to declare **as a matter of faith** that an institution founded by Christ Himself has come to an end.
I do honestly think you mean well, but to borrow an example used elsewhere: you come across as a clashing cymbal.
James_o of course we are left grasping at straws and looking for “valid Bishops” and we should NOT be put under this situation but oh well that has happened before perhaps not as bad but there is a comparison to be made with the Great Western .
James_o you said ” All we are left with, it seems, is to grasp at the shaky straws of “validity”, and lineages of ordination, and make personal calls based on our own conclusions. But they were supposed to be sent to us, and not chosen by us.schism”
IN THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM THE MEN WHO ELECTED FALSE POPES STILL MAINTENED THEIR JURISDICTION AND POWER TO GOVERN
ALL LIVING CARDINALS REJECT URBAN VI AND RECOGNIZE AN ANTIPOPE
On July 20, 1378, 15 of the 16 cardinals who had elected Pope Urban VI withdrew from his obedience on the grounds that the unruly Roman mob had made the election uncanonical. The one cardinal who did not repudiate Pope Urban VI was Cardinal Tebaldeschi, but he died shortly thereafter, on Sept. 7 – leaving a situation where not one of the cardinals of the Catholic Church recognized the true pope, Urban VI. All of the living cardinals now regarded his election as invalid. ” Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), pp. 432-434.
Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 405: “There were now three popes, and three Colleges of Cardinals, in some dioceses three rival bishops, and in some Religious Orders three rival
superiors.”
In 1411, the newly elected Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund followed the general sentiment and
abandoned the true pope, Gregory XII.“Sigismund wanted unanimous electoral endorsement, and in view of the widespread abandonment of Gregory XII by many of those who had previously obeyed him(notably in Italy and England) Sigismund’s own confidence in Gregory’s legitimacy may have been sincerely shaken. No true pope in the Church’s history had so little support as Gregory XII following the Council of Pisa.” Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 479.
As John Lane wrote :” However, there is a second difference between the two sets of circumstances. And it is that in the Great Western Schism Catholics were presented with a choice between two (or three) claimants, each with numerous orthodox and prudent adherents among the clergy. Whereas in our situation Catholics are faced with judging between accepting a heretic as pope, or believing that an unprecedented vacancy of forty years has occurred, unknown by all of the ordinaries (i.e. bishops with sees) in the world, and by almost all of the clergy. I do not think any reasonable man will describe the latter choice as so blindingly obvious that anybody who fails to see it is abandoning either reason or faith.
The similarity between the two sets of circumstances consists in the fact that a good Catholic was (or is) required to form a judgement which he was (or is) not necessarily equipped to make. In both cases the choice was (or is) exceedingly difficult – in fact for many, and probably most, impossible. In more normal times in the Church the question of who the pope is or isn’t stands as a simple and obvious matter. During the Great Western Schism and today the question was and is exceedingly difficult. During both sets of circumstances the ordinary means of identifying the true pope were (or are) inoperative. In such a situation it is plainly unreasonable to insist that any man who has failed to see the truth is therefore a schismatic
*****Therefore it is clear that a real analogy exists between the Great Western Schism and our own circumstances. From the Great Western Schism we learn that a man may remain a good Catholic, or even be a saint, whilst failing to reject a false pope, and whilst rejecting a true pope. Today we are faced with the lamentable sight of men adhering to a false pope, but who at least do not reject a true pope.
Is it heretical to maintain that John Paul II, a public heretic, is pope?
Heresy, as St. Thomas teaches, is essentially opposed to faith.
Heresy is defined as the pertinacious doubt or denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. (cf. CIC 1325 §2 ) And all those truths must be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God, either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching. ( cf. CIC 1323)
Therefore heresy only exists where two conditions are fulfilled, viz. pertinacity, and doubt concerning, or error directly against, divine and Catholic faith.
St. Thomas explains the whole matter in his treatment of the question, “Whether it is lawful to have various contrary opinions of notions?” in the Summa. ( 11 The “notions” are the distinctive marks by which the individual divine persons are recognized. They result from the process which theologians call “appropriation,” by which particular acts or properties of God are “appropriated” to one or other of the individual persons of the Trinity. Thus we say that “paternity” is proper to the Father, “filiation” to the Son, and “procession” to the Holy Ghost.)
“I answer that, Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest.” ( Summa Th. I., Q. 32, Art. 4.)
“So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.” ( S. Thomas. I., Q. 32, Art. 4.) “from The Question of Assistance at the Mass of a Priest Who Professes Communion With John Paul II as Pope By John Lane http://www.sedevacantist.com/una_cum.html
If these Bishops are not electing a Pope and they are not then there is no Apostolic Succession. Where is it if there is no Pope? No Pope succeeded the last Pope and no Pope is being elected Pope, that means no succession. I do believe Christ’s promises as well so I assume it must be the end of time. Do you know that the sedes on Twitter are waiting for New Order “Cardinals” to convert to Catholicism and elect a Pope? New Order? I think it has become plain as day that many Protestants and Nones are more Catholic than New Orders. WHY is there not ONE person who has any answer? Even In caritas, who seemed quite sensible went off the rails, claiming that the Antichrist has already come and he died. Just died of being fat and old. Have you asked your Bishop why he doesn’t elect a Pope? Is he the one who told you that he will not elect a Pope because we do not deserve a Pope or we are not ready for one? Rumor has it that Jorge is going to quit being fake pope so are you hopeful that the next fake pope is Catholic? Three freaking fake popes we’ll have. And nobody wants to elect a real Pope, voted on by men who are actually Catholic. Am I the only person that believes that these Bishops should get together wherever they need to get and elect a Catholic man, a man who is already Catholic right now, to the Papacy? If we can’t get him into Rome, than he is in exhile but at least he will exist.
Melanie, it only makes sense that if the See is Vacant, the Church takes measures to elect a new Pope. I do not know why those who claim supplied jurisdiction to ordain, say Mass, and absolve sins, do not also claim supplied jurisdiction to elect a Pope.
Dear Melanie–The comments, from every point of view, leave my head spinning. Your comment above makes the most sense. There was a time I thought the SSPX would be our Knights in Shining Armor. However, they consider the N.O. mess the “official” church, meaning having authority. I can no longer put trust in this Society as it has abandoned their mission “to restore all things in Christ”. I don’t have any answers to the dilemmas facing us, but I believe your comment is excellent. Thank you, Melanie.
ASM, IC also contradicts himself when he claims there is no jurisdiction but then goes on to claim the past texts and documents somehow continue to judge us and supply some sort of jurisdiction over us. But cof course he casts himself into the role of de facto adjudicator of these texts and documents.
In the first couple of years after the apparent election of Francis, there were several public petitions, calls, etc., sent out to the apparent Cardinals, bishops requesting that an Imperfect Council be convoked, and a non-judicial declaration made regarding the fact of the automatic excommunication and loss of Office of Jorge Bergoglio and the election of a true pope carried out. Clearly, there was not any attempt made by those bishops who appear to adhere to the Faith; no bishop has agreed publicly that such action is required on the part of the bishops who are actually Catholics and thus members of the Church and true successors of the Apostles. And those who had organised the petitions or demands or remonstrances all seened to cease this kind of action a few years ago (just went silent, and stopped seeking more signatories, or counting or publishing them). I signed a few of this type that circulated from 2013 to 2015.
And the Gnostic fool, as Tom A,”speaks”, yet again……
“….the past texts and documents somehow continue to judge us and supply some sort of jurisdiction over us.” You are so abysmally blind Tom A, that you affront the, “LIVING, DIVINE, PERPETUAL, AS IN unending and unchanging, ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM”, each time that you pathetically stroke your keys, you jingoistic, imbecilic moron. You are so utterly stupid, that you cannot begin to fathom a simple glimpse of just how stupid that you are, as you wallow in your Luciferian hubris, on your sure and certain path to your very own eternity with your Prince of this world in Hell. Amen. Alleluia. God’s Will be done as you continually evidence your hatred of Truth, thus your hatred of the Incarnate Son of God, as He commanded Himself to be, Truth. Amen. Alleluia. What does the moron Tom A not understand about the divine command of, “living”, and of, “perpetual”? You perfectly miscreant heretic. Something which is static or “dead”, as you actually as literally parlay the claim now over and again, that the holy Magisterium is dead as the Popes who protected the divine Truth with the divine Magisterium are now dead, CANNOT BOTH BE AT THE SAME TIME AND UNDER THE SAME RESPECT OF WHAT THE MAGISTERIUM IS COMMANDED TO BE as, “living and perpetual”, while at the same time being DEAD, as Lucifer’s own slave Tom A, parlays claim to be. You are an utter contradiction, you miserable, satanically deceived, non-Catholic fool. That which is, “living and perpetual”, as the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallibly taught to be in, “Satis Cognitum”, cannot at the same time be, “dead”, as you are dead Tom A, as you continue to evidence your hideously evil fruit, as only an evil tree can bear evil fruit, and the Son of God made Man commanded that He will cast all the evil trees into Hell. Amen. Alleluia. Save your hideous, satanically darkened soul, Tom A. In caritas.
Poor, poor, non-Catholic Marie Tageye,
Your evil fruit continues to show its bounty in all your pathetic key strokes, you utterly miscreant, heretical fool. It is a matter of objective reality that Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, as Papal Election Law, was violated by holding an invalid Conclave after the death of Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII ordered, as inviolably, a maximum of 18 days in which to begin the business of validly electing the next Pontiff. In order to validly elect as canonically a Pope, one must have a valid Conclave, and this had to be undertaken, as begun, within the maximum of 18 days after his death. Period and end. The conclave which took place within 18 days of Pope Pius XII’s death was as invalid as the metaphysical matter of Angelo Roncalli was invalid, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual fool, Marie Tageye. You, “talk”, entirely too much as you utter error after error after error, simply assuring your eternal damnation you heretic. You must listen to save your miserable soul. Listen to Truth. Amen. Angelo Roncalli as minimally, deviated from the Holy Catholic Faith, prior to his false election as false pope, which according to the infallible and perpetual teaching of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, section 6, Roncalli was never, ever, even a Bishop, you non-Catholic fool, yet alone a Pope. Because the maximum of 18 days in which to begin the business of electing the next Pope after the death of Pius XII has now passed 61+ years ago and counting, APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IS NOW FOREVER LOST, as he declared that any change, addition, or subtraction of his very specific Papal Election Law, would render the election as, “NULL AND VOID”, as in it never in truth happened. We are living the, “end of time”, you miserable fool. Talk less and listen more. Save your wretched soul. In caritas.
Poor, poor, non-Catholic, Gnostic fool, A Simple Man,
Let’s keep it simple. John Daly is as much of a pseudo-intellectual moron as you are, you imbecilic fool. John Daly is as much of an heretic as you, you miscreant fool. John Daly doesn’t even understand the scholastic meaning of a, “right”, as he falsely opines that a priest holds a, “right”, to pray the Holy Mass. Quite the contrary is true. A true priest of the Holy Catholic Church has a moral responsibility, an obligation, to pray the Holy Mass, NOT A RIGHT. A, “right”, is the moral power given one with a moral responsibility, such that he is protected in accomplishing that which he is morally responsible for, such that another cannot prevent him from accomplishing his moral responsibility. Amen.
The document which John Daly claims to have translated into English, “Cum Ex…”, is the same document which he objectively demonstrates his abysmally errant understanding of. Simply because he is able to read Latin and English, has no bearing on his ability to understand that which he reads, as this requires the reception of the grace of the intellective Lights, which as clearly and infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, only a true Catholic, one who actually holds the divine and Catholic has. Amen. Alleluia. You can claim unto your last breath, A Simple Man, as can the moron John Daly, that you hold the Catholic Faith. Your fiat means NOTHING. Your fruit means EVERYTHING and this is objectively known. You, as Daly, are intellectively darkened jingoists as Gnostics. These are not matters of opinion but Truth, as the Incarnate Son of God commanded: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits. You, as Daly, are known by your fruits, ASM, as are we all.
In section 6 of the document which Daly claims translation of, Pope Paul IV teaches Authoritatively, “…that if ever at any time it shall APPEAR that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, HAS DEVIATED FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH or fallen into some heresy:…”. He goes on to declare that this man in truth never even, ever received his consecration as Bishop, tacitly understood then to have been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as the Incarnate Son of God commanded would come. Amen. Alleluia. The sophist John Daly spews his illegitimate screed all focused on what it is to be an heretic, when the infallible command of the Vicar of Christ states: “…if ever at any time it SHALL APPEAR……that any Bishop……HAS DEVIATED FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH….”. You are an utterly foolish moron, A Simple Man. All the wolf dressed as a Sheep had to do was, APPEAR TO DEVIATE FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH, and the layman then KNOWS WITH APODICTIC CERTITUDE, that he is a wolf, NEVER HAVING BEEN A BIHSOP, you heretical, jingoistic fool.
Apostolic Succession has ceased forever. We are living the desolation of Antichrist. Because the so called, “Simple Man”, is blind to this prophetic reality having been revealed, simply means as objectively, A Simple Man, that you do not hold the Catholic Faith, as you are, “as sterile and worthless sand”, as Pope Leo XIII warned us in, “Satis Cognitum”, that those who are outside the Bark of Peter, the Catholic Church, would simply NOT UNDERSTAND what the Authoritatively interpreted Magisterium teaches. It’s already perfectly interpreted, ASM, you and all the rest of your cadre of heathens are simply BLIND TO TRUTH and on your way to Hell, deFide. Amen. Alleluia. Save your putrid soul. Submit to the livening, divine, perpetual Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is Jesus the Christ teaching and governing His Church now unto His Second Coming. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Hello SEDEVCT,
Please remember, there is no, “opining”, by a Vicar of Christ in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. He is protected by the Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, as commanded by the Vatican Council. Amen. Alleluia. In paragraph 5 of, “E. Supremi”, Pope Saint Pius X declared the following for all those with true Catholic eyes which see:
“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).”
This is all very clear SEDEVCT. For those who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith who see, as infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, those who are outside the Church are, “as sterile and worthless sand; they cannot comprehend.” Amen. Alleluia. The Blessed Apostle Saint John, in his First Epistle to the Universal Church, told us who Antichrist would be. He would be the one who denies the divinity of Jesus the Christ, thus he denies the Father as well. Amen. “Lumen Gentium 16”. Good to, “hear”, you again. May Almighty God bless and keep you. In caritas.
IC,
“John Daly doesn’t even understand the scholastic meaning of a, “right”, as he falsely opines that a priest holds a, “right”, to pray the Holy Mass. Quite the contrary is true. A true priest of the Holy Catholic Church has a moral responsibility, an obligation, to pray the Holy Mass, NOT A RIGHT. A, “right”, is the moral power given one with a moral responsibility, such that he is protected in accomplishing that which he is morally responsible for, such that another cannot prevent him from accomplishing his moral responsibility.”
If Daly was speaking exclusively in Thomistic terms, perhaps. But he’s not. In a simple English understanding, his wording is perfectly reasonable. A right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way; in a concrete legal sense, it is a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law. Under these definitions, it is quite logical and correct to say that priests have a “right” to say Mass.
To condemn Daly for not understanding the Thomistic definition of a “right” when he doesn’t even appear to be utilizing the word in that sense is the action of an overly scrupulous pedant.
“You, as Daly, are intellectively darkened jingoists as Gnostics.”
In what possible sense am I or Daly a jingoist? It doesn’t even make sense to use it here, as a jingoist is “a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; a bellicose chauvinist.” Furthermore, I have not professed Gnostic beliefs, and neither has Daly, to the best of my knowledgr.
Your anathemas are becoming nonsensical.
“All the wolf dressed as a Sheep had to do was, APPEAR TO DEVIATE FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH, and the layman then KNOWS WITH APODICTIC CERTITUDE, that he is a wolf, NEVER HAVING BEEN A BIHSOP, you heretical, jingoistic fool.”
Then why didn’t Pope Pius IX enforce its edicts against Georges Darboy? He certainly would have been justified in doing so.
I’m still waiting for an answer on that one.
“Apostolic Succession has ceased forever. ”
As stated before, your interpretations are based on a presupposition that a law (or collection of laws) can result in the end of the power from which that law derives its force. Such a presupposition, however, is self-defeating; a foundation of sand, if you will.
Furthermore, Scripture itself speaks of the Antichrist as being a singular person that – among other things – will work “signs and lying wonders”. I think it goes without saying that this has yet to occur (for none of the post-V2 usurpers have done such a thing, from Roncalli to Bergoglio).
History may indeed prove that we are currently living in the Great Apostasy (which is the precursor to the Antichrist), but we are in no way living out the desolation of Antichrist if he has yet to appear.
“It’s already perfectly interpreted, ASM, you and all the rest of your cadre of heathens are simply BLIND TO TRUTH and on your way to Hell, deFide.”
This is the logic of a Protestant with regards to the interpretation of Scripture. To say that you have perfectly interpretated the Magisterium in its entirety is to ascribe to yourself the powers and prerogatives of the Papacy.
Forgive me if I decline to engage in that level of audacity.
Poor, poor Lynda,
You wrote this:
“…the fact of the automatic excommunication and loss of Office of Jorge Bergoglio and the election of a true pope carried out. Clearly, there was not any attempt made by those bishops who appear to adhere to the Faith; no bishop has agreed publicly that such action is required on the part of the bishops who are actually Catholics and thus members of the Church and true successors of the Apostles.”
Your immanent contradiction is nothing less than unutterably profound, as objectively evidenced in this utterly non-Catholic, foolish rhetoric of yours’, yes. Amen. You intone in this gibberish that the Vicar of Christ can loose his Ecclesial Office as the Pope, as you declare this—…the fact of the automatic excommunication and loss of Office of Jorge Bergoglio and the election of a true pope…—What??? The Vicar of Christ cannot loose his Ecclesial Office as the Chief Shepherd. Amen. This is infallible, authentically Catholic Tradition, as commanded in the Vatican Council. All of the theological speculation, including that of even the eminent theologian and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine (please pray for all true Catholics dear Saint Bellarmine) was FOREVER CLOSED, deFide, in the 4th and Final Session of the ONLY Vatican Council, 18 July, 1870. Anyone who denies this, denies the ENTIRE CATHOLIC FAITH as per, “Satis Cognitum”, as does anyone who yet opines and speculates about this dogma, and is on his way to Hell, deFide, as is that poor, poor, pseudo-intellectual imbecile, John Daly, along with his pseudo-intellectual as rhetorical enabler, A Simple Man. Amen. Alleluia.
Blessed Peter in his Successors were given the Charisms of, “truth and never failing faith”, you non-Catholic fool. What does, “never failing faith”, mean to you Lynda?, other than that which it has the singular as only possibility of meaning, as that which a properly catechized 10 year old would KNOW with apodictic certitude as Truth—-Blessed Peter’s faith, as in his Successors, CAN NEVER FAIL and as such, their personal faith could never deviate from the Faith, yet alone could they have fallen into heresy. Period and end. As if it could deviate or fail, NO ONE, as in NOT ONE SINGLE MISERABLE WRETCH as me, could know the Truth, as it would have been mixed with the lie. Amen. Alleluia. Your pseudo-intellectual platitudes objectively demonstrate that you cannot possibly hold the divine and Catholic Faith, as freely in the operation of your will. Amen. It can ONLY be that Jorge Bergoglio was never, ever the Pontiff in Truth, therefore, he DID NOT HOLD ANY ECCLESIAL OFFICE IN WHICH TO LOSE, and this is Authoritatively taught in, “Cum Ex….”, only for those with the intellective Lights of grace who see, as infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, as those who are outside the Church are, “…as sterile and worthless sand; they cannot comprehend.”. You simply CANNOT COMPRHEND the Truth Lynda, as you are KNOWN by your fruits, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God. Amen. Alleluia. In fact, Jorge Bergoglio is not even a sacerdotal minister of Christ, yet alone a Bishop who could be Pope, as the properly understood metaphysical matter for the Office of Blessed Peter. Jorge Bergoglio, as ALL of the men who dress as Bishops of the Catholic Church, while they hold only the metaphysical accidental forms of the Church in their possession–deceiving all would be Catholics who are blinded to Truth– while they are desolate Her metaphysical Substance, in Truth are actually bishops of the church of Antichrist, as they are WOLVES DRESSED IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING, deFide. This simple reality as it is, truth thus, is patently evident for the few who breathe today and actually hold the supernatural Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith and not just their fiat of faith, as you, poor, poor Lynda. ANYONE can posit their claim by fiat that they are, “Catholic”, Lynda. In Truth, this fiat means precious NOTHING, as anyone can claim ANYTHING. As a woman claiming to be a man, when God deemed her woman, in her very essence as metaphysical substance, as in her soul, as to be feminine is spiritual not material, which only supports the spiritual, that is the flesh as material, as the flesh remains infinitely subordinate to the soul. Amen. What evidences as objectively, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God, whether someone actually receives the divine as supernatural Gift of Faith, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur, is their intellectual fruit. Amen. Alleluia. This is objective as God commands, “You will know them by their fruits”.
Lastly for now, you wrote this:
“…Clearly, there was not any attempt made by those bishops who appear to adhere to the Faith…”
And yet more objective fruit of your now fantastic, immanent contradiction. “…not any attempt made by those bishops who APPEAR TO ADHERE TO THE FAITH…” WHAT??? Appear to adhere? You contradict yourself utterly here. While you miserably opine that they, “appear to adhere to the Faith”, you precede that statement with your immanently contradictory opinion as, “Clearly, there was not any attempt made by those bishops…”. How could, “those bishops”, hold the divine and Catholic Faith as freely within the operations of their wills, and at the same time not clearly command from the highest summa and summit on earth, that not only is Jorge Bergoglio NOT THE POPE—–HE COULD NEVER BE THE POPE—-as he is not even a sacerdotal minister of Christ’s Church, in Truth. Amen. And further, why have, “those bishops who appear to adhere to the Faith…”, not commanded again from that same summa and summit that not only is he not the Pope, not a priest, not a Bishop, not a Catholic, but rather a member of the false church of Antichrist, as if it is not the Catholic Church, it can only be the church established by the False Prophet for Antichrist, as there is NO OTHER OPTION, deFide. Who would, “enter the temple”, deFide, as interpreted in unanimity by the Early Church Fathers of the prophet Daniel’s prophesy? The, “abomination of desolation”, would enter, deFide, as the Antichrist, deFide, the, “son of perdition”, as the, “man of sin”, as per the Apostle in 2 Thess 2. Amen. Alleluia. You see Lynda, it is not the so called, “second vatican council”, that is the problem at all. It is the church which was established by the False Prophet, as council’s DO NOT BEGET CHURCHES, rather, churches beget council’s. This diabolical fixation on, “the conciliar church”, is simply leading countless souls to Hell. It is one of Lucifer’s own, this summa and summit of deception, that the, “second vatican council”, IS THE PROBLEM. In Truth, not at all, as it is only expected that the false church of Antichrist would beget such a satanic perversion of Truth and call it an, “Ecumenical Council”, of Holy Mother Church. This is all VERY, VERY SIMPLE in truth but it requires the holding of the divine and Catholic Faith to see. It remains UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, as within the natural power of reason to see this, as the Angelic Doctor has taught. Only by the reception of God’s grace can the human will, after being first informed by the intellect, choose the good over the privation of the due good. Amen. Alleluia. Save your wretched soul Lynda. Submit to the LIVING, DIVINE, PERPETUAL, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium—Almighty God’s very Presence among those who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith, in the Second Person of the Blessed Triune Godhead, and through the Third Person, His Holy Ghost, now and unto the Last Day of His Second Coming, to Judge and purify this hideous cosmos. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you do Lynda. In caritas.
Poor, poor A Simple Man,
You as Daly, remain as non-Catholic fools, jingoists, in the sense of a chauvinist, who adheres to a particular paradigm blindly, as simply by his fiat, you miserable imbecile. You are bellicose, as you affront the divine, living, perpetual Magisterium time and time and time and yet again. You claim that this perfectly miserable wretch now writing you, “interprets”, the divine Interpretation, you perfectly miscreant and blind fool. A truth Catholic simply RECEIVES the divine Interpretation as present in the Magisterium, you sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual imbecile. Daly is simply a pseudo-intellectual fool, all puffed up in his rhetorical gibberish, as are you, A Simple Man. When one speaks of the Church and Her theology and purports to have some expertise, he has NO EXCUSE in not using scholastic meaning, as the profane does not apply to the sacred, you idiot. The scholastic philosophy of the Angelic Doctor has been incorporated into the divine Magisterium by Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X and it is the SINGULAR AS ONLY MEANING which is to be used to communicate the Truth, as it is the only philosophical method which properly informs the light of natural reason, in its willful assent to Truth, you jingoistic as Gnostic heretic. You hurl ad hominem, while proper labels are given you, imbecile. You call me a, “protestant”, while you evidence adherence to the church of Antichrist. Amen. Alleluia. You are simply blind to the reality as it is, truth thus, as the prophesy of the Antichrist has been revealed, yet you remain blind. Poor, poor ASM, on your sure as certain path to Hell, where you will meet Antichrist, and then you will know with apodictic certitude, as you would now if you actually held the Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith. Amen. Alleluia. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” You as Daly, are KNOWN by your fruits, ASM, as are we all. What do you not comprehend of this command of the Incarnate Son of God? Your fruits are known and as they are known, they are understood to be as they are and precisely what they are—-EVIL—-as the privation of the due good. Amen. Because you remain blind to this reality as it is, DOES NOT CHANGE THAT SAME REALITY, and not by one iota. Amen.
“Hear”, this and yet again, A Simple Man, as commanded by the Vicar of Christ in, “Satis Cognitum”, as you continue to affront his divine teaching. He is the INTERPRETOR as the Vicar of Christ, and the true lay Catholic is the RECEIVER OF HIS INTERPRETATION by virtue of the reception of the Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual, adherent and tacit proponent of the, “religion of man”, as your mentor in kind before you, John Daly. From, “Satis Cognitum”, and yet again:
“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).”
This Truth speaks about you and your kind, ASM, as you are blind to the divine Interpreter’s teaching. “You will know them by their fruits.” That which is divinely interpreted, remains as it only can, at the summa and summit of interpretation. Divinely protected interpretation simply CANNOT BE FURTHERED IN ITS INHERENT PERFECTION, you imbecilic, miscreant, pseudo-intellectual, heretical heathen. Save your soul. Submit to the living, divine, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Jesus the Christ’s very Own Perfection. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
In Caritas, you are wrong on this: Popes can and do “opine”. Case in point: Pope John XXII was of the (erroneous) opinion that saved souls will not get to Heaven until the General Judgment. Please see the Catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm. He withdrew his erroneous opinion — as Pope—before his death.
Wherein, In Caritas, you teach about the truths of the Faith—namely, the loss of the true Pope, Mass, and most of the Sacraments, you are spot on. Baptism and Holy Matrimony are still available to us. As someone who is theologically of the same beliefs as you, I personally find it off putting, however, the way you berate those who are wrong in their beliefs in the manner that you do. But, I’ll admit it is a very common attitude among those who rightly observe the Church’s laws on jurisdiction, canonical mission, and the fact that without a true Pope and his permission, no lawful consecration can take place. It is quite counterproductive.
Just because people like you and me hold the correct beliefs, doesn’t guarantee ourselves a place in Heaven. We could end up in Hellfire; and it is by God’s grace, alone, that we are given the graces to see what others — even those who go quite far and reject Vatican II — cannot see. So, we have nothing to pat ourselves on the back about. I would say so of myself, personally. Pride is the sin of Lucifer.
Jesus, Meek and Humble of Heart, make our Hearts like unto Thine.
IC,
And once you live down to your reputation. (And I once more notice a telling silence on the subject of Georges Darboy and the apparent unwillingness of Pius IX to apply the edicts of Cum Ex.)
“You as Daly, remain as non-Catholic fools, jingoists, in the sense of a chauvinist, who adheres to a particular paradigm blindly, as simply by his fiat, you miserable imbecile.”
To try and apply jingoist and chauvinist to me in this manner is what one could charitably call a “stretch”. Likewise with regards to your application of the term “bellicose”, because if one were to make a judgment based solely on our external behavior, you are undoubtedly the most bellicose one in this combox.
“[The Pope] is the INTERPRETOR as the Vicar of Christ.”
Indeed he is. Where our disagreements occur is as follows:
“the true lay Catholic is the RECEIVER OF HIS INTERPRETATION by virtue of the reception of the Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith”
Anyone can *say* that they are doing nothing but receiving the interpretation (and this is simple enough on matters which are cut and dry, such as sodomy still being a sin regardless of the current cultural consensus to the contrary).
But without a current ordinary authority to provide clarity on matters of confusion and ambiguity, the **only** thing we can justifiably say with certitude is that we try to be of the same mind as the Church.
In that manner: to try and claim with “apodictic certitude” that (among other things) Pope Pius XII would have intended Apostolic Succession to definitively end with him **by virtue of his own legislation** is no less an interpretation of papal documents on your part than anything others have said.
But I imagine your response (if there is one) to this will be more of the same repetitively bellicose text, so I think that will be all from me.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Dear SEDEVCT,
Firstly, I have made it perfectly clear that I know who I am. Perhaps you have glazed over this objective reality as it is. To make it utterly as pristinely clear for you now, I know that I am a perfectly miserable wretch who is utterly deserving of my own personal eternity in Hell, Amen. Further, I know with apodictic certitude, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, that it is singularly as only by the RECEPTION of God’s superabundant grace, that I can achieve the Beatific Vision, and further yet, that the personal battle of each true member of the Church Militant is not won until it is over. Amen. Alleluia.
More importantly, you must stand corrected in your errant gaze of that which a Pope cannot do, as the Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, SEDEVCT. If you deny this teaching, then you deny the Catholic Faith as wholly, as you deny the Vatican Council in its Fourth and final Session, 18 July, 1870, when it Authoritatively defined as dogma, the reality of the Gifts which Blessed Peter in His Successors, as exclusively, received from the Holy Ghost of, “truth and never failing faith”. Amen. You must know with apodictic certitude that Pope John XXII did not err as Pope in his theological speculation about the attainment of the Beatific Vision, as that had not yet been formally defined, as deFide. Rather he erred in his capacity as theologian. Amen. Alleluia. From the very immanent understanding of, “theological speculation”, it contains doubt, as speculation. The Vicar of Christ speaks ONLY Truth in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. As Jesus the Christ commanded Himself to be Truth, Truth then simply cannot contain doubt, and to suggest that this is possible for the Pope to do as Pope, that is for him to speculate as Pope, is blasphemous heresy, since 18 July, 1870. Amen. Had this dogma of the Beatific Vision been defined before Pope John XXII offered his speculation as theologian, then he could not have truly been Pope, and there would have had to be another true Pope present at that time in Church history, Amen. Saint Robert Bellarmine makes this perfectly clear about Pope John XXII in his treatise on the Papacy, which you should become intimately familiar with, as he refuted all of the protestant errors about purported heresies offered by true Vicars of Christ. The true Vicar of Christ could NEVER contradict that which was already defined and present within the living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Amen. Alleluia. This is the Catholic Truth as the Reality as It Is.
As it relates the stance which is taken taken against heretics, SEDEVCT, as they blaspheme Christ time and time and time and again, while doing this as they actually purport holding the divine and Catholic Faith, which could not allow for such heinous and obstinate error, deFide; as they affront the divine, living, and perpetual Magisterium over and again, while they claim submission to It, as they are continually admonished and corrected and yet persist. You know not of what you speak. Jesus the Christ commanded that He came to bring not peace but the sword and son would turn against father, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Amen. Your point, SEDEVCT? “You are either with Me or you are against Me.” Your point, SEDEVCT? This is the Church Militant, SEDEVCT. The true Church burned heretics at the stake as their evil fruit murdered eternal souls. Amen. And your point, SEDEVCT? I pray this helps you. In caritas.
You poor, poor, non-Catholic fool, A Simple Man, outside the Barque of Peter, where you have no possibility of salvation, deFide,
You simply remain a jingoistic adherent, as tacit proponent of the, “religion of man”, as you remain in obstinate heresy, while at one and the same time, claiming to hold the divine and Catholic Faith. You cannot even grasp the immanent meaning of words and there varied application to situational realities, yet alone divine Truth, you fool. Because you do not understand, you always descent to the ad hominem, while you accuse me of same, as you are referred to by terms which simply edify the obstinate, heretical fool which your fruits objectively witness you to be. Deny this and you deny Christ Jesus in His command: “You will KNOW them by their fruits.”, you imbecilic fool. Yours is the ad hominem by definition, as you NEVER cite Magisterial Truth to bear witness to what you claim, as you attack the person and not the argument. Amen. There is no greater as possible contradiction in truth, as you actually bear witness to the, “lying wonders of Satan”, which the Apostle warned was coming in its prophesied time in 2 Thess 2. This summa and summit of contradiction, you ASM manifest existentially, for all those with Catholic eyes which see. You claim the Antichrist has not come and you await the, “lying wonders”, as you literally as actually bear personal witness to assenting to them, as you claim a true Catholic requires, “interpretation”, of that which has already been divinely Interpreted, as if Almighty God does not provide the grace for that which He alone commands of us, and that is to KNOW Him and His commands and to assent to them as, “No one comes to the Father except by Me.”, you non-Catholic fool, on your way to Hell, as you cannot assent to that which you do not know, you heathen. Amen. You await some protestant, “magical time”, whereby everyone will know who the Antichrist is, you miserable, imbecilic, jingoistic adherent of the religion of man. God has worked analogically in His prophetic Mystery, you non-Catholic neo-pagan, as this thing itself speaks as res ipsa loquitur. The heretics of old acknowledged their rejection of the Pontiff and the true Religion, while you and all your cadre of imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual fools claim to hold the same Faith which you reject, as you bear witness and again, to the summa and summit of deception, which you freely receive in your hideous will. Jesus the Christ came and all but all did not know Him, yet they murdered Him on the Cross. In like kind, the Antichrist came and all but all did not know him, but they received him as king, you miserable, non-Catholic fool. In your satanic hubris, you actually believe that you, ASM, would know when Antichrist had come and who he was, while you continually affront Jesus the Christ, as He is Truth, and the Magisterium, divine, living, and perpetual, which is His, you imbecilic fool.
Lastly, as the Church has always taught, deFide, and the Angelic Doctor eminently evidenced, the Faith can NEVER contradict, “right reason”, as right reason can never contradict the Faith. Amen. Alleluia. Whenever apparent error appears, it is ALWAYS to be found, and without exception, in the errant reasoning of the human person. This is a matter of Faith and it stands as such. Deny this and you deny the Faith as wholly, deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”. You attack with the ad hominem, as witness is given you time and again from the divine Magisterium, as you are a perfect heretic, if there could be such a wretch, as you hate the Truth, as you fear Him, not with a filial fear but with a fear of damnation. Amen. Alleluia. Your spurious example is just that. Provide all of the facts as they were recorded by the true Church, if they were, and the correct answer will ALWAYS be Truth, as without apparent contradiction. There simply ARE NO EXCEPTIONS in Truth, as if there were exceptions, it simply CANNOT BE TRUTH, as in Christ, no exception exists, deFide. As you do not hold the Faith, as is to be known by your intellective fruits, you cannot accept this reality as it is. The burden of proof rests upon you, not for me, rather to save your wretched soul, A Simple Man. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Melanie:
One thing I think we can know for sure is this, if it was the good Lord’s will that we would have a Vicar of Christ right now, it would be so.
But because we see that it is not so, or not yet anyway, we must look higher, never lower for answers, because there are too many hired hands, and those who enter in by other ways besides the Door. Too dangerous to look lower.
So look up above to Christ Himself, the Good Shepherd, pray, and have peace in spite of this storm. Stay in the Spirit.
It’s safe.
In Caritas: A prayer for you to recite over and over again:
JESUS, ***MEEK*** AND HUMBLE OF HEART, MAKE MY HEAR LIKE UNTO THINE.
Blessings, Brother—Peace Out.
Poor, poor SEDEVCT,
No humility to be found in your failure to acknowledge your heretical belief. Amen. The Church Militant is now on the threshing floor, SEDEVCT. If you hold the belief that a true Vicar of Christ can act in theological speculation as Pope, you are an heretic, outside the Church where no salvation is to be found, deFide, as you then affront the Vatican Council. Period and end. Amen. Alleluia. This is not a popularity contest poor SEDEVCT, this is war in the defense of Truth. Amen. Alleluia. You and I agreeing on anything, has precious NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH, you fool. All that matters and all that has ever mattered, is that the human person assents to Truth. Amen. Human respect be damned to Hell where it will all end for those of the, “brotherhood of man”. Amen. Alleluia. Save your soul SEDEVCT. Submit to the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, you fool. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Poor, poor A Simple Man,
You also wrote this nonsense:
“In that manner: to try and claim with “apodictic certitude” that (among other things) Pope Pius XII would have intended Apostolic Succession to definitively end with him **by virtue of his own legislation** is no less an interpretation of papal documents on your part than anything others have said.”
You remain so blinded in satanic hubris that you do not even begin to glimpse precisely what it is that you actually stroke from your keypad, you utterly heretical, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual fool. You actually write this kind of gibberish, non-sensical trash, which you proffer as your intellective work, you imbecile, as here again and more focused: ” Pope Pius XII would have intended Apostolic Succession to definitively end with him **by virtue of his own legislation** “.
Let’s now undertake the tedious task of sorting out your utter gibberish, that which a properly catechized Catholic 12 year old, would turn his head in disgust at, you perfectly miserable wretch. So ASM now parlays the claim that a lawmaker, and in this case the Vicar of Christ no less, writes a law because that very same law maker’s VERY OWN INTENTION, claims the imbecilic moron A Simple Man, is that he wills himself, THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF, breaks that very same law, WHICH THE VICAR OF CHRIST AUTHORED, SUCH THAT DISORDER IS somehow then CREATED BY HIM, the Vicar of Christ, who Authored the Law with divine protection, IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE ORDER OF TRUTH IN THE HOLY CHURCH. He did this to protect true Catholics from the WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING. A Simple Man is now definitely as objectively suggesting that the Vicar of Christ was himself hoping, by virtue of his Authoring the Law to protect true Catholics from the wolves, that the wolves in sheep’s clothing would come and BREAK HIS LAW. He wrote the Law with divine protection, to protect true Catholics, who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith, so we would know when the WOLVES CAME. That is why the Law is there, you perfectly confused, obstinate heretic. You are such a stupid fool that you cannot even begin to glimpse just how utterly idiotic that you are, you HERETIC, on your sure as certain path to Hell, deFide. A lawgiver writes a law such that ORDER IS PROTECTED AS IT IS, you utterly imbecilic fool. The lawgiver HIMSELF HAS NO INTENTION THAT HIS LAW BE BROKEN in truth, you utterly sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual fool, who continues to demonstrate satanic hubris and not one lick of common sense, yet alone intellective gift, you idiot.
Lastly for now, the true Church has always held the belief that Blessed Peter in his Successors hold the divine Charism of so called, “negative infallibility”, when exercising their Singular Authority of the keys to bind and loose. The Vicar of Christ can NEVER BIND THE FAITHFUL TO ERROR, as Christ cannot do so. Canon law is divine law, as it is given by Blessed Peter in his Successors alone, changed by them alone. Period and end. Canon law is protected with the divine Charism of negative infallibility. Deny these Truths and you deny the whole of the Catholic Faith, deFide, as per, “Satis Cognitum”, and, “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, and the Vatican Council. Amen. Alleluia. Save your wretched soul ASM. Submit to the true Church’s holy, living, divine, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In caritas.
To IC from 2/29/2020,
Just had to provide clarity on a couple of quick things:
“A Simple Man is now definitely as objectively suggesting that the Vicar of Christ was himself hoping, by virtue of his Authoring the Law to protect true Catholics from the wolves, that the wolves in sheep’s clothing would come and BREAK HIS LAW.”
Not at all. That VAS was implemented to protect the flock is undoubtedly true; however, you interpret this to mean that, as a result of things that occurred afterward, that Apostolic Succession has definitively ended. Those are two entirely different things, and it is a stretch to imply (as you do) that “Pope Pius XII implemented VAS to protect the flock from false shepherds; therefore, given subsequent events A, B, and C, he therefore intended Apostolic Succession to end with him.” It would be more logical to say “Given the dictates of VAS and subsequent events A, B, and C, Apostolic Succession therefore **may** have come to an end.” Then you have to square that with the Church’s teaching on her own indefectibility. However, you go a step further, and divine that “Given the dictates of VAS and subsequent events A, B, and C, it is **de Fide** that the lawgiver of VAS **intended** Apostolic Succesion to end with him.” The latter amounts to reading the mind of Pius XII.
“Canon law is divine law”
And again, you go a step too far. Divine law is unchanging by nature. Canon law, inasmuch as **part** of its dictates are sourced to divine law, are indeed unchanging in their moral reach (for example, any penalties or censures related to heretics are rooted in the divine law that heretics are objectively non-Catholic); however, much of canon law deals with ecclesiastical regulations which are in and of themselves not divine, for they have been subject to change (such as laws that regulate the sacraments in matters external to their essence). To say that “canon law” is (i.e. equal, equivalent) “divine law” is to say that canon law is unchanging, when history has shown this is simply untrue.
But in all honesty, I honestly believe that you need to step away from the AKA combox for a while, because your vitriol has somehow become even more intense. Any good points you make are surrounded by a sea of bile. Whether or not you believe concerns about your rhetoric are tied merely to a lower “respect for man” is irrelevant; it all comes down to the fact that you come across as bitter and overly angry for no good reason, and I think it’s damaging your witness.
I honestly pity you, and hope that you one day live up to your username.
As a post-script: I saw this satirical article, and immediately thought of you. Something to think about: https://babylonbee.com/news/man-led-to-christ-after-christian-in-comments-section-declares-him-total-moron
Poor, poor A Simple Man,
You never cease in your continued affront of the divine Magisterium, while even though you do not know that you do, you remain utterly culpable, and as this is evidenced from your evil fruits, time and again. Amen. Any attack of Truth must be mitigated with proportionate counter-force. You are an obstinate heretic and your attempt at using natural reason, as evidenced by your deductive, A-B-C reasoning, in your abysmal as impossible attempt to understand, with the light of natural reason, that which is divine, would be laughable, if it did not hold your eternal damnation in the balance. This is more objective evidence that you CANNOT HOLD the divine and Catholic Faith, as you are perfectly blind to what, “VAS”, orders the Church to follow, while this command to follow in perfect submission, can only remain as PERFECTLY INDEPENDENT from any CONSEQUENCE which may occur as a result of this full submission to the divine Authority of Pope Pius XII. We must submit, regardless of consequences or go to Hell. Amen. This MUST BE accomplished with the same assent of faith as that which is freely given for his teaching on Faith and Morals, as infallibly commanded by the Vatican Council and affirmed by Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, which has now been witnessed for you many times, you implacably foolish heretic, while on your sure and certain path to Hell. Amen. Alleluia. And what has been your response, literally as actually, it has been your effeminate complaints about hearing the same Magisterial Authority as time and again, while you remain perfectly blind to its teaching and in rejection of its divine Authority. Amen. You remain an obstinate, heretical fool.
You just had this to say:
“Not at all. That VAS was implemented to protect the flock is undoubtedly true; however, you interpret this to mean that, as a result of things that occurred afterward, that Apostolic Succession has definitively ended. Those are two entirely different things, and it is a stretch to imply (as you do) that “Pope Pius XII implemented VAS to protect the flock from false shepherds; ”
There simply is NO INTERPRETATION that I make, you implacable heretic. This is a simple APPLICATION OF HIS LAW AND NOT AN INTERPRETATION OF HIS LAW, you pseudo-intellectual fool. His Law is his, “interpretation”, of that which is necessary for the Church in his time, as he ALONE HOLDS THE divinely commanded KEYS TO BIND AND LOOSE. Amen. The divine Authority given Pope Pius XII in Authoring, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, deems him alone as the Authority to render this law, which MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND FOLLOWED AT THE PAIN OF HELL (as all of Papal governance and discipline), you pathetic, miscreant, non-Catholic, religion of man adherent. In order to submit to a divinely ordained Law as given by the Vicar of Christ, WE SIMPLY MUST BE ABLE TO APPLY IT OR WE MAY AFFRONT IT, and at the pain of Hell, you heretical, pseudo-intellectual fool. A properly catechized 12 year old would and must be able to apply this law, to save his very soul, you imbecilic moron. It is your unmitigated, satanic hubris which prevents you from seeing and knowing what a 12 year old would, you now implacable imbecile.
Now to edify this part of what you just wrote:
“…you interpret this to mean that, as a result of things that occurred afterward, that Apostolic Succession has definitively ended.”
You are such a jingoistic adherent and tacit proponent of Lucifer’s very own, “religion of man”, that you cannot see that which is right before your miserable eyes. Pope Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, Authoritatively declared with his full Apostolic Power of the keys to bind and loose, divine power for divinely ordained law you sophomoric fool, that not one iota of any of his instructions could be changed, added to, or subtracted from by any one or many, for any reason whatsoever. Period and end. Amen. Alleluia. If anyone would dare to alter one iota of his law, the election would then be as the Pope deemed, “NULL AND VOID”, period and end. One of those implacable dictates was that the valid Conclave MUST MEET to begin the business of electing the next Pontiff within a MAXIMUM OF 18 DAYS from the death of Pope Pius XII. So now you pseudo-intellectual fool A Simple Man, tell us all what, “INTERPRETATION”, is necessary for the application of this IMPLACABLE tenet of his law? Again, just so you clearly understand this, “complex”, rule, here it is stated yet again: A canonically valid Conclave must meet within a MAXIMUM of 18 days after the death of the Pope, to begin the business of electing the next Pontiff. And what is there about this implacable rule, A Simple Man, that a 10 year old would need, “interpretation”, for, such that he would be able to understand precisely what 18 days from the death of the Pope would mean? You are so utterly imbecilic that you cannot possibly glimpse just how stupid you are and it is the result of your not holding the divine and Catholic Faith. Amen. Instead you hold a satanic pride, and unmitigated hubris in thinking that these simple commands must be, “interpreted”, you obstinately, heretical, pseudo-intellectual. Amen. The Conclave which was held in October of 1958, as was begun within the 18 day maximum time limit after the death of Pope Pius XII, WAS CANONICALLY INVALID, and as thus the 18 day maximum rule to meet to begin the business of electing the next Pontiff after the death of Pope Pius XII has now and forever PASSED AND ENDED. Amen. Alleluia. Almighty God’s Will be done. You are an effeminate man, A Simple Man, and you are NOT a Catholic, and as thus you cannot handle the consequences that have now occurred, as divine prophesy has been revealed as to the, “end of time”, the Great Apostasy which you utterly evidence in your evil fruit, the coming of Antichrist which the world was and is perfectly blinded to, and the desolation after him which we now live and will continue unto the final prophesy now left is revealed, as the Second Coming of Jesus the Christ in His glorious Final Judgment. Amen. Alleluia. As you remain perfectly blind to this and as The Christ admonished His disciples for not knowing the signs of the prophetic times in which they live, you cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith, deFide, as you instead hold, “the operation of error to believe lying”, which the Apostle warned would be made manifest in the time of Antichrist.
Lastly for now, you wrote this: “Then you have to square that with the Church’s teaching on her own indefectibility.”
And once again, this has been witnessed here many times now, as from Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, while all you and your cadre of effeminate heretics do is complain about the repeated witness to Truth, while you remain utterly blinded to it, you miserable fool. From the Encyclical again:
” 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.
Because the sacerdotal ministers and the hierarchy which flows from them, are now gone from the face of this scorched and barren earth, does not as it cannot, mean that the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride, is gone from this earth, you obstinate heretic. Quite the contrary understanding is given by divine Authority in Truth, who infallibly commands otherwise. She remains here as She has always been and in Her implacable as inviolable foundation. Amen. All of our needs have been eternally met, poor, poor Simple Man. One must hold the divine and Catholic Faith to KNOW THIS with apodictic certitude though. Amen. Alleluia.
Save your soul A Simple Man. Submit to Christ Jesus in His Living, Divine, Perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. I do pray that you do. In caritas.