Questions concerning the validity of Benedict XVI’s so-called resignation continue to swirl; in fact, it appears that the controversy is snowballing.
The reason: More and more people are coming to the undeniable conclusion that Jorge Mario Bergoglio simply is not Catholic; that is, he is not a member of the Body of the Church as defined by the sacred magisterium throughout the centuries. As a result of this growing awareness, it appears that the numbers of those who, in an attempt to make sense of the present situation, are compelled to seek refuge in the idea that Benedict remains the true pope are also growing.
For my part, I have long been on the record as stating that there are substantial reasons, many of them coming from Benedict himself, to suspect that he did not freely step down (or step aside as the case may be). If this be so, then his apparent act of resignation would be invalid according to Canon Law.
Other arguments to this end exist (e.g., Benedict renounced the ministry and not the munus), but my intention in this post is not to weigh their merits, but rather to discuss one of the side effects of the ongoing resignation debate:
It occurs to me that those who favor the idea that Benedict is still the pope are slowly becoming inured, whether they realize it or not, with sedevacantism.
How so?
For one, they have been warning others about the long-term presence of what they have determined to be an anti-pope, even though the majority of the Catholic world accepts that same man as a true pope – a fact that guarantees, according to some tradition-minded commentators, that he really is the true pope.
In the process of defending their convictions, they have been forced to insist that their ability and willingness to identify the anti-pope, in spite of the majority opinion to the contrary, in no way sets them against traditional Catholic teaching as some would insist.
These things being so, they now find themselves standing on common ground, reluctantly or not, with sedevacantists.
Secondly, and drawing closer to the point, sedevacantism is already an effective reality for the Benedict-remains-pope crowd given what they consider to be the true pope’s exile, a condition to which he assented even if under threat, whereby he isn’t functioning as Roman Pontiff in any real sense.
Inevitably, however, sedevacantism will become a concrete reality for such persons immediately upon Benedict’s death. It’s unavoidable. Once Benedict dies, the Church, in their view, will be without a true pope, even as the majority of self-identified Catholics still consider the anti-pope, Bergoglio, to be the true pope.
But what if Bergoglio dies first?
If, as they insist, Benedict is the true pope, then any so-called “conclave” that proposes to elect a successor to “Francis” while Benedict is alive would be as invalid as the one that took place in 2013. This would be so even if a modern-day Giuseppe Sarto is chosen. Therefore, the scenario described above will remain in play. In fact, if a younger man is chosen to replace Bergoglio while Benedict is still alive, the possibility of a decades-long anti-papacy will become all the more real.
This, in a nutshell, is how sedevacantists describe the Church’s condition since 1958.
So, what will the Benedict-remains-pope crowd do once he dies and they find themselves sedevacantists practically overnight?
One would hope that they would roll up their sleeves and examine firsthand the sedevacantist argument. That is to say, it would be high time for them to give serious thought to the numerous magisterial texts that seem to favor the sedevacantist position – either to confirm it, or to refute it, once and for all.
Who knows, maybe they will find those texts more convincing relative to the claims of sedevacantists than they presently imagine. Then again, maybe not. Either way, there is no good reason to wait for Benedict to meet his Maker to begin that examination, and every good reason to do so now. After all, the goal is to discover how to genuinely think and feel with the Church, a matter of some urgency at all times, in every circumstance.
You see, for those who sincerely wish to make good Catholic sense of the present situation – whether a Benedict-remains-pope proponent or not – it’s absolutely necessary to dive deeply into the abundance of pre-conciliar magisterial texts that articulate the Roman Catholic Church’s constantly held teaching on the papacy (e.g., its rights, its privileges, and our duty toward it) and ecclesiology (e.g., the nature of the Church’s God-given unity, its indefectibility, and its visibility), subjects that speak directly to the very heart of the post-conciliar crisis.
Be that as it may, the vast majority of self-identified “traditionalists” have never taken the time to explore the above-mentioned magisterial texts in order to determine how they may, or may not, shed light on the present darkness.
And why not? Well, for one thing, one will not find such texts, or excerpts therefrom, neatly presented in easily digestible, relevant and logical order on any “traditionalist” websites. That alone should strike readers as odd.
The only places where such presentations can be found, as far as I can tell anyway, are on certain sedevacantist websites. But let’s be honest, the moment most traditionalists (aka Catholics) encounter the “S” word, they turn, tuck tail, and run the other way as fast as they possibly can.
Is this due to complacency? Is it fear? Could it be because so many of us have been conditioned to view sedevacantism the way the Jews of old viewed leprosy?
Sure, many of us have read books that purport to dissect the writings of various Saints, Doctors and venerable theologians that pondered the possibility of a pope falling into formal heresy, but I’m speaking here about texts that are far more approachable; namely, decrees issued by popes and councils past articulating the sure doctrine of the Church in direct, clear and unambiguous language.
I plainly admit that I’ve been guilty of ignoring these magisterial texts for many years, and I am all the poorer today for having done so. I have a great deal of catching up (and studying and praying) to do, after which I will draw, and share, my own conclusions.
Remember, folks, this has nothing to do availing oneself of editorials and essays; I’m talking about directly exploring the sure teaching of Holy Mother Church, and God help those who find that proposition untenable!
Having taken a closer look at certain of these teachings, I cannot deny that there are numerous magisterial texts that serve, not to confirm certain of my long held opinions concerning the present crisis in the papacy, but rather as an indictment of the same.
In the next post, I will provide some examples.
But sedevacantists would ask the perennial question, how can a man (BXVI) proven to be a heretic possibly be the Vicar of Christ?
That is the slippery slope that R&Rers realize. Once they are convinced that Bergoglio cannot be Pope based on his heresies, it is an easy sell to realize the hereises of the other conciliar “popes.” That is why the resignation issue is so appealing. It solves the Bergoglio problem but leaves the other “popes” intact.
Oh I think B will die first, when things are at fever pitch (if he hasn’t already for all we know).
Here’s just one of many items of proof against the B scenario: ASISSI.
A stake should be put through the heart of the notion that “sedevacantism” is a heresy, or constitutes schism. The Magisterium does not teach the name of the pope. The election is an administrative act, not an act of the Magisterium.
All popes since VII have been material heretics, but only formal (i.e., intentional, obstinate) heresy bounces a person out of the Church, or an office in the Church. This is why Bergoglio tosses out his heresies, and then pretends not to be aware of questions or corrections. And, of course, appointing notoriously heretical bishops is not, in itself, heretical. A heresy is an utterance, not an action.
BTW: Benedict is pope.
Benedict is not a formal heretic. So he can be pope. And is.
What could be more formal than Assisi?
Others have already done the work. A simple search of “heresies of Benedict XVI” and you will find plenty more. You don’t understand the definition of Material Heresy, and nonetheless it objectively places one outside of the Church. No Pope can possibly be even a Material Heretic, so says the true Church.
Look up Assisi and Benedict and you will see that what Francis has done in reality is no different.
To be formal, heresy must be deliberate. That is true of ALL human acts. A formal heretic both knows and says he is rejecting the teaching of the Church.
Heresy is an utterance, not an action. Assisi was an action.
To be formal, heresy must be deliberate. That is true of ALL human acts. A formal heretic both knows and says he is rejecting the teaching of the Church.
Heresy is an utterance, not an action. Assisi was an action.
Louie, you brought up good subject but this time you have it wrong.
Here is where you went astray: my intention in this post is not to weigh their merits, but rather to discuss one of the side effects.
You should not skip this part of reasoning.
If you start from wrong position, like you did: (I) suspect that he did not freely step down you really may find yourself on sede side. Similar for those who insist that Bergolio ceased to be the Pope by committing multiple acts against the faith or never was because of invalid Conclave. The truth is that Bergolio was never the Pope, even for a fraction of second because B16 did not resign.
For readers here, it is enough to say that my position aligns with Ann Barnhardt’s, because I think she is right aka she is saying truth. To prevent (if possible at all) any accusation of being ‘Ann’s “fan boy”, I say I’m not. She do err but there is no platform known me to point it out and this is no place for it.
Anyway, don’t read me I reject your starting point as untrue. It is quite possible that B16 didn’t resign freely, it is also clear that Bergolio performed acts against Faith and that there were ‘irregularities’ surrounding ‘election’ of Bergolio. But those are not reasons, even not secondary reasons that Bergolio is not the Pope. If you understand this, there is no risk of joining sede camp.
Might formal heresy also consist of a failure to utter when one has a duty to utter? I have in mind Bergoglio’s failure to directly and publicly correct Scalfari’s recent account of Bergoglio’s denial of Christ’s divinity.
And what about his written utterance that “God wills a diversity of religions”?
Let’s first take the scenario that Francis dies or “resigns.” If he resigns then the majority of Catholics who believe he is Pope would have to accept the Cardinals he appointed and the Church would continue on the path it is now on, but at a faster pace. If Francis dies, the result would be the same. Such a situation, however, just doesn’t seem something any Catholic, traditional or otherwise, could accept, for the Catholic Church would have disappeared.
Secondly, if Francis is not Pope and Benedict is not Pope, then where is the Church? St. Ambrose’s dictum “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” (Where Peter is there is the Church) is a pithy truth which guarantees the Jurisdiction which Christ granted to His Church. And this is what really breaks the logic of Sedevacantists, who believe that somehow jurisdiction magically remains in the Church during the sixty some year so-called vacancy of the Petrine Office. That is insanity, for it is not being in touch with reality.
Yes, there is a certain supplied jurisdiction during an interregnum where there is at least an attempt to elect another Pope–the intention to fill the See of Peter must be PRACTICAL, and NOT IMAGINED. A dictated possibility of jurisdiction when there are no Cardinals left to elect a Pope according to the existing Laws of the Church, which can be changed only by a Pope would indicate jurisdiction is nothing but a dream (a pious wish?). And such a state would mean the end of the Church! God would not allow such a state to exist; He would without doubt insure the indefectibility of His Church.
Hence, it is absolutely unrealistic to believe that God would not somehow provide for a true Pope. What follows is an explanation for How God did provide for His Church, which cannot be thrown out until the Third Secret has been revealed:
There are so many articles and attempts to explain the situation today concerning the calling of an imperfect council, Cardinal Burke’s supposedly backslide vis a vis Francis and other such slips of the authorities “under the gun” of the demand to do something. There is MASS CONFUSION throughout the Catholic world, in more ways than one.
In my treatise on Benedict, I pointed out how the promise of Christ referred to the Infallibility of the Magisterium and the Indefectibility of the Governance of the Church:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (Mt. 16: 18-19).
Christ promises to Peter that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against It [the rock], and regarding this the Church has defined the infallibility of the Magisterium, such that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against It.” In other words Peter and his successors are protected from error by the work of the Holy Ghost.
However, in the next sentence, Christ says that he will bind and loose whatever Peter binds and looses, regarding the Governance of the Church, which deals with the action of the members of the Church so that they may be able to obtain eternal salvation. But since this is not what is protected by Infallibility, there must be some other protection. And here is what hit me: God Himself provides that protection, since He will only bind and loose what the true Pope binds and looses.
THIS IS A PROMISE OF CHRIST GRANTED TO PETER UPON HIS PROFESSION OF LOVE–not hatred for His Church! Christ never breaks his Promises! so can anyone really say that if Satan’s vicar, indeed any Pope, binds the Church with an official law (as Bergoglio has supposedly done in placing it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) that allows divorced and remarried Catholics living as man and wife, demanding Marriage rights, Our Lord is going to bind such a thing in Heaven? Would not one be making a hypocrite out of Christ, whereby he says it’s not OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, but it is OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. In fact wouldn’t one holding such a position be blaspheming Our Dear Lord already so outraged today? I’m sorry, but this is not a matter of a practical doubt, it’s a matter of fact precisely because of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture . This is but a brief argument concerning the Papacy of Francis.
In other words, when Francis officially places a law that governs the actions of the Faithful in the AAS, as he did with allowing those in invalid marriages to receive Holy Communion without desisting from their sin, something that demands that Christ to do what is “per impossbile,” such a demand only manifests that Francis is NOT a TRUE POPE!! And how Our Lord precludes the possibility of such a situation is through personally providing for a true Pope–in today’s situation, Benedict.
I believe the attack on the governance of the Church by the Masons, Communists and Modernists, since it entails not just one person, the Pope, but huge parts of the Church. but which also sets up an amalgamation within the Church, is something that could not be handled from within. Any solution had to be a protection and directed from without. And so in our own day we have Benedict resigning from the “exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but keeping the Petrine Office, through being directed by means of the Third Secret or through some personal Divine revelation or inspiration substantiated by his experience as head of the CDF and as Pope. In this way there is “supplied jurisdiction” throughout the Church according to the dictum of St. Ambrose.
The blindness today is absolutely incredible and can only be caused by the demonic influence that God has allowed for our times. Cardinal Cerejeira told the participants at the opening of a tour of the Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Our Lady of Fatima across Italy in 1959, “It is an apocalyptic hour for the world. These are frightening winds from hell which are blowing, and the elect themselves are allowing themselves to be carried away” (The Whole Truth about Fatima, The Third Secret, p. 535, by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Vol III).
I look forward to the next post with specific examples. The question of what to do when Benedict dies has been on my mind lately. Also, has anyone considered the possibility of him “disappearing”? The reason I ask is that in Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions, she states:
” I know not how I went to Rome last night, but I found myself near the Church of St. Mary Major. Around it I saw crowds of poor, pious souls, in great distress and anxiety on account of the pope’s disappearance and the agitation and alarming reports throughout the city. ” Spiritual Works and Journeys, Angelico Press, pg. 153
Prior to this, she says that the pope is concealed in order to avoid danger, and is hidden because he can trust so few. Also, that he is so feeble that he can’t walk alone.
How do you know that his heresy is formal? Did he confide in you that he knew that such things as religious indifferentism were condemned by the Church, but that he decided to advocate them anyway? In other words, Arthur McGowan, did he admit to you that he was deliberately preaching that which was condemned by the Church and that he KNEW that the Church condemned what he was preaching?
I said Benedict is NOT a formal heretic.
I said Benedict is NOT a formal heretic. Of course a pope can be a material heretic. It has happened many times. And, of course, every formal heretic is a material heretic.
Silence can be a grave sin, but it cannot be heresy, because heresy is the denial of some dogma of the Faith.
An awful lot of people are pontificating about things that “cannot happen,” such as: an antipope, an interregnum of more than a few weeks, a heretical pope, etc. Of course, all these things have occurred dozens of times in the Church’s history.
But how could you possibly know?
Benedict XVI is an adept theologian. He therefore knows what the Church’s teaching is on non-Catholic religions, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, Judaism, and a host of other things (he probably knows the Church’s teaching on everything, including heresy and the distinction between material and formal heresy). He is a heretic. To assume that he is merely a material heretic is rather naïve, but nevertheless could be considered charitable. To state categorically “…Benedict is NOT a formal heretic” is presumptuous because, absent BXVI’s revelation that he knows that he has deliberately flouted Church teaching, one can only ASSUME that he is a material (or formal, for that matter) heretic. Only God can peer into anyone’s soul and know whether they are material or formal heretics.
“I look forward to the next post with specific examples.”
As do I Catherine.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Silence gives consent?
I’d like to get a better grip on this Church history. If you were to recommend a single volume on Church history, what would that volume be?
You’re wrong; RATzinger (what’s in a name?) is an heretic, and an apostate (Assisi), no question about it.
After all, it’s not like the Pope can be presumed to ever have **culpable ignorance** regarding the teaching of the Church. For he is not a mere layman, but the decisive criterion for orthodoxy on Faith and Morals, and the one whose authoritative teaching reinforces and supports all of the faithful!
Lou,
I am glad you raised the Question, and so I refer you to my Scholastic Question on it, where I show what the Catholic answer is.
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/whether-with-all-cardinal-electors-defecting-the-roman-church-has-the-right-to-elect-the-pope/
“In the process of defending their convictions, they have been forced to insist that their ability and willingness to identify the anti-pope, in spite of the majority opinion to the contrary, in no way sets them against traditional Catholic teaching as some would insist.”
Exactly, Louie.
“Antipope”
A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907)
Jorge “Francis” Bergoglio is a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to the canonically elected pontiff, Benedict XVI.
^^^This^^^
Silence can be a grave sin, but heresy requires an UTTERANCE. Not every grave sin is heresy.
The fact that Benedict never said he intended to teach heresy is the evidence that he is NOT a formal heretic.
Whether or not he is a material heretic can be determined by looking at his WORDS, to see if they contain heresy.
The ABSENCE of any statement by Benedict that he intends to teach heresy is the proof that he is not a formal heretic.
“But how could you possibly know?”
Easy. Since he never said he wanted to teach heresy, he is not a formal heretic.
Benedict has never said that he intends to teach something contrary to the Church’s teaching. Therefore, he cannot be a formal heretic. This is not speculation. The DEFINITION of formal heresy REQUIRES repeated declarations of an INTENTION to teach heresy.
Whether Benedict has ever said or written anything heretical is irrelevant. The fact that he has never declared the INTENTION to teach heresy completely disposes of any accusation of formal heresy.
What? Where did you read that? I’ve never read that in any definition. Must be some benevacantistrat invention.
Rubbish!
“Oh I don’t intend to be a heretic (or apostate) as I gladly stroll into the Blue Mosque in Istanbul and pray in the manner of the Mohammedans, with my shoes off and my pectoral cross hidden…”
MotherMostForgiving,
You have succinctly stated the fundamental error of Sedes, the presumption that a material heretic is a formal heretic. Actually the catholic teaching from moral theology is that the presumption is of innocence, “Charity thinketh no evil”. But in Canon Law procedures, the presumption is of formality. The problem is, since none of us are members of the Holy Office or participating in a process to try a man for heresy, we cannot transfer the presumption from a penal process to the moral sphere and then arrogate to ourselves the right to dismiss the teaching of the Gospel, “charity thinketh no evil” and pronounce them in fact a formal heretic. — A catholic who hears heresy seeks to rebuke the one who spouts it, because he knows that as an adopted son of God his duty is to seek the salvation of his brother, not dump his soul in the trashbin of public calumny. Even when we say, what that man is saying, is a heresy, that is not the same thing as saying, that man is a formal heretic who has lost his office, because our judgement formed by faith is capable of recognizing heresy, but we who do not hold offices in the Church do not enjoy the legal perogative of judgement in the canonical sense. Thus, there is a big difference between when a Bishop declares someone a heretic, and when Louie may declare someone a heretic, because the former is a successor of the Apostles, but Louis is only a layman. This is why Sedevacantism is quintessentially a post puritan, post jansenist phenomenon especially popular in protestant countries. Anyone with a sound sense of Catholic history laughs at the idea that the Church could have formal heretics leading it, without anyone in the Hierarchy acting to denounce or seek canonical penalities, like Bishop Gracida is doing regarding Bergoglio.
Just because sedevacantists have no answers to very good questions about succession and jurisdiction, does not mean heretics like Bergoglio, Ratzinger, et al must be Popes by default. That is faulty logic. It sounds convincing at first, but upon further examination it still does not explain how heretics can be Popes.
I agree, Charmaine. At this juncture, it seems to be the only plausible explanation. Let us pray that Our Lady of Buen Suceso will intervene and soon!
With all this talk of material vs formal, posters have lost sight of manifest vs occult heresy:
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/but-they-are-material-heretics.html
All of these “popes” were/are manifest heretics and, therefore, not members of the Catholic Church. As a result, they can not be Vicars of Christ, visible heads of the Catholic Church.
A classic example of utter and complete sophistry, complete with circular reasoning, begging the questions, conflating Church judgement with “private judgement” and starting with false premises. A legalistic comedy of errors, to hide behind.
Also and added to that, false charges, for no “sedevacantist” believes that they can actually judge anyone in the internal forum, or pass any kind of “canonical judgement”. The Church has already judged against heretics, schismatics and apostates.
Behold how tolerating, and following heretics and heresy, schism and apostasy, the ultimate evils, has now become a noble work of “charity”.
We can thank this type of “reasoning” for the current farce and tragedy.
Your evidently have never studied logic, because an long diatribe is merely an ad hominem, which is not an argument, just an insult.
Try again…
I find it interesting what Arthur is trying to say. My thought is, “ What about a Pope who lacks a much needed dose of courage and is suffering from pride and because of this has become a most shameful coward that is unwilling to ask for the grace to step forward and own up to his mistakes and the past mistakes and actions of the modern man within our Church. Can one really call him a “for sure heretic”? A seriously grave coward for sure, but a formal heretic? I am not so sure.
Heresy as a canonical crime is the post baptismal denial of a truth of the faith which has been defined by the Church. Yes you can be excommunicated for denying a truth of the faith, which has not been defined. BUT the canons which excommunicate you ipso facto do not do that. So even if YOU think they are manifest heretics for disagreeing with YOUR favorite book of devotion of theologian or even Doctor of the Church, that does NOT make them loose their office. Never did, never has. Remember even in the Arian crisis, the heresy of Arius was condemned immediately in a Synod.
So canon law (ecclesiastical) law trumps divine law to according to you.
Very interesting Romanus sum. Thank you.
There’s not a scrap of “ad hominum” in what I have said, and all those weak arguments in your post have been refuted and exposed over and over already. You obviously have not studied any of the arguments given from solid Catholic sources to the contrary.
Louie mentioned above about being remiss in studying some of those sources. I would suggest you do the same.
Always be leary of those who dismiss canon law. They often lack the energy to study because they believe that canon law cannot be trusted to defend properly divine law.
Although some people can interpret canon law to suit them just as man can interpret divine law to suit them I still stand by the fact that one should be very leary of those who dismiss canon law because it is too much work to plow through and it gives them a headache.
Read Mystici Corporis regarding the sin of heresy (ie. divine law). No, I’m not lazy, but thanks for the rash judgment.
I do not want to waste time with the ad hominem which is employed to divert the argument to another topic. But I will say that not only is your asserted interpretation of what I wrote wrong, but your error in understanding what I said proves to me you have no ability to discern heresy if it was looking you in the face.
Holding an office in the Church is a matter of divine law, that is why Christ gave us Apostles and Bishops to be the judges of everyone in the Church in matters of ecclesiastical communion.
Protestants and all those infected with their errors disagree, but then again protestants deny that there is any office in the Church passed down from Christ.
Arthur, you spent a lot of time making the distinction between material and formal heretic. So what? The key word is still heretic. A Pope can be neither. Whether a murderer confesses and is convicted or denies and is acquitted doesn’t change the fact that he is still a murdered and guilty of the sin of murder. Pope Pius XIII teaches that the sin of heresy severs one from the Catholic Church, not a conviction of the crime of heresy. If I observe a man speaking or acting like a heretic, I do not wait till he admits the fact. I start avoiding him immediately.
Because as I’ve explained to you in great detail before my Darwin-worshiping Heliocentric-Heretical friend, if we take your premise as true that the distinction between formal and material heresy doesn’t matter, then the Church failed circa 1800-early 1900. And we’ve already been without a Pope for nigh close to 200 years.
Considering most Sedes believe in false doctrines like Evolution and Einsteinian Relativity over and above the clear formal definitions of heresy enforced by the Church and Papal authority during the 1600s and 1700s as they waged war against the Neitzchean bastards of their day that used the Galileo affair and later Darwin and Lyell’s nonsense to destroy the authority of the Church and poisoned the minds of clergy until they and Popes increasingly gave way to modernism culminating in the very Vatican II Council you reject where the authority of the Papacy, Previous Church Councils and Scripture is all undermined so that the Church would get right with the supposedly revolving/rotating Earthly world built on Relativity’s Magical House of Cards, all Sedevacantists who deny the enforced DOCTRINE that the Earth does not move through space are heretics worthy of avoiding given their errors are no different than the Vatican II Periti, except the Vatican II Church is more consistent in its application, whereas Sedes are in a clear state of contradiction.
History cannot be changed, so the Sede has to decide between:
A – believing the Church failed and has likely been without Popes for 200 years.
B – believing Vatican II was right and considering all the previous Popes from Peter down to the late 1800s were wrong and needed to be corrected so that the Church and Scripture only possesses some ill-defined infallibility on matter of ‘salvation’
C – concluding that material heresy does not make one cease to be a member of the Church and therefore cannot be grounds for loss of the Papal Office.
If one wishes to stubbornly insist that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from any and every conceivable error and that Copernicus, Galileo, Lyell and Darwin are correct becauase ‘science amirite?’ – then they need to explain for us why the Holy Spirit took a vacation during the first 1500 years of the Church’s existence, nay even further to the time of Moses considering the Hebrew Tradition is in line with the Early Church and Fathers when interpreting Scripture authoritatively, which is under the authority of the Church alone. So the Holy Spirit either screwed up before or afterwards, or the Sede idea that the distinction between material and formal is inconsequential is what is in error. There is no escaping this.
It’s certainly possible that John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and Benedict aren’t popes, but this must be established under formal heresy. At least with Francis, his formal heresy is obvious and he even openly admits it.
One of the ironies of the Theory of Special Relativity is that earth CAN be considered the unmoving, nonrevolving center of the universe.
If you think the Popes for 500 years have been heretics over evolution and heliocentrism, then you should be a super sede and not a 1958 sede. No Pope became a material heretic over these issues. So your argument fails unless you prove evolution and heliocentrism as heresies. They are, in my mind, bad science and I reject both of them. But not for doctrinal reasons, for scientific reasons. These scientific issues have absolutely nothing to do with our faith nor our salvation. You have tried before to make this a doctrinal issue without any success. Please do not try again.
Jame O: If you cannot argue, that does not upset me. But you should recognize that your position is not a rational one. God wants us to be rational.
Ever wonder why no Bishop with jurisdiction would ever become a Sede? Becauase as a Bishop with jurisdiction he can judge those underhim or accuse those above him or beside him, because he has that office from Christ.
Sedes get frustrated because like protestants they believe that faith is sufficient to give them authority to judge and that there is nothing other than perhaps holiness in the Church to establish authority.
But that is not Catholic. Sedes thus are protestants without knowing it. They will fixate on every argument, but never admit this their core error.
St. Robert Bellarmine, one of the most learned Doctors of the Church, teaches: “
“You would find that all [The Holy Fathers] agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that THE SUN is in the heavens and MOVES SWIFTLY AROUND THE EARTH, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense CONTRARY to the holy Fathers and ALL the Latin AND Greek commentators.
Nor may it be answered that this is NOT a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as he- retical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”
Providentissimus Deus:
“The Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.”
On the Study of Holy Scripture – encyclical of Pope Leo XIII – November 18, 1893.
I kind of feel bad for saying that Pope BenedictXVI could really be a serious coward. Therefor, I need to add, that I did say so with the understanding that being a coward is something that I think most of us can understand being and that we could maybe see as a very possible situation.
Public, contumacious heresy [many, many heresies]. A seven year old raised in the One True Holy Faith and fit to make his First Confession and Holy Communion objectively knows what is proffered over and over by Francis is not the Faith but against Faith and morals. He is an enemy of God and the Holy Faith, a most stubborn and devious one. He has made his hatred of Holy God and the Holy Faith blatant (in the full public square) since the apparent election to the Holy See. A public evil enemy of God and the Holy Faith, if there ever was one. Lord, have mercy upon us poor miserable sinners. Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us.
Multiple evils propounded as Church teaching.
Robert Sungenis’s book, “Gallileo Was Wrong . . .”, is very good.
“He has made his hatred of Holy God and the Holy Faith blatant (in the full public square)…”
Given enough time, Satan can’t resist eventually overplaying his hand (in this instance, through his little worker, Jorge).
Excellent quote ASB, thanks for that.
Both Evolution and Modern “Cosmology/Cosmogony” are tied together as all part and package of the “Big Bang”, an alternative replacement for Genesis, and mock the traditional, literal interpretation of Creation thereof. Both are dead set against and contradict Scripture, because they attack the very origin of Creation right at the root, they strike directly against God Himself, and Divine Revelation. God is Truth, and all truth is His, down to the smallest microscopic cell. That’s about as heretical as it could ever, ever get.
If evolution is at the very origin of the universe, then truth itself isn’t fixed and absolute, and it’s always changing and morphing to something greater/better. Sound familiar?
Speculative, junk “science”, and it’s literally everywhere, with not a scrap of actual proof to back it, and it’s been taught in “catholic schools” as “facts” to children for decades!
Don’t get me started.
Next thing you know, they’ll be telling you some more fairy tales, like they landed on the Moon too. They got to the point where they were mocking the public so bad they were actually pretending to play golf. What stupidity.
“Masters” of the heavens. And you better believe with an unquestioning, blind “faith”.
It seems that Louie has stirred up the hornets nest with this post. Let me state some certain truths.
1. The earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Robert Sungenis has done a scholarly work to prove it. St. Bellarmine considered it heretical to think otherwise. However, just because a Saint says “de fide” doesn’t necessarily mean it is de fide.
2. Francis never was the Pope because he has been a heretic and apostate from before his “election”.
3. Benedict was never the Pope because he has been a heretic and apostate from before his “election”. In a certain sense Benedict is a Worse heretic than Francis because he has more knowledge of the Catholic faith yet he rejects it time and time again in his writings, his statements, and his actions. For those who doubt this perhaps you had better do some research.
4. My personal opinion is that we will never have another Pope. However my faith in the Lord and in the Catholic Church remains.
Yes, Sungenis has done some good work as far as geocentrism goes, and it’s a good beginning, but it goes far deeper than even that. Geocentrism without a doubt is correct, and Galileo Galilei was definitely wrong.
We have at our disposal means of viewing, measuring, and observing the physical world that we have never had in the past. Some of those include ultra-simple proofs from various means including cameras, lasers, and empirical evidence, that leaves us with another problem with modern “science” so-called, to think about. And it’s so simple but telling.
The oceans are all on the same level, but water cannot be measured as having any curvature. We MUST have curvature if Sungenis’s model is correct.
I’ll just leave you with that.
St. Bellarmine states in no uncertain terms WHY it is de Fide. The Pope declared Galileo to be an heretic. The condemnation of Galileo was lifted by none other than Carol Woytila, an Antichrist “Pope”. If it was not important nor a matter of Faith, then why would that devil even bother bringing it up and do so? Just think about that for a moment.
You’re welcome. In recent years they’ve been telling us that they haven’t been to the moon and cannot get there (in their made-up and now CGI* model of a universe). I’ve seen many clips from the horses’ mouths, including Obama. It is all about the end goal of turning the people toward atheism. They are all sun worshippers themselves, and I believe this almost goes hand-in-hand with the Protestant Reformation as in the action of the spirit of Antichrist which was already in the world and gaining ground. I also believe that this is a far more important matter than people suspect, because it has to do with heresy, yes, but ultimately as it involves believing that not only the holy Scriptures contain a lie or at best don’t mean what they say, but that the Church erred, which is impossible.
Interestingly, I had come to the conclusion that Geocentrism was the Truth just prior to my eyes being opened about the rest of the Truth and finally settling in moral certitude about the false Church, having been lost in the chaos and confusion and searching for nearly 5 years. Although I knew the Church had something to do with it and I searched for answers there as well, at the time it was a side matter for me and something I just suddenly decided to look into after ignoring it for 2 years (“flat earth”). I generally make it a habit to avoid ridiculing or discounting anything about which I am ignorant, and that disposition along with my willingness to submit to that Truth apparently paid off immensely. It was literally mind-blowing and painful to realize that what I believed all of my life about the earth was a tremendous lie, and I truly believe that was by design as it prepared me to submit to the Truths of the Faith despite the pain of all of what I believed in that respect to have also been a lie. I can honestly say on both counts that it was sheer mental, emotional and spiritual torture during that time – much like a birthing process – and then the persecution began…
On another note and to Louie:
Much respect to you, sir, for publishing this article. May God, the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph guide and protect you.
In a thread about sedevacantism, how in the world did geocentrism come up?
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/single-argument-geocentrism/
And, from the theological end of the spectrum, you have Pope Pius VII:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/
“If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; ***and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought***, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in a such way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.” – Pope Benedict XV, paragraph 4 of “In Praeclara Summorum”
Someone brought up heresy.
It doesn’t matter whether one believes that the earth and the planets go around the sun, or in stationary earth Sungenis geocentrism, or even that the earth is flat, and under a dome; he is not a heretic. Only one of them is actually correct though.
Maybe this conundrum as to whether earth is center of the universe or not is just another instance of God’s letting man—DIVINE ADORABLE MAN! (as Wojtyla would have it)—know that his intelligence is finite.
Actually, following the laws of non-contradiction, both could be also be wrong as well.
Actually, the term “geocentric” is a poor word to describe the cosmos. The Sun and Moon and stars indeed do make their circles and paths above us, but all Creation is better described as being Christo-centric. That’s reality.
The first chapter of St. John says it all. It was made by Him and for Him. But they knew Him not.
I’m sorry, I meant to say specifically above that both modern cosmology and Sungenis’s version can both be wrong.
Did Martin Luther say he wanted to teach heresy?
Has Francis I ever said he wanted to teach heresy?
Whatever is not true and therefore a lie, is heresy, and we know who the father of lies is.
Truth matters in all things.
“In a thread about sedevacantism, how in the world did geocentrism come up?”
Because it’s diversionary.
My fault. I digressed.
2 Vermont–I was wondering the same thing. I guess Louie’s guidelines to be brief, on topic and courteous are too inhibiting.
I sense that the anti-sedes will attack with full force now that Louie is clearly open to sedevacantism in this blog piece. It will probably ratchet up in the coming weeks. We need to be careful not to get sucked into it.
“Holding an office in the Church is a matter of divine law, that is why Christ gave us Apostles and Bishops to be the judges of everyone in the Church in matters of ecclesiastical communion.”
But not the Pope. The (true) pope is above canon law and is only subject to divine law (ie. the sin of heresy, not the crime of heresy).
Very well put, Johnno.
A S M:
This is a simple matter of reading comprehension; please note that the Pope used the words “IF” and “may”.
Then, although science (man) would seem to be some sort of god to you, read once more Pascendi by Pope St. Pius the 10th, assuming you already have read it.
To those who both have “2” in your name and always tag team each other, offering no real contribution to a conversation: someone may have digressed, however, it’s ALL relevant.
TPS:
In saying that it doesn’t matter you contradict a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, for one, who already explained why it is a matter of Faith.
Bellarmine was referring to a strict Copernicanism that held the sun to be the immobile center of the universe (which was an absurdity in light of natural philosophy, even at that time). Such a condemnation cannot be used to condemn **all** non-geocentric models of cosmology.
As seen in the above citations regarding Pope Pius VII and Pope Benedict XV, holding a non-geocentric view of the universe was certainly **not** considered a heretical viewpoint to hold.
^Someone’s talking to themself again. LOL
All have free will to continue to be deceived into believing that we are on a spinning ball, flying through space, and circling the sun at 66,666 thousand miles, when God has repeatedly stated that the earth is immovable and is His footstool (i.e. cognitive dissonance). I challenge anyone to place their feet on a footstool that moves anything like that. If you don’t yet know who is behind this astonishing lie, then keep thinking and praying. “6” sure comes up a lot in their “scientific” numbers when it comes to this matter F th earth, although I have now noticed they have fooled with the numbers bit as compared to a few years ago because too many have caught on. “They” have also been in the process of wiping the Truth from the internet and leaving more sites that ridicule it; it’s part of the mind control process that we’ve all been subjected to from a very young age.
Now, with that being said, watch this video showing the REAL stars and tell me this doesn’t make you laugh at the absurdity of the “science”:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g
If the link doesn’t work then search “YouTube flat earth real stars”. It’s only 8 or 9 minutes long and well worth a look.
“The fact that Benedict never said he intended to teach heresy is the evidence that he is NOT a formal heretic…The ABSENCE of any statement by Benedict that he intends to teach heresy is the proof that he is not a formal heretic.”
To Arthur McGowan:
In charity, I feel compelled to point out some of the faults in your reasoning:
The first of which is that NO heretic has ever admitted to being a heretic because that would require him to publicly admit: [a] that he is teaching something man-made and erroneous, [b] picking and choosing for himself what to believe, and [c] placing himself above Divine Revelation as the supreme arbiter of truth. To expect someone to admit this publicly before we can acknowledge that he is willfully a heretic and outside the Church due to his publicly manifested actions/words/omissions contrary to the Catholic Faith is extremely problematic.
The main problem with your reasoning is argumentum ad absurdum that is, taken to it’s logical conclusion, it becomes absurd. For instance, if what you say about Anti-pope Benedict XVI is true, it ought to be applied universally to all potential heretics who claim to be members of the true Church, i.e. nearly all of them.
All heretics believe that they are in the right and representing the true Church founded by Christ–that is their error. Whether you talk to a Mormon or a Lutheran or a Calvinist or a Jehovah’s Witness, every single one will tell you that their church alone represents historical Christianity at its roots and the true message of Jesus Christ. None of them will ever openly admit they are adhering to man-made novelties because they are convinced that they are not.
Since there aren’t any Protestant heretics who openly identify as are heretics, then according to the position you presented, nearly every adherent to every heretical sect is just in material heresy, still presumed to be a member of the true Church, and we can therefore have a Protestant elected to the papal throne. The logical conclusion of waiting for a public declaration of heresy by the heretic in question is the possibility of a Protestant pope. Since its logical conclusion is absurd, this is an untenable position to hold.
This also begets another problem, namely that the reasoning you have presented borders on an error condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors; condemned error #17: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.”
If we are to presume that one is only a material heretic unless they make a formal declaration of their heresy, then we must presume that most or all Christian heretics are only materially heretical and therefore have a reasonable hope of being saved since, presumably, they have not perniciously consented the their error with a sufficient consent of the will, yet this was condemned above and therefore untrue.
If you acknowledge that Protestants are heretics outside the Church, because the Church has declared them as such due to their publicly manifested actions/writings/omissions contrary to the Catholic Faith, despite no Protestant publicly declaring himself to be formal heretic, then you must admit both that your position is false and that Fr. Ratzinger is a manifest public heretic also despite not identifying as one.
All of that being said, Fr. Ratzinger has publicly admitted to rejecting the teachings on faith and morals of previous popes in his written works and attempted to justify his position. That is as close as any heretic will ever come to openly admitting he teaches heresy. Consider the following passages–which constitute just one example of many–in which he makes the following points:
[a] the previous popes taught something on faith and morals but they were products of their time and therefore wrong;
[b] times have changed and progressed so we corrected them at Vatican II, and
[c] here’s why we now teach the opposite position to what the previous popes held, the same one that they condemned as an error contrary to the Catholic Faith.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology”, p. 381-382:
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus,” (p. 381).
“…the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism…Since then, many things have changed…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected…” (p. 381-382).
Compare that to the following condemned error:
“80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
–Pope BI. Pius IX, “The Syllabus Of Errors”, 1864.
As we can clearly see, both the argument used and conclusion reached by “Cdl.” Ratzinger were explicitly condemned by the very pope whose teaching Ratzinger publicly admits to rejecting. His heretical rejection of the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church could not be more clear and direct than this contradiction between his beliefs outlined above and its near word-for-word rejection by real Catholic popes.
For further examples, see this video by Most Holy Family Monastery which is an excellent summation of Anti-pope Benedict XVI’s heresies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs
Sincerely,
Kyle of Canada
Christe Rex: Adveniat regnum Tuum. Maria, Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis. Amen.
There is a difference between treating science as a god and acknowledging that geocentrism’s current proponents (e.g. Sungenis) are infamous for poor argumentation.
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wrong-wavelength-basic-physics-blunders-geocentrists/
Ultimately, the current cosmological makeup of the universe is ancillary to the reality that God created everything, and to the reality that one’s salvation will not differ one whit whether you believe the universe revolves around the Earth or not. Nor can it be said that holding a non-geocentric model in this day and age is to contradict the decree condemning Galileo, which was addressed only to him, and focused more on his own implications that natural philosophy could ever contradict Sacred Scripture (particularly in light of Rome’s understandable criticisms regarding how we are not subject to torrential forces of Earth truly is moving through space; these objections have since been satisfactorily answered under our current understanding of physics).
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-tempest-in-a-teapot-or-theological-shipwreck/
There are more pressing issues at the moment, but as my final word on this topic: if strict, universal geocentrism is to make a comeback, then it needs a better champion than Robert Sungenis, because his somewhat-lacking scholarship and errors are rather easy to look up.
Better yet, before viewing read Ezekiel 1, notably verse 20.
There’s a good little Kindle booklet available on Amazon for free or very little, which contains more Scriptural clues to reality:
“Every Eye Shall See: The Flat Earth Theory and Prophecy”.
True, but we have that better champion and it’s called Scripture (God the Holy Ghost), The Church, the Holy Church Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church.
We even have the official UN map.
When Christ comes down from heaven and “every eye shall see,” how can that be if we’re on a spinning ball?
Not to mention the sun itself is not a star – St. Paul even tells us so in 1 Cor 15. We were given two “lights”: the sun and the moon.
Again, ASM, I’m going with the Doctor of the Church who says it IS a matter of Faith and why, versus your mere opinion.
I do understand, however, that it’s a very hard pill to swallow.
Benedict XV said IF and MAY; there’s nothing definitive about it so he did not err.
I also have the original and only true Douay Rheims Bible Annotations here which explain that there is a firmament above and so on. Again, I’m sticking with that and leaving behind the Freemasons and their “scientific” deception.
Take a look at the (ridiculously few in number) official photos of earth supposedly taken from “space”, and explain to me why the continents vastly differ in size in one from the other? Why do we not have a live stream of the earth 24/7/365 and millions of photos? Because it’s CGI; now they can make TPS believe anything at all is reality.
ASB,
Thanks for the links. I truly hope people do not brush it aside beforehand, and would take the time to look at all the actual scientific proofs, and study the subject without any bias.
They have been shadow-banning all the informational videos on youtube on the subject, because they don’t want more people learning about the huge fraud.
To Alphonsus,
I don’t know if this might be what you are looking for but “The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, Drawn from the Secret Archives of the Vatican and Other Original Sources” could possibly be of interest.
You’re welcome, James.
Most won’t consider it, maybe a few will, due to Cognitive Dissonance. Again I find the fact that an event occurred directly on the heels of me accepting the world model as presented by Scripture and the Church (and people for thousands of years as evidence by drawings), which then catapulted me into the last phase of my search for the Truth of what happened to the Church – a search which began very shortly after I decided to permanently switch to the “Latin Mass”. I do not believe it to have been a coincidence.
It’s very comforting to know that God and the Saints are directly above us, above the firmament, and not in some imaginary place out there in the cosmos – somewhere – but exactly where we know not.
In Luke 21:28 Jesus Christ tells us that when the tribulation comes to pass, to “LOOK UP, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand”. If we are on a spinning ball, then which part of the world’s population will be able to look up and see Him coming in all His Majesty?
When the veil spoken of in Scripture is lifted we will see reality as it is.
james: I don’t see it as any one person’s fault. In fact I don’t think it was you who started it. I think we need to remain focused on the issues that Louie is contemplating right now…and it’s not heliocentrism/geocentrism. It is a good topic, and I have seen it discussed in other fora, but I don’t see how it helps this combox’s readers see the truth in sedevacantism (as in, we’ve had false popes since 1958).
I think it was brought up to make the readers think that sedevacantism is false because one could go further and claim that we have had false popes for hundreds of years. I know that the sedes in this combox do NOT hold that position, but it’s interesting how 90% of the posts are now discussing this topic instead of what Louie discussed in his blog piece.
Meh, probably not 90% of all the posts, but probably about 90% of the most recent posts.
“Benedict is Going to Die Soon – And That Changes Everything”
https://www.thecampofsaints.com/2019/11/benedict-is-going-to-die-soon-and-that.html
Interesting. It’s true, the demons are awaiting the time when the true Vicar dies to accelerate their evil plan. Things will get exponentially worse, as the spiritual protection of the papacy will be gone. The weak hierarchy will not act and the almost complete destruction of the visible Church on earth will take place. Those who should speak will be silent Our Lady says, the Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay. There will be an apparent triumph of evil, and when all seems lost, that will be the beginning of the glorious time of the reign of the Immaculate Heart. We need to be prepared. Learn of and find true priests (those ordained by a true bishop). General confession with true priest. Stay confessed. Consecrated yourself to the Immaculate Heart. Watch and pray 15 mysteries every day. Here is a list of priests to have on hand.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JraFxACRV1Gl4LUJBL-USwlYUWlR29r6/view
Oh’ Arthur McGowan,
You place an affront to the Holy Magisterium and of course you don’t even know that you do, however, you are therefore objectively outside the Catholic Church where no salvation is possible, deFide. You don’t even know it Arthur, willfully blinded by your sin, and yet you are culpable. Why, because you reject God’s grace to see the Truth and as this does speak as res ipsa loquitur. The Angelic Doctor taught and the Magisterium has received, the intellect must first inform the will, and then by virtue of the RECEPTION OF GRACE AL0NE, can the will then choose the good over the evil. Period and end. That is true Catholic Church teaching.
“Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, teaches Authoritatively as definitively, and binds each and every soul at the pain of Hell thus, who rejects this teaching, that if any Bishop either, “deviates from the Faith”, or commits heresy, including a, “would be Pope”, who was at any time, later found to have deviated from the Faith or committed heresy prior his faux election then, in fact never was truly consecrated as Bishop, thus was never Bishop, yet alone Pope. Reject this, as you have Arthur McGowan, with your pseudo-intellectual, “material vs formal”, heresy false arguments, and you objectively demonstrate that you cannot possibly hold the Catholic Faith. One who, “deviates from the Faith”, is a lesser miscreant than either a material or formal heretic, you bumbling fool. You pseudo-intellectual argument is now muted by the Holy Magisterium for all eyes to see which can see. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that you hold the Catholic Faith before you draw your final breath. In caritas.
Hello KyleOfCanada,
Arthur McGowan demonstrates the text book straw-man facade of pseudo-intellectual, glib, gibberish. In the final analysis, heresy as per se, places each who holds it, outside the Church where there is no salvation, deFide. The pain of formal heresy holds the mortal sin of one’s very own intentional, as thoughtful and purposeful rejection of Church teaching, as is the case with any mortal sin. Heresy, material or formal, if held by the soul at death, damns them. Amen. It is heresy to suggest that a Vicar of Christ can fall into heresy, since 18 July, 1870, when the Vatican Council formally defined as Authoritatively, that the Vicar of Christ CANNOT lose his personal faith, deFide. Reject this and you reject the Catholic Faith. Amen. God bless you. In caritas.
“All heretics believe that they are in the right and representing the true Church founded by Christ–that is their error.”
True. So, how to reach them? I’ve tried the let’s-see-what-the-historical-record-says approach with some success, albeit the “fundamentalists” such as Baptists, Pentecostalists (the worse), etc. won’t hear of it. They will tell you that “if it’s not in the Bible then I’m not interested in it and it doesn’t matter.” What can one do when faced with THAT! Well, one can begin to ridicule their belief system for the absolute imbecilic crock that it is. That’s what I do. I find that they soon shut up once that begins to happen.
Dear mothermostforgiving,
This facade of, “material vs formal”, is simply another one of Lucifer’s tricks, a logical straw-man fallacy, that all but all fall into in this time of the desolation of Antichrist. Amen. The distinction of material vs formal is meaningless, as it relates to membership in the Mystical Body of Christ. Heresy, per se, connotes the impossibility that the holder of it, material or formal, holds the Catholic Faith. To suggest that the same person can both hold the Faith and not hold the Faith, as that is what heresy means, per se, is the rejection of some deFide teaching or teachings of the Faith, is utter imbecilic absurdity. The formal heretic is no more necessarily known in the external as objective forum than a man who is an adulterer in his heart, as he lusts after women. Period and end. Whether someone holds an obstinate, as willing objection of some tenet of the Holy Faith internally, cannot be known unless shared externally by that same person. Heresy, whether material or formal, damns the soul if he dies holding heresy. Period and end. That is Catholic perennial teaching. Amen. The only difference is that the formal heretic will suffer a worse Hell because he knowingly did it, which then holds the pain of mortal sin for knowing and still doing, the same as a murderer knowingly murders. Murder does not cause the Catholic to lose his faith, per se, but he loses his soul to an eternity in Hell should he die without God’s forgiveness. Both material and formal heretics go to Hell because each is outside the Church where there is no salvation, deFide. The formal heretic also suffers the pain of the mortal sin of knowingly rejecting it. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas. And by the way, since 18 July, 1870, it is utter heresy to argue that a true Vicar of Christ can fall into heresy. Period and end. It matters not that all but all remain blind to this clear as pristine teaching in the Council’s Fourth and final Session. Amen.
A Simple Man,
I just wanted to point out clearly that neither I nor ASB are “geocentrists”. Sungenis is only right as far as the earth is fixed. A fixed football.
Sungenis is still laboring over a broken model of the cosmos. And NASA peddles a Walt Disney version of the same, only reversed.
I’m sorry but it should read “but a fixed football”.
Tom, by what authority do declare Benedict a heretic? What are your credentials? Do you have a degree in Canon Law? But let’s look at the logic a bit. I am arguing from the point of view of the sedevacantist, assuming that there ARE NO Popes and the span of time of the interregnum has exhausted the existing Cardinals, then in that case it is true that the Catholic Church no longer exists. God would NOT, however, allow His Church come to an end–period, at least until He comes at the end of time, and hence those men who have reigned up to Bergoglio’s presence are indeed true Popes. And if you can’t answer the questions to problems that arise as a result of a sedevacantist position, it is because the Catholic Church wouldn’t exist, and thus however many questions you may have, there just will be no answer; or rather no questions could logically be asked. Have you studied logic?
For just one of many, Ratzinger denies Christ multiple times in his book Milestones (1998). What do the Scriptures tell us about ANYONE who denies Christ? He’s not only an heretic but an apostate – clearly – and I do NOT have to be a canon lawyer or possess any so-called authority to say so; as a member of the FAITHFUL I have every RIGHT and DUTY to recognize him as such and to AVOID. THIS is the ACTUAL teaching of the CATHOLIC Church.
Recognize and Reject. We are at the end of time…
You say: A pope cannot be a heretic.
The Church has never taught that. Besides, several popes have been formally condemned–for heresy.
Thank you, Catherine. From reading a few of your comments, along with your knowledge of prophecy, I’d say your finger is definitely on the pulse. It’s very edifying to know of others who are like-minded and haven’t abandoned our true Pope in his greatest hour of need. Let us pray for more eyes to be opened, especially in the SSPX-Resistance. God is good in that he is using Tony La Rosa from the Ecclesia Militans blog to help spread the truth about Benedict having maintained the Papacy. https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/
Good Monday morning A Simple Beggar,
Mr. dbelland cannot be a priest and of course, as that reality is ontologically impossible, as per, “Cum Ex…”, and you know this with apodictic certitude. The fool, Mr. dbelland was not tonsured to begin with, as the false church of Antichrist ended this Rite which must occur. As you’ve written many times, Satan has all the hatches and doors covered. The Holy Council of Trent infallibly teaches, that in order for a man to be the proper ontological matter for the holy sacerdotal ministry, as to receive into his very own ontology, the holy Sacrament of Order, he MUST be a cleric. The ONLY way for a layman to become, “cleric”, as per Trent, is to be, “tonsured”. The ONLY way to be tonsured is to have a true Shepherd of the Church tonsure a layman. The ONLY way this can occur is if the true Bishop has true Jurisdiction. Why? Because the act of, “tonsure”, is a Rite as within the power of Jurisdiction, and NOT within the power of Order. Period and end. This is perennial Church teaching. The ONLY way to have true Jurisdiction is to have a true Pope present in the world, as you simply CANNOT SUPPLY THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPLY, as that is utter absurdity, and as for the fool dbelland who claims to master, “logic”. Amen. The man is an utter as objective fool, on his way to his own personal eternity in Hell, for his actual as literal participation in the grand facade of the church of Antichrist, while posing as a Catholic priest, leading countless souls, all but all alive since Oct. 9, 1958, to each their own personal eternity apart from Almighty God and the Beatific Vision. Let us not enable him as the divine and Holy Magisterium condemns him, yet he remains blind to this, “reality as it is”, truth thus. Lastly for now, the poor as utter imbecilic fool, MISTER dbelland, places an utter affront to, “Satis Cognitum”, as he perfectly contradicts the infallible as Authoritative teaching of Pope Leo XIII there, when Mr. dbelland in all his misery, opines that the Church would, “no longer exists”, because a Pope is not present in the world. Pope Leo XIII teaches as infallibly the two part visibility to Holy Church as Her, “Unity of Faith”, which remains unto the Last Day, and in Her, “Unity of Communion”, now gone and since Oct. 9, 1958, Amen. Further, the Holy Pope as Leo XIII definitively teaches in, “Satis Cognitum”, that the powers of Hell can and have overcome aspects of the Church, yet the Holy Church remains as inviolable, and as commanded by the God-Man. Amen. Alleluia. May God have mercy on his wretched soul as on us. Amen. In caritas.
Okay, so this is not about geocentrism, but flat earth now?
Let’s disregard that your video openly admits that they didn’t use a telescope, but a camera instead (when it comes to astrophotography, there is no comparison). Let’s also disregard the fact that the images on that video were obviously out of focus.
Let’s disregard the fact that observational evidence regarding star trails in the sky supports a rotating, spherical Earth and not a flat Earth. Let’s also disregard the fact that a flat earth can be trivially disproven by watching a ship disappear over the horizon, or – even more starkly – something like the Lake Pontchartrain power transmission lines (which visibly seem to curve away below the horizon, no matter your perspective), or the Thortonbank Wind Farm.
Let’s also disregard the fact that medieval cosmology was based on Aristotelian philosophy and similar views of the ancient Greeks, which postulated a spherical Earth and not a flat one based on empirical evidence (more details here: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/).
Let’s also disregard the fact the Sun’s observational movements from the surface of the Earth – by virtue of elementary geometry – support a spherical, rotating Earth and not a flat one.
For me, the question falls down to something very simple: who benefits from a supposed conspiracy promoting a spherical Earth over a flat Earth (it can’t be because “they” – whoever “they” are – want to discredit the Bible, because there are untold millions who believe in Scripture and the promises of God without believing in a flat Earth; the concept of Scripture teaching a flat Earth and holding back scientific progress was a calumny invented in the 19th century to **discredit** Christianity)? Why, in all the annals of human history, particularly since the Age of Exploration, has no one ever reached the supposed edge? Why and how would such a conspiracy suppressing the “truth” of the flat Earth encompass those of all ideological stripes throughout the ages that support a spherical Earth, independently of one another? (Interestingly, the ancient Chinese conceived of the Earth being a flat square, but such views were not challenged until knowledge of then-current astronomy – spherical Earth and all – made its way there in the 17th century courtesy of **Catholic** missionaries).
At least when it comes to geocentrism, there exists the possibility of an as-of-yet unknown cosmological model that can support it while still satisfactorily explaining all current empirical evidence.
The Flat Earth model can’t even claim that.
My bet is that there will instead be little discernible change apart from the ongoing slide into the abyss. I’ve found that evil is usually not spectacular in any way, but is instead usually quite ordinary. I suppose this is what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil.”
I’m reminded of 2017, which contained both the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolt and the centennial of Fatima. I remember reading and hearing from various sources that because of these, and especially the latter, the world would basically be ending in 2017. Instead, the evil simply continued its steady march.
Yes, to a certain extent. But if we are to believe Our Lady’s warnings about the faith falling very low, with customs (tradition) being almost extinguished save some Masses being offered in private homes here and there throughout the world, there has got to be some imminent event that will cause such a state of affairs.
Was that event Vatican II and the imposition of the New Mass and Rites? Or is it something still far worse to come? I wasn’t a traditional Catholic back when the Archbishop saved the priesthood and Mass, so I can’t attest to how bad things were then. If that was the low point, then it would logically mean we are on the upswing, but obviously that can’t be with an antipope in Rome! I think the low will come when Bergoglio destroys the SSPX thereby neutralizing the traditional movement. This could be a very slow and methodical process. Then there will be a compromise that many will accept and those who don’t will be excommunicated.
But, you’re right, there is a sense of a long, gradual slide. Many frogs in a simmering pot. Lukewarm complacency is rampant.
Thank you for your kind words and the link.
You’re right, we shouldn’t abandon the pope when he needs us most. That is something that Ann Barnhardt is desperately trying to get across: we need to pray for Pope Benedict XVI! Supposedly she knows of priests who say his name in the Canon of the Mass. The more who do the same, the better.
200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax_YpQsy88
…nor a “stationary” one, if you like.
ASM,
I’ve already been through all of that as I do consider both sides. 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. Just remember one thing: CGI. You didn’t answer my question about the (few) official “photos” of earth, with the continents being different sizes in each.
Puny, ignorant, NOTHING man and his “science” and theories vs. God. I’m going with God who tells me that the earth is IMMOVABLE, is His Footstool, is a circle and not a ball, etc etc etc. You are, of course, free to imply that God is a liar if you so choose.
Regarding photos of the globe and the apparent changing of continental sizes: this is an artifact of a sphere’s geometry and the fact that as altitude increases, you see more of a sphere even as its apparent size never changes. You can check this for yourself with a globe by taking pictures at different distances while zooming
in to maintain the same apparent size.
Second, two “proofs” into this video, and Mr. Dubay has already flunked basic geometric perspective.
Third, for you to tie a spherical Earth to evolution and aliens is a non sequitur, as they are tied to entirely different ideas (and, in the case of evolution, entirely different academic disciplines and fields of study; it is possible to question the veracity of evolution while still acknowledging evidence supporting a spherical Earth, because at least a spherical Earth can be traced back to the days of Greek antiquity, before Freemasonry and Darwinian evolution even existed as concepts).
Fourth, to take poetic language and render them entirely literal is to miss the point. To say that Earth is God’s footstool is an acknowledgment of His absolute sovereignty, not necessarily a positive statement affirming physical immovability (notwithstanding the fact that God, being pure spirit as the Father, doesn’t have “feet” in the physical sense); otherwise you run into apparent contradictions from such a literalist perspective, where God’s throne **is** heaven in some places (like Isaiah 66), whereas God’s throne is **in** heaven in others (like Psalms 10 or Psalms 102). Likewise, to extrapolate a cosmological point of view from passages regarding Earth’s immovability (like 1 Paralipomenon 16:30) can be rendered to support either a geocentric (is the world the Earth?) or heliocentric worldview (is the world the entire universe?) depending on how one views yet another example of poetic language used in adoration of the Lord (because otherwise, from that same chapter, you have fields “rejoicing” and trees giving “praise”. Are we to take this literally as well?). To try and insinuate that not interpreting these passages literally is equivalent to calling God a liar is uncalled for.
Fifth, the concept of Earth’s curvature is trivially proven by the fact that lunar eclipses occur at different times along the surface of the Earth (beginning before sunset/moonrise in certain parts, but after sunset/moonrise in others). You can check them out historically here: timeandate.com/eclipse.html
Lastly, I will again caution you that the idea that Scripture endorses the idea of a flat Earth was a libelous notion concocted by the atheists Andrew Dickson White and John Draper; you are essentially taking their presupposition and trying to fit a theological argument in support of it.
You are essentially arguing (unintentionally, I’ll grant) for a new type of Gnosticism, wherein various forms of empirical knowledge are secretly the products of various cascading conspiracies with no real tangible benefits to the conspirators; on the other hand, it seems to have a great effect in making one distrustful of any kind of authority whatsoever, even when it comes to innocuous matters. After all, Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, was careful to differentiate between what matters the consensus of the Church Fathers was binding on in terms of Scripture (namely, “as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals”) and where it was not binding (“19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas.”). You may believe that cosmology inherently pertains to faith, but so long as one grants that God is the ultimate Creator, don’t you think that allows for quite a bit of leeway?
Personally, the immense size and grandeur and complexity of the universe are yet another testament to the greatness of the Lord and His power.
I read the following just this morning:
“Leaving aside for the moment considerations relative to great sinners….I prefer to put before you another sin, crueler even than the point of the spear with which Longinus pierced the Savior’s Side, I mean the indifference and coldness of those who call themselves our Lord’s friends. This is the sin which hurts Him most. It pierces His adorable Heart, not because it is graver than that of the wicked, but because it is a hand of a friend that scourges kept him, because it is a heart on which grace has perhaps been poured in abundance that wounds Him with ingratitude and disregard. And in this sense we may say that one drop of gall from such a loved one is bitterer to Him then all He suffered during Holy Thursday night.”
-Jesus, King of Love by Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey
What exactly would you be praying for?
Why is it that TomA doesn’t have authority to declare Ratzinger a heretic, but FrBelland has the authority to declare Bergoglio a heretic?
Not true. What a silly thing to say on my behalf, thank you very much. I don’t believe that CGI makes me think anything at all is reality. That’s nonsense.
I happen to believe that the earth is in the center of the universe. It lines up with scripture, especially Joshua 10, and the empirical evidence can support it without a stretch. But I can’t prove it beyond that, and the Church doesn’t demand that I do.
The Copernican insistence that the sun was the center of the universe was condemned as heresy. As the other person said above, not all non-geocentrism is condemned.
Eric Dubay also says that Jesus Christ never existed.
I looked at the FE arguments a few years ago, and gave them a fair hearing.
I even threw a few dollars into the FE app clock to see where the sun and moon should be on the AE map. It’s wrong. Both the sun and moon are way off where they should be.
The throw of sunlight is also non workable. When the sun is south of the equator, the throw of light goes two thirds of the way around the earth. When it’s north of the equator, it only covers one third. It doesn’t work.
2Vt, because their principal is “anything but sedevacantism.” They will destroy every vestige of the Catholic Faith in order to keep their Pope. Whether its the heresiarch Ratzinger or the apostate Bergoglio.
2Vermnot,
First off, I never called Francis a heretic, and secondly, I have shown in a treatise that Benedict IS the true Pope and as the true Pope there can be no other Pope. But in order to set forth a proof that there is no other Pope, I only explain how what Francis does (attempting to make God bind something that He will not bind) MANIFESTS that he is not Pope, and cannot be precisely because Benedict IS Pope.
Oh’ Mr dbelland,
You imbecilic fool. Why don’t you go join the other miscreant, Anne Barnhardt, and while the two of you write your, “treatises”, together as though you are indeed rewriting, “Alice in Wonderland”, and the Cheshire Cat has indeed left the room but his smile remains, you can both discuss what your eternities in Hell will be like, if you both die outside the Holy Catholic Church as you now both are, deFide, and to be known thus with apodictic certitude. It is utterly impossible for you to be a sacerdotal minister of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as you are NOT a tonsured cleric as commanded by the Holy Council of Trent, and that again to be known with ontological certitude, you miserable miscreant, as there is no Jurisdiction to be had in the cosmos and since Oct. 9, 1958. The only proper as true point that you made above, as you cannot, “supply”, that which you do not have, without the true Vicar of Christ in this wretched world. Amen. Lumen Gentium is from Hell itself and you assent to it, as it was, “Solemnly Promulgated”, on Nov. 21, 1964, by your false pope Montini, also from Hell itself. It is a “Dogmatic Constitution” of your false church of Antichrist. Lumen Gentium 16 denies the very divinity of Jesus the Christ, you miscreant. May God have mercy on your miserable soul. In caritas.
Tonsure is a canonical discipline that has changed over the centuries. Failure to follow canonical rules may incur ecclesial penalties but it does not invalidate sacraments.
“Frdbelland”: What is your position on Vatican II?
We don’t just trace our beliefs to “greek antiquity”, the greeks were pagans, we don’t need them at all, we trace it back to Genesis, the true Revelation of God. That’s what Genesis was for, to inform us as to Creation and the cosmos.
We are supposed to believe Moses. But that’s a very rare person indeed in these days who actually does. Too bad.
Oh’ and its Tom A yet again with his pseudo-intellectual gibberish, you fool,
As you obstinately deny the Authoritative power of Peter in his Successors, as Supreme Pastor of the Church, and also now in Ecumenical Council, as in Trent. And again Tom A, you too a miserable miscreant, just veiled differently, as more carefully, than the others. For the sake of the other who may read this, the Vatican Council binds us with the pain of Hell, as with the assent of Faith that is, that Gift both freely given and completely undeserved, which you now and once yet again demonstrate the objective impossibility of holding, Tom A. Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, does this also as noted here:
“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.”
Your sophistry continues to precede you poor Tom A , you obstinate apostate as miserable fool. Amen. “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword.” It is in DIVISION Tom A, where the Truth springs forth and is PLAINLY seen, apostate. How much clearer could it possible be for you Tom A, as a 10 year old would understand this, Mr. pseudo-intellectual. Now copied and pasted find yet again here the critical commands :
The pastors and the faithful, “…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….This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”
The Holy Magisterium damns you once again Tom A, as in this command: “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.” You have the blasphemous gall in sacrilege to deny the Authority of Peter in his Successors, to bind you with the canonical discipline that ONLY PETER can change, you utterly miserable miscreant. And so again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT TOM A???? Because Peter has the keys to bind and loose, TOM A is above the Apostolic Authority of Peter somehow, because Tom A deems that because canonical discipline, CAN BE CHANGED BY PETER AS THE VICAR OF CHRIST WITH THE KEYS TO BIND AND LOOSE, that Tom A can deny that, ‘TONSURE”, is a Juridical mandate, as Juridical power, WHICH REMAINS ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY TODAY AS IT WAS NEVER CHANGED BY TRUE PETER, in order to cause a man to become the proper ontological matter to receive the Sacrament of Order, to become a sacerdotal minister of Christ Jesus? You sacrilegious idiot. Who the hell do you really think you are, Tom A? You twist and contort and manipulate, bend and invert, as you pervert the divine command, yes Tom A, DIVINE COMMAND OF THE HOLY MAGISTERIUM, as it IS DIVINE, you moron. There are NO VALID PRIESTS IN THE COSMOS TOM A and you effeminate man, you simply cannot handle that now can you, as you demonstrate this inability and thus your denial of grace, time and time and time and time again? Perseverance is a virtue Tom A, which you most certainly do not hold, as you will know them by their fruits. Amen. There is no Jurisdiction to be had without Blessed Peter on the earth, thus no tonsure which is a Juridical power, thus no proper ontological matter in the cosmos to receive the ontological form of the Sacrament of Order, as was prophesied in the Holy Writ to occur in its prophesied time. Amen. Alleluia. May God have mercy on His true children. In caritas.
And just so its ever so clear for your perverse mind Tom A,
The so called, “ecclesial penalties”, which you purport the, “failure to follow canonical rules may incur”, as per you miscreant fool, is as per Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”——“the loss of faith and salvation”, you apostate. I rest. In caritas.
Good Tuesday morning to you also, In Caritas.
I have a question about how to discuss this issue with fellow Catholics. My godmother is deeply committed to the Novus Ordo, and when I’ve raised some of these questions in the past with her, her advice is that I shouldn’t think about it, and don’t worry about it — these are problems of the hierarchy in Rome, and our job as laymen is simply to try to live the faith in our daily life and parish life. The problems of Amoris Laetitia, for example, are not for us to solve or worry about. In other words, she has a kind of “head in the sand” attitude to all the problems in the Church these days. What is your response to her position that this isn’t really something that laymen need to fret about and that indeed we are not qualified to decide on?
james_o,
The reason I reference Greek antiquity is because a lot of Flat-Earth proponents apparently believe that a spherical Earth was never believed prior to the time of the Renaissance, and that it was a concoction of Freemasons. The historical record shows that this is simply false.
Furthermore, one can’t underestimate the impact of Aristotelian philosophy on the works and thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, who simply referred to Aristotle as “the Philosopher” (and he was not the only one to use this title) for his use of reason. Aristotle was utilized as the example par excellence of one who, despite lacking supernatural faith and divine revelation, still came to the conclusion that there existed a first cause, an unmoved Mover, that there exists a Creator, all through the use of reason alone.
The devil loves her position. Indeed, the forces of darkness have depended on this kind of quasi-pious insouciance from most “Catholics” since the Judas Council. Hence, for example, something like 80% of “Catholics” since the Judas Council and the introduction of its Bogus Disordo no longer believe in the Real Presence.
She’s in the devil’s grip.
In a time of great deception, Satan will even get those who love God to do the work of the devil. That is a consequence of no pope. Just read some of the gnostic comments on this site and you can see how Satan has fooled even the elect.
I can understand how tempting it is to ignore the problems in the Church and just try to live a private life of piety. Is that a good survival strategy for the individual Catholic, an attitude like, “the corruption and doctrinal and liturgical confusion is above my pay grade; I will just try to live a quiet life of prayer and ignore the storms around me”? In other words, don’t worry who is the pope, it doesn’t affect my personal spiritual life and it’s not my responsibility to fix the problem, so I’ll just pray my rosary and go to daily Mass and not worry about what’s going on in Rome… is that a viable response to the situation we face?
Perfect segue:
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/11/what-will-make-antichrist-so-deceptive/
Obedience to the authentic and authoritative, perpetual Magisterium in these matters of supreme importance is never the work of the devil; disobedience, disunity, anarchy, chaos and the resulting sacrilege and ultimately the damnation of souls IS the sly work of the devil.
It is never a good idea to bury ones head in the sand and ignore errors. Learn your Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958, live your Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958, and defend the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958. It is of vital importance who or who is not the Pope. Our Catholic life on earth and ultimate salvation is wholly dependent on being in union with the Holy Roman Pontiff. That is not my opinion, but actual magisterial teaching.
Oh’ the poor as wretched fool, Tom A,
The sophist himself parlays the gnostic term on the other, while at once he is the gnostic. Amen. Beware of this dangerous man, leading many astray from the Catholic Faith which he cannot hold, as The Christ commands: “You will know them by their fruits.” An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. “You will know them by their fruits”. And now to use the words of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ which damn Tom A in this very lie of his as he wrote, “In a time of great deception, Satan will even get those who love God to do the work of the devil.” That is a lie as Tom A’s father is the Father of Lies. The Christ commands, as in John 14: He who knows My commands and follows them, LOVES Me, and as I am in the Father, you are in Me and I in you. Amen. Alleluia. Now does that sound anything, as in any possible thing, like what Lucifer’s emissary as Tom A just wrote? May God have mercy on His true children. Amen. In caritas.
Tom A, the author of error, admonishing as anyone else, for burying their head in the sand and ignoring error? This gnostic sophistry cannot be made up from the likes of this one, as Tom A. Rather, it can only be witnessed. He is on his way to an eternity with Lucifer and he doesn’t even know it. May God have mercy on those who truly love Him. Amen. In caritas.
The virtue of obedience flows from the virtue of justice, which is a cardinal virtue. Faith, as a theological virtue, trumps justice, being higher in the hierarchy of virtues.
The devil has masterfully inverted this hierarchy.
Tom A.–Your comments are a blessing to this blog. Thank you.
It is precisely my FAITH which enlightens me as to what I must do in strict JUSTICE and prompts me to act in OBEDIENCE to JESUS CHRIST.
Those lacking in Faith seek loopholes to Justice for the sake of their own pride, opinions, and comfort; and thereby choose acts of disobedience which are in accordance only with their own will.
Arthur McGowan:
What a pity you weren’t around at the First Vatican Council. You could have set the Council Fathers straight before they declared that the “see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error”, and that the “gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see”.
Good late Tuesday evening ASB,
And yes, your words as written by an authentic as true Catholic, one who actually holds the One True Faith, free of internal contradiction. Amen. Alleluia. AlphonsusJr, simply another miscreant imbecile as pseudo-intellectual, on his way to eternal perdition in the objective witness, as The Christ commanded we would know them by their fruits, while at once veiled in a Chantilly lace thin veneer, as a would be Catholic. Amen. May Almighty God continue to bless and keep you, all the days of your life. In caritas.
Pitiful. Just plain pitiful.
Dear Tom A., I also thank you. Please don’t get my messages confused with those from others who may have the word “caritas” in their username…
Arthur,
If he doesn’t KNOW he’s bucking 2000 years of Christ’s Teaching, then he’s as poorly catechized as the rest of the conciliar church.
Here’s classic BXVI. Get out your red pen and correct this pile of feces:
26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.[21] It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).
Dear In caritas,
I am often edified by your comments but I think you may want to retreat for a little while to calm the gathering storm within. I will pray for you and hope you do so for me.
May our Guardian Angels defend us from the d/evils that obsess us.
May God bless and keep us!
Reply from In Caritas ~~
Oh thou miscreant fool, the one who calls himself by the name pigg0214. How is it that thou hast not seen though thine own deceitful tactics? You are an imbecilic and faithless apostate. Period and end.
Poor pigg0214, how is it that you cannot see your own damnation, to which you are surely headed?
What I write here is for the edification of those who have been granted the wisdom to understand. These are very few in number, and you are surely not among them, pigg0214.
I cannot but write the truth, as it is in truth, and as it is in reality as being. For a thing cannot be and not be. Therefore what I write is truth, and it is a certain and sure indication of your allegiance to Satan your father that you dare to “counsel” me to do anything but continue to proclaim truth. Period and end. Amen. Alleluia.
~~~I pray this helps,
In Caritas
“If he doesn’t KNOW he’s bucking 2000 years of Christ’s Teaching, then he’s as poorly catechized as the rest of the conciliar church.
Here’s classic BXVI. Get out your red pen and correct this pile of feces:
26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms.”
So, Arthur, how can BXVI possibly be pope?
Perfect! Sadly, In caritas is a deeply disturbed individual.
And of course, TPS, nothing more could possibly utter from your intellect and will,
Where’s the Magisterial teaching that you have used in your demonstration of the perfect ad hominem, in the spirit of calumny? You indeed are the fool TPS, as you edify in your screed, childish, yet with diabolical contempt. Amen. You are objectively on your own personal road to perdition and of course you remain blind to that which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. There is no charity to be found in your words. Those who remain obstinate in error, time and time again, in true caritas, must be admonished for the sake of the other, as that is true Catholic teaching. We are commanded by The Christ to judge the acts of the other, as in, “You will know them by their fruits.” Amen. pigg0214 is a gently soul as I recall in my witness. The person behind that moniker knows who writes the truth and certainly knows it cannot be found in the hatred which you spew. The blind never see true justice, that which is truly due the other in truth and caritas, rather they see a reflection of themselves, a malignant as hideous image of self love, which if not rejected, will take them to Hell. Know Matthew 7: 16-21:
“By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Are you doing the will of The Father in Heaven, TPS? Is that evidenced by your screed, uttered with vitriolic contempt for the other? If you died tonight TPS, would you be cast into the fire, as the evil tree which will be first cut down, then cast into everlasting perdition? This is the command of the God-Man, so called TPS. You live a perfect contradiction even in your moniker, as you reject the Magisterium, as you freely choose what is comfortable for you, at once perfectly deceived into believing that the objective signs of the Holy Sacraments are possible without the Vicar of Christ in this world now for 61 years, as with the loss of Apostolic Succession, as per the Authoritative teaching of, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”. Amen. As though God would allow the Sacraments for a cliché of apostates, who reject His divine Magisterial teaching and Absolute Authority, as it is His, you poor fool, TPS. May God have mercy on your implacably darkened soul. Amen. In caritas.
TPS,
Come on now. There may be disagreements to be had with IC on demeanor, presentation, and/or their rhetoric, but that was uncalled for.
Dear A Simple Man,
It can only remain as pristinely clear who does not hold the authentic as true Catholic Faith, who has any interest at all in holding it, and the paltry as precious few who do, as our Blessed Jesus the Christ commanded it would indeed be, in this time. Amen. Alleluia. May God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
It was perfect. And far more is called for against this pious devil.
Poor, poor, as pathetic AlphonsusJUNIOR,
Nothing, “perfect”, as human, this side the veil, miscreant fool. You oppose the Holy Faith even in your contradiction in terms as, “pious devil”, the common understanding of the word pious as being: marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship. You profane the sacred you miserable fool as you parlay the lie that a, “devil”, has a, “reverence for deity and devotion to DIVINE worship. You are a simply a glib miscreant AlphonsusJUNIOR. You really aught contain your malignant hatred of Truth, as He is a Divine Person and He commanded: They will hate you for the name you choose to bear. “They” is you poor, poor AlphonsusJunior, a malevolent child as witnessed objectively. Amen. God have mercy on your implacably darkened soul. In caritas.
Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t. IC has completely taken over this blog and comments section though, in ten thousand word posts. He should get his own blog. He said he would leave this one alone a while back, but changed his mind.
It was entirely called for and I think everyone should keep doing the same until In Caritas leaves. IC is apparently mentally ill and/or demonically obsessed and needs help. Calling someone out when they’re out of control is more charitable than enabling their wicked behavior.
In Caritas needs our prayers. I picture someone who is very lonely with too much time on his/her hands. Why this vile behavior? He/she could not possibly be happy. “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. In Caritas means “In Love”. It is a poor inappropriate handle for such a person. It’s very sad.
Oh’ you poor, miserable soul TPS,
“Perhaps”, you poor miscreant as TPS, does not get a soul to Heaven as, “perhaps”, contains and from its very deepest interiority, “doubt”, you poor soul. Save your soul. You have no interest in Truth, as you objectively demonstrate no zeal, rather your only concern is the, “length of a post”, as though the, “length”, as in any measure of, “length”, somehow could possibly intone any element of the truth contained, as within it. Your only interest, as objectively witnessed, is in what makes so called, “TPS”, feel good as affectively. Beasts have that as part and parcel with their nature and as thus glorify Almighty God in that. You however, so called, “TPS”, blaspheme God when you freely allow your lower soul, as in the passions, to utterly suppress your higher soul, as in the intellect and will, and in that suppression, the passions rule the intellect and will, which will indeed damn you to your own personal eternity in Hell, as Almighty God created His human persons in His own divine likeness and image, as pure Intellect and Will, pure metaphysical Substance thus. I do pray this admonishment helps you find your way into holding the true as authentic Catholic Faith, in true Charity, as the infinitely lesser and miserable human creature’s, as mine, reflection of the divine Caritas of the most Holy and Blessed Triune Godhead. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
You poor wretch, as Catherine Sarto,
And the same question applies as to you, dear Catherine Sarto. Are you doing the will of The Father in Heaven, Catherine Sarto? Is that evidenced by your screed, uttered with vitriolic contempt for the other? If you died tonight Catherine Sarto, would you be cast into the fire, as the evil tree which will be first cut down, then cast into everlasting perdition? This is the command of the God-Man, so called Catherine Sarto. According to you, Catherine Sarto, “everyone should do the same”, as so called, “TPS”. Examine your statement for just one moment quietly, Catherine Sarto. Then imagine that you draw in your last breath, you die in that same moment, and the veil of Catherine Sarto’s life is then removed. You then meet the perfect as infinite Judge, who demonstrates for you then and with perfect as infinite clarity, your wish that you objectively offer here in this blog, about how one who purports to hold the true Catholic Faith, aught treat the other, as any other, in their midst. God have mercy on you, miscreant, as you witness as objectively, your own personal path toward eternal perdition as well. I do pray this admonishment rattles your intellect, causing utter cognitive dissonance, as it aught. Save your soul Catherine Sarto and to do that, you must evidence love, caritas for the other, and not vitriolic hatred. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
And then there’s the one, whose moniker indeed accurately reflects as precisely and as pristinely, just what his utter as poor/miserable opinion is worth, simply understood as, just 2 CENTS,
You poor, as miserable wretch, so called, “my2cents”, as you so aptly reflect in your very own freely willed moniker, just what your personal opinion is worth. Good for you, my2cents, you poor fool. Your, “prayers”, are not heard by Almighty God, as the true Church has always taught, as you do not hold the true Catholic Faith, as you objectively witness time and time and time as again, as The Christ commands, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Your fruits are rotten, my2cents, and not only that, they demonstrate as objectively, your personal starvation for any understanding of intellective power, as the operation of your very own soul hungers, my2cents. Your soul is hungry for Truth, my2cents, and yet you reject Him. They will hate you for the name you choose to bear, as the God-Man commands, poor, poor miscreant, as my2cents. Amen. You demonstrate perfect misunderstanding of true Caritas, my2cents. You have no concept of true love as being, “sacrificial”. Love is hard, my2cents, not just, “affective”, but infinitely more so, “intellective”, and you demonstrate an abysmal mischaracterization of true Caritas, as Love Himself, as Deus Caritas Est. Amen. Alleluia. You had this to say:
” I picture someone who is very lonely with too much time on his/her hands. Why this vile behavior? He/she could not possibly be happy.”
It is utterly revealing how those who project misery onto the other, actually as literally hold that misery, as deeply within, their very own interiority. You have no understanding of who I am, my2cents. You do not know the positions that I hold in this world, the time demands of same, and you utterly mischaracterize me as in the joy, by the reception of the grace of Almighty God alone, that I do hold from within the operation of my intellect, as contained within my soul. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray that this admonishment will also rattle your intellect and stimulate some sense of cognitive dissonance as it must, if you are to save your very soul. God have mercy on you, my2cents. In caritas.
In Caritas–Your response validates my comment. Today is Thanksgiving Day. Let us give thanks for all our blessings from God Almighty. Tomorrow is another day. I send you and your family my most sincere best wishes for a peaceful and restful day. God be with us.
Good Thursday morning to you, pigg0214,
It was joyful for me to see your moniker on the screen once again. Please know that it is not the demon which drives me, rather Truth, as He is a divine Person, and The Christ commands that He came not to bring peace, rather the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Amen. These poor miscreant fools must be called out and admonished for the non-Catholics that they objectively evidence themselves to be, as time and time and yet time and again. “You will know them by their fruits.” Amen. The poor miserable wretch as me, by the reception of the grace of Almighty God alone, has a zeal for Truth, and His Word as the Eternal Word, the Logos, must be defended and firmly. Now see the command from the Encyclical which dear Louie included in this post of his, as copied and pasted here now, from, “Immortale Dei”, as the last part of paragraph 46:
“The defense of Catholicism, indeed, necessarily demands that in the profession of doctrines taught by the Church all shall be of one mind and all steadfast in believing; and care must be taken never to connive, in any way, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows.”
The Holy Father as Vicar of Christ, commands that mere opinions which connive and malign the Truth, be rejected as he commands with his full Apostolic power and Authority: “…never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows.” Amen. Alleluia.
Simply witness the vitriolic response which your post engendered from the miscreant fools, pigg0214, as this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. God bless you and yours’ pigg0214. In caritas.
Oh’ goodness, my2cents,
Your faux wish for me is as transparent as you are, and again in the objective witness you proffer. Amen. Falsehood can never be, “validated”, you poor soul. What you wrote is your mere as miserable opinion of me, as you dare opine about that which is in my very heart, which is false, it is a lie, my2cents, as it is utter calumny, you miserable miscreant. As you claimed to know the, “heart”, of Michael Matt, you now claim to know mine. What an utter fool you are, as in perfect opposition to the divine as Catholic Faith, which Authoritatively teaches that only God knows the heart, you fool. so called, “Thanksgiving Day”, is simply a neo-pagan holiday, as fostered by miscreant apostates, so called, “puritans”. May God have mercy on your miserable soul. In caritas.
Your charity is hardly exemplary.
Poor, poor so called, “TPS”, who blasphemes the Holy Magisterium as continually and obstinately,
Your perfectly errant understanding of love, and now again in the objective realm as you witness it, is self evident, as res ipsa loquitur. Your, “love”, so called TPS, is purely affective as emotive. That which can only make so called TPS’s flesh and passions feel good and as thus if the admonishment is repulsive to the flesh, you, so called TPS, reject it and with vitriolic anger. Amen. How can this be known about you, TPS? Because you deny intellective Love, which is that which is KNOWN, not felt, you poor, miserable, miscreant fool. If the labels don’t apply to you, so called TPS, then why do they objectively bother you? These terms are only used as they objectively apply. A, “miscreant”, is one who affronts the law, as you affront the Supreme Law of the Holy Church, in Her divine Magisterium. Period and end. A, “fool”, is one who continues to repeat the same errors, as time and time and time and again, as you and in spite of objective correction, as per Holy Magisterial teaching, which is, “Reality as it is”, so called TPS, continue to demonstrate your same utterly absurd as erroneous beliefs. “Miserable”, is the state of every human person since the Fall from grace, but for the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and Saint John the Baptist, myself as the first miserable one, fallen and injured, perfected then by the reception of God’s grace alone. Amen. Alleluia.
Love, TPS, is infinitely more important in its, “knowing”, as in its intellective component located within the higher soul, as opposed to its, “feeling”, which is the affective component of love as the felt by the lesser soul. The objective understanding of love is sacrificial, as it is to give of self, and even to the point of offering one’s own life for the sake of the other, even when that other persecutes you, and even to the point of red martyrdom. Amen. Alleluia. This is the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. This is the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, thus, as received by the Magisterium. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray this helps you, by the reception of God’s grace alone and by you. In caritas.
Assuming this In caritas is for real, he’s definitely deeply disturbed, as his comments under post after post amply demonstrate.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if In caritas is actually a modernist degenerate such as Ganganelli trying to make traditional Catholics look bad and indeed insane.
You are simply amazing as known objectively in your obstinate absurdity, you poor, poor, miscreant fool, as AlphonsusJUNIOR,
Truth clangs in your abysmally darkened intellect, you imbecilic fool, as the discordant as disharmonic noise of the cacophony of Hell itself. That place which you are well on your way to visiting, as for all eternity, oh’ poor Alphonsus as JUNIOR. You and the rest of your cadre who freely assent to the, “traditional Catholic”, false sect, as the pious deception of the church of Antichrist himself, are literally as utterly heathen degenerates who never actually held the Catholic Faith, and as thus you cannot be apostate. Amen. Simply pagan, as you worship within the cult of the, “religion of man”, as you each sift and sort, then finally choose to believe only that which affectively feels good to you, you miserable fool. Demonstrate the proof of legitimacy of your degenerate as neo-pagan, “religion of man”, sect, as per the Authentic, Holy, and divine Magisterium, which is of course rhetorically requested of you. You for one Alphonsus, have NEVER YET ONCE demonstrated one iota of anything that substantiates your hideous and implacable miscreant beliefs, fool.
To answer your absurd query, oh’ AlphonsusJUNIOR, yes, what you are reading is, “real”, and I do exist, you imbecilic moron. What you believe, as what you freely hold in the operation of your will, is dark and inverted, as you are your own pontiff, you imbecile. I do pray that your darkened soul is saved, AlphonsusJr. In caritas.
Excellent. You’ve proven my point yet again. Eternal thanks.
Oh’ poor Alphonsus,
Your, “point”, is utterly worthless. Any, “point”, is only proven in its submission to the Authentic, Holy, Catholic, and divine Magisterium, you imbecilic moron. Really AlphonsusJr. You cannot cease and desist in your Satanically inspired error, as this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. God have mercy on you. In caritas.
Anyone who does not follow you is a miscreant, a fool, a reprobate, a faithless apostate, an agent of the devil, an imbecile etc.
You are the kind of person who starts a doomsday cult. History has plenty of them.
Please don’t start denying, hand-on-heart, that people “follow” you.
Why not get your own blog? You obviously think Louie V is a faithless apostate. He is not on board with your understanding of the crisis. Yes, your understanding of it. Why do you use his blog for your own purposes, when he is as bad as myself or anyone else who “dares” to call you out? Go ahead and call him out as boldly as you do everyone else.
You’ll comment after this one, In Caritas.
Dear sister in Christ, Archbishop Lefebvre’s book on the Mass of All Ages beautifully describes and explains the True Mass and its essence (which cannot by necessity be changed. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the True Faith experienced in communion with the whole Church, including the beings in Heaven. This is one book that shows compellingly what the True Holy Mass is, and therefore, that the Novus Ordo cannot be.
Bishop Schneider’s little pamphlet on Holy Communion, though not dealing explicitly with the Novus Ordo also shows us indirectly that the same does not conform to the Holy Faith. Nothing “new” can be of the Faith, the Faith is perfect, complete, unchangeable.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the source and summit of the Holy Faith. Pope Paul IV was divinely inspired to codify its inviolability and provide for its protection.
Holy God and the Passion, Resurrection, The Timeless Act of Redemption are at the heart of the Holy Mass. With the right disposition, and being in a state of grace, cooperating with God’s Holy Will, the graces of God flow from the Holy Mass unto us. [In my own case, I generally don’t get to attend Holy Mass.]
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. We are living in the most evil of times, when those who serve Holy God are very few, and those souls who love God to the point of real self-sacrifice are enduring great hardship and persecution, with no bishop or priest to support them. I pray I may attain some of that goodness, for I am weak and try to avoid true sacrificial suffering. I have to work on offering to God humility regarding all the suffering that I haven’t sought and daily want to escape. Dear Lord, forgive me for my lack of virtue, my lack of love for Thee above my own protection from God’s enemies. Where are the courageous holy souls still in this temporal world? where are Holy God’s defenders? – there are very few of them, and they are suffering for us all. I seem to have lost much of the little courage and willingness I once had, to suffer publicly for defence of God and His Holy Laws.
May we become holy, and soon!!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Please forgive my incoherence (my chronic illness, involving cognitive impairment is partly to blame) – I hope you can glean what I am trying to convey!
Lynda Finneran
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for all those who do not have recourse to thee, especially the freemasons, and for all those who are commended to thee. Amen.
Dear TPS,
You completely mischaracterize who I am. I am a poor, miserable wretch, perfectly deserving of my own personal eternity in Hell. And I KNOW THAT. I also know that by the reception of the grace of God alone, that which is both freely given and completely undeserved by any and all, with me as the first undeserving, can this poor, miserable wretch as me, be saved. Amen. Alleluia. I have no, “followers”, and anyone would be a fool to follow me, as I must work out my own personal as eternal salvation. Amen. The true Church has always taught that we should follow true witness to Truth, as He Is Jesus the Christ. That’s why Holy Church has given us Saints, Doctors, the Early Fathers. Amen. We don’t follow the Saints, per se, we follow their holy witness to Truth, as Jesus the Christ. Amen.
As for the term of use, “cult”, know that the true Catholic Church is a cult, and of course, as a cult is:
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object, yes. That figure is Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as God. Amen. Alleluia.
Now from the Gospel of Saint John the Apostle, 10: 25-30 (Douay-Rheims copy):
“I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.”
Please forgive me for my, “colorful”, language, although it applies as pointed out, as this is objective. I can only remain a miserable wretch, this side the veil, perfected by the reception of the grace of God alone, as The Christ commanded: “Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
I of course do not know you TPS and yet I am commanded by the One Who simply Is, to love you, intellectively, not affectively. Amen. Alleluia. Thus, I do. I pray you are assisted by the reception of God’s grace, as I have been. Amen. In caritas.
Dear Lynda,
I read you words and know sorrow. As you know, Jesus the Christ commanded in Matthew 16: 24-25:
“If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”
Consider it God’s mercy shown you, that you cannot get to a false Mass, re-enacted very accurately as though the Holy Sacrifice were a play, utterly sacrilegiously thus, by men who simply cannot be sacerdotal ministers of Jesus the Christ. Amen. We know this with apodictic certitude, as per, “Cum Ex….”, “Satis Cognitum”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, as well as the, “Council of Trent”, Amen. As the Angelic Doctor taught and the Holy Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has received, TRUTH, is only known, as it can only ever be known, as when the human intellect perfectly conforms to the, “reality as it is”, as per the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas. As the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is Reality itself, when the human intellect does not conform to the holy Magisterium, Reality thus, and conform exactly as the holy Magisterium is, the result is then human opinion, which from its very essence, contains doubt, which leads into error. Understanding the holy as divine Magisterium is not a matter of opinion thus, it is apodictic certitude, as it is Truth, and the perfect conformation of the intellect to that same holy as divine Magisterium, indeed as absolutely, requires the reception of the freely given and completely undeserved Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith, which then must, as it only can, yield the reception by the human intellect of perfect Truth. This is why the holy and divine Magisterium seems so untenable and so unapproachable to all but all in the world today. Simply because they do not hold the divine and Catholic Faith, in spite of their continual screeching that they do. These things themselves speak, as, “You will know them by their fruits”. I do pray this assists you in your discernment of the current circumstance, which we now find ourselves living within, in this world. This is the actual as literal time of the desolation of Antichrist, and as such, as you convey, things are only going to get more hideous and violent in this wretched world. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
One cannot escape the consequence of acknowledging Jorge Bergoglio as an antipope. If he is an antipope because of his deviation from the Catholic Faith then those men who were elected after the death of Pope Pius XII are no different, except in the degree that they advertised their heresies and colluded with the Communist International and Freemasonry.
Let me share some general remarks. In a sense I was forced to it.
AKA is a good site to read, what is especially appealing to me is that there is no censorship here. Other sites do censor and closely control comboxes. Freedom of expression is a good idea but only if participants adhere to norms, in this case (and in all other cases as well) to norms and rules of Kingdom of Our Lord (this does not mean “politeness over all”).
My schedule don’t allow me to read everything on AKA, despite that I noticed huge presence of sedevacantists. From what I observed their tactics are similar to Jehova Whiteness group I was engaged in discussion with while ago, in reality… Usually I skip lengthy posts produced by sede, sometimes I read parts of them. My interest is more in logic they use to support their positions and I skip personal references and other tactics they use to bring readers attention. This time I couldn’t stand it.
Person signing ‘In caritas’ writes about other commentator:
You imbecilic fool.
This is simply disgusting.
I understand excitement that discussion can invoke but allowing for such a things will bring this group (AKA Catholic) pretty fast to the point that Louie will be forced to close combox all together. Please, Mr In caritas, send apologies with flowers or bottle of good rum to frdbelland. You did harm – now, fix it.
Apologies do not mean you agree with your opponent. Be in caritas not only by internet name.
To deliberate a bit more. I do not propose to introduce ‘forced correctness’. A bit of ‘personal challenge’ adds spice to discussion although if used too much… etc.
If there are other such instances: please, stop.
I also intended for this writing to show wholes in logic chain presented to show that person ordained after ’58 (or whatever other date) can not be a priest, but I pass this time. Maybe we can discuss that in the future.
Thanks for your time.
Hello M.C.,
Welcome to the AKA combox. As you’ll note on this thread and others (most recently the “Limits of Papal Authority” post), this appears to be In caritas’s stock in trade.
Just as one can confuse being charitable with being “nice” (to the extent where one sacrifices truth on the altar of politeness), one can also confuse harsh and puerile invective with being truthful (which, you’ll note, IC seems to levy at anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular brand of “home alone” sedevancatism; even sedevacantists who belong to CMRI or SGG aren’t immune from their diatribe).
It is regrettable, alas.
I’m not calling to be “nice”.
Harsh words are sometimes necessary but this is not the same as using invectives toward opponent. It’s more likely rude and vulgar; closes exchange of arguments and opens exchange of emotions.
I understand that this can be used as a mean to have last word in discussion. People (some) wont be willing to participate anymore and offender can enjoy thought that his arguments were so good that no one dares to oppose. On the long run it is a loss to everyone.
Thanks for the answer. I do not think there is much more to say about it. I hope what I said wont be understood solely as protection of my sensitive hearing. If sede group enjoys such a style they can practice it in their company as much as they want.
I’m not fluent in sede language and don’t know what above abbreviations mean, but think it does not matter to the matter. 😉
M.C.,
On the contrary, I found the whole presentation rather deplorable. I understand that zeal can run hot and heavy on such matters, but I think there’s a tendency to forget on the part of some sedevacantists (and I say this as someone who’s only been a sede since Holy Week 2019) that the lack of a true Roman Pontiff to serve as the final arbiter of order means that some measure of discord and disagreement is to be expected, and that on matters of ambiguity in this day and age, one should be careful before throwing out anathemas left and right.
To answer your question on acronyms:
CMRI = Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (the apostolate associated with Mt. St. Michael’s and Bp. Pivarunas)
SGG = St. Gertrude the Great (the apostolate associated with Bps. Dolan and Sanborn, and Fr. Cekada)
Dear ASM,
To say that there are “matters of ambiguity in this day and age” is a bold-faced lie. The Church was not founded on ambiguities but on Truth, which is Jesus Christ. You, much like poor Pontius Pilate, ask “What is Truth?” Then you (and those whose voices you harken to) wash your hands, shrug your shoulders and say, “Who knows? It’s the times, man; we have no Pope so let’s just keep the party going while he’s away – we want our Sacraments. Crucify Him! We want Barabbas!” However, the Truth knows no vacation time but is ever-present and perpetual.
Yours is the position founded on the sands of ambiguity, DISobedience, DISorder, DISunity, DISagreement, DOUBT – not mine. My position is founded on the Rock which is the Papacy, Holy Mother Church and her authentic Magisterium, OBEDIENCE, and ultimately Faith and Trust in Jesus Christ and His promises. According to YOU and yours, Christ left us abandoned as orphans with absolutely NO solid instructions on how we are to conduct ourselves in these unprecedented times, even though he gave us very UNambiguous instructions through His Voice on earth on June 29, 1958, a mere 103 days prior to the death of that Voice. You imply, therefore, that Jesus Christ, who knows exactly how many hairs you have on the top of your head from one moment to the next, FAILED to foresee the impending death of His Vicar, and FAILED to leave us with exceptions to the rule as in explicit instructions for our exceptional times within that crucial, infallible and Magisterial document of June 29, 1958.
Another clue that you FAIL to recognize, is that Abp. Lefebvre himself, in conscience, placed an affront to those very commands as set forth by Pius XII ON THE 29th ANNIVERSARY of that date: June 29, 1987. I say in conscience because in doing so he was erroneously (or maliciously as I believe) recognizing the false hierarchy to be the true, being the man full of duplicity and contradiction that he was. Of ALL of the 365 days that exist in a year he chooses June 29th to announce his intentions to consecrate bishops without a Papal Mandate. What a stunning “coincidence”! Oh, but it’s for the souls…WE have to save the souls… Oh the sheer PRIDE of it all. No. He was setting up a side door for those who would leave the Novus Ordo, except it was a revolving door which would spin them right back inside and ultimately damn their unsuspecting souls.
NO soul has EVER been saved through DISOBEDIENCE or by doing their own will versus that of God, or by conveniently placing ambiguities where, IN REALITY, there are none whatsoever.
We have two choices here: follow the past Popes and the perpetual and infallible Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and be SAFE, OR, follow the wolves in sheep’s clothing to damnation through pride, willful ignorance and/or disobedience and sacrilege. You’re the one holding onto faith and hope not in Christ but in your perceived “ambiguities” and thus playing Russian Roulette with your soul, not me; not true Catholics of good will who already have or are ultimately ready and willing to pick up their cross and sacrifice ALL for the Truth and to SUFFER for it, just like their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
May God have mercy on ALL our wretched souls.
A Simple Beggar, I could not agree more with what you wrote here Dec. 3. Now Tom A seems to believe that though that was completely illicit and really schismatic that it was still valid while In Caritas has taken to attacking him like he is the Devil himself bc In Caritas believes that it was completely invalid also. I hope that In Caritas is wrong about the invalidity of these consecrations but if these Bishops were to be able to convince Catholics that their Sacraments were valid and licit I don’t see any other way to do that than to elect a Pope and for that Pope to tell us. I am the Vicar of Christ and these are my Bishops and they will provide you with Priests and Sacraments. That’s it, that is the only way any of this flies and everyone dismisses this as if it was childish. What planet am I on?
To Simple Man,
I’m sorry to hear that you are also on dark side. Think it over, pray it over, repent and come back. Try to think for yourself without support of sede who push thoughts to your head. If you are good in rhetoric you can ‘prove’ everything. For example I could show that In caritas is an enemy because he, on many occasions, rejects Our Lord’s words from Mt 5:22. But it will lead to nowhere, and be only push of egos. Truth is that he did wrong, not that he is bad. Beside, I’m not without fault either.
It is on my to do list to challenge sede but personal situation doesn’t allow me to do it so far. Please step back, think reach for help to return to Church.
(I didn’t start reading Papal Authority combox, yet).
I’ll leave this as a counterargument to Dubay’s “200 proofs” video, for those who are curious:
https://flatearthbusted.blogspot.com/2017/11/refutation-200-flat-earth-proofs-by.html