Catholic social media is abuzz with news that he who presently claims to occupy the make-believe Office of Pope Emeritus, and Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the conciliar church’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, have co-authored a soon to be released book defending clerical celibacy.
Defending it from whom, one might ask?
Well, duh… from Jorge Bergoglio, the blasphemous heretic pretending to be the pope (even though one can be certain he is not named anywhere in the text, other than, perhaps, a word or two of praise).
Evidently, the book will consist of individual essays written by each man, but it opens with a hard-to-believe preface to which each one has attached his name. It reads:
Like Augustine we can say: ‘I cannot be silent! I know indeed how pernicious silence would be for me… It is to Christ that I will have to account for the sheep entrusted to my care. I can’t keep quiet or pretend ignorance.’
We do it in a spirit of love for the unity of the Church. If ideology divides, the truth unites hearts.
OK, let’s unite some hearts then, shall we. Here’s the plain truth, difficult though it may be for neo-cons and certain starry-eyed trads to accept:
The hypocrisy of Ratzinger and Sarah is matched only by their cowardice.
I cannot be silent on account of the sheep!
They can’t be serious.
Hypocrites are very much like serial liars in their self-deception. You see, the hallmark of a genuine master of hypocrisy is that he has so thoroughly convinced himself that his behavior reflects his publicly stated convictions that he has no trouble whatsoever asserting an obvious lie in order to perpetuate the myth.
The plainly observable fact of the matter, however, is that both Ratzinger and Sarah can be silent in the face of all manner of grave dangers being visited upon the sheep.
In the present case, they are speaking out about a frontal assault on clerical celibacy that has yet to actually take place.
How brave of them, you say? Please, these men are nothing more than paper tigers.
Between the two of them they can’t piece together enough vertebrae to form even half a spine, which is all it would take for a marginally committed shepherd to speak out against the magnificent blasphemies and heresies that Jorge has already decreed!
I can do no better than to repeat what I wrote of Burke and Schneider back in September when they were pulling a similar stunt in the lead-up to the Amazonian Synod, as the same applies equally to both Ratzinger and Sarah:
If either one of them had any real sense of duty to the Church, her life-giving Truth, and innocent souls, they would at this very moment be on a relentless crusade to call Jorge Bergoglio to account for his blasphemy, condemning, daily if necessary, the errors and heresies in Amoris Laetitia.
That they are not – and have grown practically silent on the matter – is a sure indication that they are heroes-of-convenience, pleased to occasionally pick the low hanging fruit of potential threats, but utterly unwilling to risk losing their benefices by engaging in any meaningful opposition to the clear and present danger right in our very midst.
Among hypocritical cowards, Ratzinger is a special case whose silence in the face of evil is legendary. Might I remind readers that he was a key player in Operation Third Secret in the year 2000 whereby the Vatican lied to the world about having made the entire vision public.
This also happens to be the same man-in-white who publicly looked Jorge in the eye and publicly proclaimed:
My true home is your goodness. There, I feel safe … We hope that you will continue to go forward with all of us on this road of Divine Mercy, showing us the way of Jesus, toward Jesus, toward God.
This was months after the publication of Amoris Laetitia.
Even so, there are some among us who believe that Benedict XVI not only resigned under pressure, or did so with a defective intent, but rather that he deliberately tendered a fake resignation. (I’ll have more to say about this in a future post.) And get this, they insist that his subterfuge and silence is downright heroic, and that he is acting to save the Church!
Apparently, self-deception is contagious.
In any case, getting back to the battle to preserve the requirement of clerical celibacy in the Roman Rite, mark my words:
If and when the day comes that the Heretic-in-Chief officially relaxes the discipline of clerical celibacy for the conciliar church “in the most remote locations” (as he has signaled), or even if he should make it optional in a broader context, Ratzinger and Sarah will promptly tuck their tails between their legs, zip their lips, and go on reaping the earthly rewards that come from compliance with the Devil.
“Even so, there are some among us who believe that Benedict XVI not only resigned under pressure, or did so with a defective intent, but rather that he deliberately tendered a fake resignation. (I’ll have more to say about this in a future post.) And get this, they insist that his subterfuge and silence is downright heroic, and that he is acting to save the Church! Apparently, self-deception is contagious.”
This has been one of the things that’s puzzled me about Resignationists like Ann Barnhardt; in what sense has Benedict actually been defending the “papal office”?
She is understandably excited about the changing winds, but Ratzinger is still a Modernist in support of Vatican 2’s heretical conception of the Church of Christ. He’s just a “High Anglican” to Bergoglio’s “Low Anglican”, to turn a phrase. The issues still remain regardless.
/then again
//Ann has publicly admitted that Ratzinger is a heretic
///which you’d think would be a problem
////but she somehow thinks a Pope can be “valid, yet illicit”
As a false pope, Ratzinger was the guest of honor at a synagogue service in Rome. Therefore, he publicly denied the need for Jesus our Christ, now he writes that he must care for Jesus’ flock. Ratzinger is obviously duplicitous.
– He who denies that Jesus Is Christ, is an anti-Christ.
Yaaaaaaawn. Ratzinger and Sarah are New Order. Whether they have backbones or not is really besides the point. They serve Lucifer and I don’t think they’re doing a terrible job at all. The men with no backbone are those Bishops who are CATHOLIC and leave us floundering without a Pope. Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Dolan? Catholic Bishops, HELLOOOOO? Anyone? Do you care about Catholics at all? They’re just going to ignore us…. I hope they aren’t real Bishops because if they are and they leave us abandoned like this, that would be so bad.
For long time I was critical about pope Benedict XVI.
Criticism was along the line that he, by his actions, particularly by creating all this mess with resignation, introduced confusion and exposed souls to danger. Still, that may be truth but what if it wasn’t Benedict but Somebody else who’s chosen that way to test souls and to purge the Church?
I was approaching the subject from the perspective that by his act Benedict enabled evil forces to take upper hand. He should fight, I thought, he should call out all evil-doers etc.
There is another possibility. The Church was under attack from the beginning – nothing new. But today enemies are already inside. This is does not happened overnight, we all know this, no need to explain. Enemy planned his moved hundreds years ahead. I’m not exaggerating, I’ve seen documents. This is realization of long plan that started way before we even heard about B16 or Card. Ratzinger. Do you think that enemy is stupid and he allow to ruin his plans by single act of any particular man, even a pope? Do you think he wasn’t prepared for resistance?
What if after all B16 knew exactly what he is doing? He knows what we do not know. What if his actions really are the best solution? I do not pretend to know much about that but his is possibility.
We all have our perspective and are convinced that we are right. What if B16 realizes plan prepared not by him but by Him? In that case we should have some hints, shouldn’t we? (Hint: we do have hints.)
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/benedicts-end-game-is-to-save-the-church-from-freemasonry/
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/how-benedict-has-defeated-francis/
and others.
I do not know if this is true or not. I know that I spoke unfavorable words about B16 in the past, words that were based on my understanding of things and my conviction of being right. I could be wrong. This is possible.
I sincerely repeat after Br Bugnolo:
I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II.
So I believe that a person who grew up in the faith, with the roots of his faith, entwined around the roots of “bride killing” weeds like Hans Kung, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rainer, and etc. One who is a scandalous public sinner, materially heretical, is a coward, is a hypocrite, and most likely the worst pope ever, trying to transubstantiate Christs’ Bride into a 2 or 3 headed beast, denying Jesus himself perhaps more then 3 times, could in the end repent like St. Peter and keep the faith only because Jesus has prayed for him, that his faith would endure. Jesus fulfilled 435 biblical prophesies. God has beat the mathematical odds before! Faith is the antidote to modernism! I so believe! Amen.
Ratio,
Anyone can repent who is sincere and goes to confession and does his penance. The only sin that one can not repent from is the unrepentant sin against the Holy Ghost.
But when you say here” One who is a scandalous public sinner, materially heretical, is a coward, is a hypocrite, and most likely the WORST POPE EVER , trying to transubstantiate Christs’ Bride into a 2 or 3 headed beast,
Are you talking about Bergoglio? because if so he is NOT the pope but a manifest heretic and you can know this by what he has publicly said and done. Here is a good article for you https://romeward.com/articles/239752647/can-a-private-individual-recognize-an-uncondemned-heretic
M.C.
Ratzinger is a manifest heretic also and here is the proof:
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”Zenit.org, news story for Sept. 5, 2000. http://web.archive.org/web/20060209005159/http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0009/ZE000905.html SEE ARE BELIEVERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS SAVED?
And here is the anti-thesis/synthesis statement that this is a valid Eucharist even though there is NO literal words of consecration.
“Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.
Well if this is true than one could argue so what is wrong with saying the protestants have a valid consecration? They base this phony statement which flies in the face of Catholic teaching in Trent and other Church councils which discuss that you have to have words of institution for it to be a valid Mass, that just because this group of heretics has some association with apostolic times that this makes them Ok, well the gnostics do also.
Razinger shows his lack of respect in the Eucharist and so naturally he is not going to think that we have to have words of institution if he doesn’t think Jesus is present in the tabernacle it is just a symbol for such a modern theologian.
“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the ground that one can visit God Who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.” DIE SACRAMENTALE BEGRUNDUNG CHRISTLIKER EXISTEND
Cardinal Ratzinger
M.C when you said here ” What if his actions really are the best solution?” Ratzinger is part of the wrecking crew.
Look here:
Ratzinger said, ” The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that She (the Church) must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for Her and that She has taken for granted, She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith” is a long overdue task.” see Audience Address of November 26, 1969 as quoted in “The Devils Final Battle” by Fr. Paul Kramer pg. 77 and also Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Principles of Catholic Theology” Ignatius Press 1987 p. 391
And M.C. Ratzinger’s “shield of faith” is the wrecking ball of the ecumenical Sillon movement of his progressivism and New Evangelization and No proselytism. And Ann Barhnardt needs to wake up and smell the coffee that Ratzinger is NO solution and he is and never was a true Pope because it is clear that he isn’t even a protestant because plenty of them believe you have to have faith in Christ to be “saved” not only that he even said Trent was left behind with Vatican I and Protestant can no longer be considered “heretics” today. I can give you the proof for that if you need. Ann Barnhardt totally ignores the fact that Ratzinger has admitted that he resigned and that no body forced him to resign (which he is lying about that because all of these modernists blackmail each other).
And Melanie, You are right about Sarah and the others. The problem is that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais are afraid of getting re-excommunicated and not getting more refugees from the Novus Ordo who can not stand what Bergoglio is doing and have had enough and they are trying to compromise with apostate Rome and even in the Remnant newspaper, Tuesday, December 3, 2019 “Carthago delenda est! (So, what about Vatican II?) Written by By Father Michael Johnson, FSSPX admitted that the SSPX was compromising. And those sede vacantists Bishops would not meet with the SSPX Bishops because they would consider them heretical and schismatic from the guy they call the pope. So much for the “unity” that the dupes of Vatican II thought they were going to get. Now the planners like Suenens, Schillebeeckx, Cardinal Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Kung- they all knew exactly what they were doing- remaking the church in their own modernist man centered godless image.
-Martin E. Marty who was an official Protestant observer at the second Vatican Council. The name of his speech was “Vatican II the Best Council the Protestants Ever Had” Remember Ratzinger gave out communion to the protestant Brother Roger of the Taize community so you won’t get anything out of him. Also Ratzinger is priest but it is highly doubtful that that he is a Bishop because he was consecrated as a Bishop in the New Rite which is based on a bogus Dom Botte rite patterned after the “installation rite of a Patriarch borrowed from a Maronite Rite- but that rite just installs him that did NOT intend to make him a Bishop. He had to have another rite for that. So here we see the reality of the whole things is to practically invalidate the rites which is just what the enemies of the Church want.
Correction I meant Ratzinger said Vatican II left behind Trent. It was a type o. error on my part
One may not do evil that good may come of it.
A true Sacrament is explicit in what it intends to enact.
Marie, you are true to the Sede cause, because your first quote about what Cardinal Ratzinger said in regard to the Dominus Iesus Declaration, you truncated the quote TO MAKE IT APPEAR HERETICAL. The full quote is
“Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that “we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.”
I probably could find the same trick in play in your other citations. My question is, what kind of spiritual director do you have, if you take pleasure in finding that a pope is a heretic so much that you do not concern yourself with being honest in quoting his past statements.
Lou,
All true Catholics believe Scripture. Now Scripture says in the Book of the Apocalypse that there will come a time in which God will call His people to leave the city of the whore of Babylon. Saints and theologians have for centuries talked of the days of the antichrist and the false prophet. The Saint agree that we should separate ourselves from the wicked, from the false prophet and from the AntiChrist. We should be able to see that it is of immense importance that the Church remove from Herself heretics and apostates who masquerade as Catholics.
Maybe YOU want that be done in a way different that Pope Benedict. That is your personal opinion. But how the Pope chooses to do it, we must admit, might indeed be based on more information than we personally have. If a pope can renounce x, he can renounce less than x, if there is grave necessity. And if a pope does not know Latin, he can make errors. Are you going to condemn a pope to Hell and calumniate Catholics who understand these things, that a pope has the right to make prudential decisions with which we disagree, about which we do not know everything, and make mistakes, even if we only want a perfect Pope, like maybe Jansen would praise.
You yourself some years ago speculated in public that what happened in 2013 might not have been canonically regular. Are Catholics who still think that now condemned, and if so, are you also condemned. The one thing that really turns Catholics off from dialoging with Sedevacantists is that one they get in their heads that you or someone is condemned, it becomes a dogma for them more important than reality. And don’t you dare challenge their reality.
I welcome you attempt to criticize, but hope you do it with a higher purpose and greater sense of justice that the comments with which you closed your article above.
Oh’ and it is, “Romanus sum”, and yet again,
You pathetic, pseudo-intellectual, heretical, miscreant fool. Witness, “Lumen Gentium 16”, you hideous idiot. Witness the First Epistle of Saint John the Apostle, where the one who denies the divinity of Jesus the Christ is Antichrist. So called, “Lumen Gentium”, “Solemnly Promulgated by Pope Paul VI”, November 21, 1964. You miserable, non-Catholic, religion of man adherent, proponent, and Gnostic fool, on your sure as certain path to your very own personal eternity with your Prince of this world in Hell, as you objectively evidence being his slave, as you affront the Incarnate Son of God and His living, divine, perpetual as unending and unchanging, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. “You are either with Me or you are against Me.” “You will KNOW them by their fruits.”, and your fruit is utterly and rapidly poison, you heretical, miscreant, pseudo-intellectual fool. Amen. Save your soul, you hideous wretch. In caritas.
Marie Tageye,
Ratzinger is a manifest heretic also and here is the proof: (…)
Marie, I will not go into this discussion. I think I understand your point and I assume that your intentions are good.
Romanus sum showed that quote you used was taken out of context and it’s real meaning was different and quite catholic. (Thanks Romanus sum.) Before, I tried to show that meaning in which you use the word ‘manifest’ is not the meaning used by Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”. I don’t have time at hand to address every statement you’ve make.
My intention was to publicly acknowledge that I might be wrong criticizing B16. So far, I treated all attempts to whitewash B16, as attempts of confused minds trying to make sense of present situation. Br Bugnolo presented reasoning well worthy consideration. Indeed, if there were no suspicion about validity of resignation (now certainty), if Bergolio was to be universally believed as valid, we would be in much worse situation.
My position does not mean complete and unconditional submission to B16, but only in following Our Lord. If he, or any other pope, deviate from that, I do not intend to follow.
You, Sedevacantists, spend plenty of time trying to yank souls from the Church. This is crime. You should be stopped. Go somewhere else and fight between each other. I also do not like many things happening around but where should I go? Extra Ecclesia nulla salus. No pope, no Church. You are using seemingly reasonable arguments but remember that human reason is no match for enemy’s. Your argumentation leads to contradictions and denial of Faith. Do you want to stick to that or rather re-examine your position? If you don’t intend to correct than go somewhere else with your propaganda. With your knowledge you can do much good clearing confusion that exists today in the Church, instead you’ve chosen to use it against souls. I will not discuss with TV.
Repent and return.
I’m assuming you’d call me a Sedevacantist M.C., as I believe the seat is vacant because it OBVIOUSLY is, even though I am properly called a Catholic. I am trying to alert people that we have no Pope because we need a Pope. We NEED a Pope. What the Hell is wrong with you? If you are Catholic then you should be helping me. Ratzinger and Sarah will NEVER get you a Catholic Pope. They are a different religion. They named it New Order. Wake up people.
M.C.
You do not owe “BXVI” an apology.
Why would you apologize to a heretic?
It is HE who should be apologizing!
Apologize to the world, to true Catholics, to the conciliar church followers he’s duped, and above all to Almighty God for the damage he’s done for decades as a Modernist, for the garbage he’s spewed as the usurped “Vicar of Christ”, for the nails he drove further into Our Lord.
Melanie,
long time ago there was a man who walked around village, looked into peoples faces and called: “I’m looking for human”. He had different concept of ‘human’ in his mind than reality presented to him.
For the same reason Our Lord was rejected among Jews.
For the same reason you reject present popes.
If it was up to your vision, if pope to be ‘immaculate’ than words of Our Lady about confusion in the Church would make little sense. There would be no room for any confusion. What it is may be not what you like to see but it is what it is. Do your best dealing with reality don’t hold desperately to your dreams.
I hope I’m helping you even if it hurts a little.
prisca ann,
I apologize for injustice I might done to him.
Greater sense of justice? You do realize, do you not, that the first demand of justice is to render unto God what He is due? And what do you suppose He is due when His Holy name is blasphemed and His people are being led to Hell on a road paved with heresy?
HINT: Silence is not the answer, most especially if one’s station in life is such that he has tremendous influence over numerous souls. Much less is public praise for the heretic (see BXVI’s comments above). In the case of a pope, his duty is clear: To use his “exalted office for the salvation of all … so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error.” (cf First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus)
“Are you going to condemn a pope to Hell…” If you are suggesting that I’ve done so, you obviously haven’t read the article.
M.C. You must seriously be out of your mind if you are still going to present this idea that Jorge is just one more bad Pope. The Pope has to be a Catholic man. If you think that I would not accept a bad Pope, it’s because you don’t know me. I hope the Pope is a saint but I would never go into schism if the Pope was the most vulgar awful sinful Catholic that ever existed. Jorge’s heretical document Amoris Laetitia motivated me to read Vatican II documents and NOW I know that Vatican II was not Catholic and neither was any man that promulgated it. Anti-Catholics promulgated Vatican II, set up a new false religion and I know that wasn’t clear when it happened but it is clear now. You are not helping me, you are talking nonsense. Please. I can’t even. How can so many people be this mad?
Romanus,
Your quote of Ratzinger is deceit. The ambiguity that ends Ratzinger’s statement, is the same weapon that he and his gang infamously confused Catholics with at Vatican 2.
Ratzinger is an IMPEDIMENT against the conversion of Talmud Jews. He joins them in their synagogues for satan.
.
Jesus Is The Singular Way To Life.
Louie, since you did not rebut the substance or the other points of my reply, I presume your tacit consent. Thank you. Looking forward for honest criticism, remembering that by the measure we judge others, so shall we be judged.
Yes, Melanie. The truth is simple; the Holy Faith is simple. Although the Faith is far above and beyond mere human reason, yet it NEVER can conflict with God-given right reason. Heresies usually come with unclear, illogical premises, false premises, presented in unnecessarily-complicated terms and containing internally-inconsistent ideas, employing various logical fallacies (sorry, I should say “nuanced”, such that only the self-appointed asserters can know that it’s not really heresy though the ordinary silly pious little Catholics couldn’t possibly have the requisite sophistication to understand).
Give me a break. There’s a difference between discerning and judging. I’m so sick and tired of the word “judging” being thrown around. If you see someone living with someone who is not his wife, it’s safe to say (DISCERN) that the man is on his certain PATH to hell. How do we “admonish the sinner” without making a JUDGMENT CALL and DISCERNING the facts which point to the fact that the person is in danger? I mean this is so basic it’s no wonder so many can’t see the forest through the tress when it comes to everything else.
And what kind of “prudential decision” was it, exactly, when “Benedict” decided to hold Assisi II? Now, what’s the difference between him and Bergoglio again?
I get it now though. There must have been a good reason for RATzinger’s Asissi II that I didn’t know about, despite the duty to:
“…use his “exalted office for the salvation of all … so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error.” (cf First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus)
TO ALL OF YOU:
for me, this have NOTHING to do with the “defence of flock”…
seems to be that the puppetmasters NEEDS to heat up the people in order to be able to make a SCHISM…
For me, this is a “social engienering” move in that direction.
if BotBenedict is STILL ALIVE is because he plays with and for the team… if he could be AGAINST the team, should be like “pope” John Paul 1st.
So, move on… nothing to see here…
Romanus sum: “You yourself some years ago speculated in public that what happened in 2013 might not have been canonically regular. Are Catholics who still think that now condemned, and if so, are you also condemned. The one thing that really turns Catholics off from dialoging with Sedevacantists is that one they get in their heads that you or someone is condemned, it becomes a dogma for them more important than reality. And don’t you dare challenge their reality.”
Please quote where Louie condemned anyone.
There’s plenty of condemning going on in the combox, but I don’t see where Louie condemned anyone. If you’re going to question Louie regarding condemnations, perhaps you could ask him why he allows the ongoing condemnations taking place in his combox.
Sigh. And in case anyone doesn’t know, “judge” is used in the very same sense as is “condemn”.
Nevertheless and BTW:
Pope St. Gregory II (circa A.D. 731): “You ask for advice on the lawfulness of making offerings for the dead. The teaching of the Church is this – that every man should make offerings for those who died as true Christians [Catholics]… But he is not allowed to do so for those who die in a state of sin even if they were Christians.”
How’s that for all you Pollyannas? The Truth is HARD.
Romanus Sum: “Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that “we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.”
Let’s ignore the “acknowledge” part of the quote for now…..
You’re saying it’s Catholic to say that Jews do not need to know that Christ is the Son of God? Isn’t that a blatant denial of the Great Commission?
This so-called book, obviously written by ghostwriters, is nothing more than a red herring to distract the Faithful from the real problems in the “catholic” church–namely Vatican 2 and the fake prelates who pretend to safeguard the True Catholic Church. Phonies all of them.
2Vermont yet again,
Simply because you freely choose to remain utterly blind to Catholic Truth, does not somehow excuse your utter culpability, you heretical fool. This reality as it simply is, remains objective, in spite of your rejection of this reality as it is, as you have no power over truth. Amen. Simply because you reduce the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and its perfect understanding as utter Reality as it IS, to simple human fiat as opinion, which immanently contains doubt, is perfect evidence in and of itself, of your manifest as objective heresy. Amen. “You will KNOW them by their fruits”, commands The Christ. Doubt does not as it cannot, with apodictic certitude, get a soul to Heaven you miserable, miscreant wretch, as it is Truth and only Truth as He is the Second Divine Person, which gets a miserable soul to Heaven. Amen. Alleluia. You hold doubt on matters deFide, which is the sure as certain path to one’s own very personal eternity in Hell. Lastly for now, because you remain utterly blind to the reality as it is, truth, that it is THE MAGISTERIUM WHICH JUDGES YOU, does not change this utter reality as it is, you miserable, heretical fool. Creatures cannot judge the soul, only the Incarnate Son of God as God. Amen. The DIVINE Magisterium is His, as it Is Him Teaching and Judging, you heretic. Know this or die eternally. Amen. I pray you hold the Catholic Faith before you take your final breath. In caritas.
Louie, 2Vermont,
>>>The one thing that really turns Catholics off from dialoging with Sedevacantists is that one they get in their heads that you or someone is condemned, it becomes a dogma for them more important than reality. And don’t you dare challenge their reality.<<<
Please quote where Louie condemned anyone.
Louie, 2Vermont this exchange applies that Louie joined Sedevacantists. His texts may suggest that he is sliding toward sede position but not necessary.
Can you, please, 2 Vermont, confirm and present your thinking in that matter.
Or, better yet, can you Louie, clearly confirm or deny this supposition yourself.
I’d be much obliged.
Louie is under no obligation to confirm and deny anything to you at this point, and I doubt he cares about your mere opinion. Perhaps you missed it, but he has stated that he is currently seeking the Truth of these matters and that he’s not afraid to share his conclusions when he’s ready – at whatever cost to himself (as he has done before), and this can and should take time and very careful consideration, study and most of all, prayer.
I’m talking about Pope Benedict XVI, your correct, Francis is not a pope.
You need to study the technical details of the sins against the Holy Ghost. I myself cannot explain it properly. All sins are forgivable, it’s the nature of the sins against the Holy Ghost. Final impenitence is a lack of desire/grace to be forgiven, but heresy itself is a sin against the Holy Ghost, yet often heretics repent, and are forgiven. Francis is actually dabbling in the sins against the Holy Ghost, and not just heresy! The mercy of God is for those who fear the Lord, if some have no fear of God, they won’t get the grace to repent, because mercy is not for them!
Assisi II is just one of MANY proofs that neither is RATzinger a Pope, and that he never was a Pope, at least of the CATHOLIC Church…
I merely quoted Romania Sum. I think your question should be directed to that poster.
Well put.
“Ratzinger is a manifest heretic also and here is the proof:
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”Zenit.org, news story for Sept. 5, 2000.”
That statement alone only proves he is a material heretic. Had the faithful not been sleeping and questioned him properly. He could have only defended the traditional Catholic teachings, or made a public manifestation that he was an actual heretic, and not a Catholic!
In the book AA1025 the priest know as AA1025 revealed to his girlfriend “Raven Hair” before he was ordained, that he was an atheist who was working at destroying the Catholic faith. That in itself is not a proper public manifestation to render his ordination invalid. He automatically excommunicated himself before his ordination, so he was not a member of the soul of the Church. Because the fact that he was not Catholic was kept private and not revealed to the public, he was a member of the body of the Church and he was a priest. Had he told the faithful of a Catholic parish at the pulpit what he told Raven Hair. He would have no longer been a member of even the body of the Church. That would have been a sufficient public manifestation that he was not Catholic.
If Pope Paul VI was not a pope, the N.O. sacraments are not the Roman Rite and have to be schismatic rites and thus have to be judged not according to the dictates of Pope Pius XII which infallibly apply to the Roman Rite only, but according to how the Church traditionally judges the validity of schismatic rites. Which is sufficient to conclude they are valid by the skin of their teeth. The Protestants rejection of the ecclesiastical priesthood renders their intent improper and their breaking of bread invalid as a Mass and a sacrifice.
In Caritas – Oh, you again. Since you have all the answers, please enlighten us poor mistreat fools. De Fide. Alleluia. While you condemn everyone to Hell, you are not assisting anyone on this site with your pompous arrogance. Are you a theologian? Do you have the ability to discern the Magesterium better than everyone else. I have read hundreds of comments from you and they are always insulting to anyone who disagrees with you (which is pretty much everyone). People are looking for the Truth in this era of confusion. Your pompous, demeaning, arrogant attitude helps no one, but serves to stroke your massive ego. You poor wretched fool. Think about it. And when anyone asks you a question you just resort to name calling. You are obviously intelligent, but you have the maturity and social skills of am10 year old. Dr Fide. Amen
A Simple Beggar,
of course Louis is under no obligation. Not sure where you get this idea from. I’m also not forbidden to ask (at least to my knowledge).
2Vermont,
you quoted Romanus sum and asked him something about Louis. As your quote talked about Sedevacantists I assumed you see or know about any connection Sede-Louis. That’s why I asked. Answer to this question matters to me but of course nobody is obliged to answer.
Amen Joseph a Christian. Ratzinger dissolves Christ and anyone who does this scripture tells us is anti-Christ.
Romanus sum,
Nothing is insurmountable with God. This is what the Church teaches:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:”The Athanasioan Creed” ex cathedra”
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves
this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550 553; Denzinger 39 40.
I think this is the best explanation I’ve come across.
Bingo!
Melanie,
You are right that Ratzinger & Sarah and their ilk will NOT give us a true Pope but will give us more modernists progressivist like themselves who are taking truck loads to Hell with their false teachings because people are actually following them.
We can ask God for a true Pope and we should but God will not give us a pope until people mend there ways and repent and the Catholics actually follow their faith as the Athanasian Creed whole and entire. And by the way. God has sent an “operation of error” because people want to believe and follow lies. Only the successors of the apostles can and will elect a Pope if it is God’s will to do so. Time will tell.
Ratio
So you think he is a “material heretic” and not a formal?? There have been whole books about his formal heresy written by Sede Vantist priests and laymen. You can read them if you like. I have a whole file on his manifest heresies but I don’t know your email. I used to use that argument that the conciliar “popes” were just “material” and not “formal” heretics but that is a straw man argument. It does not hold with the things they said and did and the direction that they took Catholics in. Pius XI said that Catholics can not got to pan religious assemblies and all the NO. Popes say you should.
Now here you say “If Pope Paul VI was not a pope, the N.O. sacraments are not the Roman Rite and have to be schismatic rites and thus have to be judged not according to the dictates of Pope Pius XII ” This actually is truthful statement. We have been given fraudulent sacraments. They changed the rights.
Go here and read any of this below and you will know why these Novus Ordo Sacraments are doubtful at the least (and we may not approach a doubtful sacrament) and outright INVALID at the most either way you should not go to them.
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/texts-in-english.html
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/index1.html and read French
So I am glad you brought this validity issue and thus Paul VI if he passed something as a universal rite for the whole church thus he would be a false pope/ anti-pope because he was just that a false pope. Look below and see how Novus Ordo Jesuit here even said that the New Mass is based on something that allegedly the anti-pope Hippolytus came up with supposedly but that doing this the “liturgies described in the so-called Apostolic Tradition never existed in practice” So you base a right on something that was not even real and if there is ANY change it was based on a fraud just why do you think “Ratio” they did this??? So IF it doesn’t do what the Jesuite Baldovin said here “but probably mistakenly referred to as the Apostolic Tradition does not represent the state of affairs in the Church at Rome in the early-third century??” Why are they doing it when it dubious and they shouldn’t be trying to get back to a “past liturgy” that fell into “misuse” if it ever was really used to begin with because you need to read below that quote the quote from Pope Pius XII criticizing this sort of
below see hippolytus and the apostolic tradition – Theological Studies-JOHN F.BALDOVIN,S.J Jesuit SJ
JOHN F.BALDOVIN,S.J. stated on pg 542, “CONCLUSION On the basis of this present study,(note 86) I draw five conclusions. (1)The first conclusion is obvious,namely that,in its present state, the document commonly but probably mistakenly referred to as the Apostolic Tradition does not represent the state of affairs in the Church at Rome in the early-third century.While Rome cannot be completely ruled out as one of the places that the document originated, it seems far more likely that it was“born”in the East, perhaps even Alexandria as Jean Michel Hanssens suggested almost 40 years ago. (2)One can speak only cautiously of authorship of a document that consists of church regulations. It is a piece of “living literature.” At the most,one can say that there are some phrases that point to the compilers’ familiarity with the work attributed to the Hippolytus of the Contra Noetumand that some elements in the document have as econd-century origin. (3)The current stateof research favors a picture of church order and ministerial structure in transition, if not necessarily at Rome, then perhaps in various churches of the third century. (4)There is a very real possibility that the Apostolic Tradition describes liturgies that never existed. Afortiori, great caution must be employed in appealing to this document to justify contemporary rites. (I do not object to someone wanting to use the anaphora contained in the ordination rite for a bishop[no.4],for example, as the basis of a contemporary prayer. Ancient documents often provide fine exemplars for prayer today. But I do question the unjustifiable reason for using this prayer, namely the assumption that it was the Eucharistic prayer of the early-third-century Church at Rome.) (5)Many doubts have been expressed here, and many questions left open. Even if the liturgies described in the so-called Apostolic Tradition never existed in practice, they have had a major impact on the subsequent history of liturgical practice especially and perhaps even ironically in the West.The document addressed in this study has shaped the contemporary liturgies of initiation, ordination, and Eucharist. Of this there can be no doubt at all.
Baldovin,“Eucharistic Prayer,”in The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship,ed.Paul F.Bradshaw (London:SCM,2002)193–99. note 86 This article was delivered as the Donahue Lecture at the Pontifical Oriental Institute,Rome, and as the Diekmann Lecture,St.John’s University,Collegeville, both in March 2003.
ON ARCHEOLOGISM, antiquarianism mentioned by Pope Pius XII
Mediator Dei:
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.” (For more recent rites he means the Dominican Rite or Rite of Braga of the middle ages Rites which were more than “200” years old when Pius V wrote Quo Primum in 1570 which codified the old Latin Mass in perpetuity. These were valid developments of the “Roman rite” however any more recent rites when Pope Pius V wrote Quo Primum less than 200 years old -Pius V said they were illegal and could not be used any more.)
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.”
Ratio an enemy has sown this blasphemous Mass which leads to errors, heresy and the loss of souls NOT a true Pope. And No true pope would say like Paul VI said that the United nations was the last hope for mankind. NO a true pope would say that Jesus Christ IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR MANKIND. And Romanus Sum I was not being dishonest in not giving the full quote of Ratzinger because that does NOT excuse what he said in the first part of the quote. Often times people don’t give the full quote and you are no different.
prisca ann
Amen!!!!
Ratio,
Anyone can repent but when a person continues in pertinacity he will not do that due to his pride. You are right that Francis is a heretic and NOT pope and that he is dabbling in sins against the Holy Ghost but Benedict is NO more a pope than Francis. He said and did things every bit as bad as Bergoglio he just wore red shoes and dressed the part but he was a buddy of Hans Kung and he wrote the foreward to a book of his in about 1969. Moreover, Benedict said himself words to the effect that he did NOT resign due to coercion. So are you calling him a liar?? By the way he is a liar. He never has been a true pope he was a false pope over the Vatican II Conciliar apostate church which continues to lead souls in the direction of Hell and NOT Heaven. Now he is just a pathetic man in his last years who is facing God’s judgement for helping Vatican II as he said leave Trent behind and his fellow Catholics with it into the Great Apostasy.
It is really that simple and I pray that someday you will see it. The whole Conciliar church is a church without mercy and is meant to close Catholic Churches and reduce the number of faithful Catholics to nil. There are still Catholics in the Novus Ordo who do not understand this, but some of them are waking up and seeing that these men are liars. The scripture tells us that the beginning of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord but the Conciliar church does not fear God it loves man to the absence of putting God first. In fact the Conciliar church makes MAN= God here in Gaudium et Spes here as both now are the object of the the first commandment according to GS is to love GOD and MAN
FALSE STATEMENT IN GAUDIUM ET SPES PUTTING GOD AND MAN ON THE SAME LEVEL CALLING Love of THEM BOTH THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD GAUDIUM ET SPES PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
“24. God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. For having been created in the image of God, Who “from one man has created the whole human race and made them live all over the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26), all men are called to one and the same goal, namely God Himself.
“For this reason, love for GOD AND NEIGHBOR IS THE FIRST AND GREATEST COMMANDMENT. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.
sec 24. in Gaudium et Spec “For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.
This verse in Roman’s 13:9,10 is not saying you can sum up the First Commandment as love of God AND man but simply saying that in paying tribute to your pastors and other men you are loving your neighbor as yourself- he does not call it the first or greatest commandment
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law. 9 For: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.
This verse is also not saying that the first commandment is to love God AND man this verse simply points out that we must love God because he first loved us- so its clear we hold our relationship with him as first but then if we as Christians say that we love God then we hate our brother then we are lyers because if we really loved God then it would properly then follow that secondarily we would love our “brother” whom he can “see.” This passage does not put God and Man on the same plane or first. God first then Man- indeed we cannot properly love God if we do not love God because then we will not stand up for the truth and point out the pitfalls of untruthfulness to our brother. IF we put Man first on the same level as God then we will be the blind leading our fellow blind.
1 John 4:19 Let us therefore love God: because God first hath loved us. 20 If any man say: I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not? 21 And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God love also his brother.
Matt 22:36 “Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets
Mark 12:28-34 ” And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all. 29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
When you put God and Man on the same level then what you can do is take away the God part and because in the Masons view point MAN=GOD then you are worshiping MAN which is what the Devil wants. These men are enemies of the Church that made Bugnini’s New Mass the work of “Human” Masonic “hands” as the Jewish Kabbala says. Allegedly it is based on Hippolytus an anti-Popes lost to history liturgy but it was really based on the imagination of manifest baptized Catholic heretics and 6 protestant ministers.
A Simple begger,
Amen! I would add
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment.
1 Cor 2:. [14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. [15] But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.
The Fruits of Ratzinger and Bergoglio are rotten. They are NOT Catholic for the chose Vatican II a false council over Trent a true and dogmatic council. This false Vatican II council contained the seeds of a false liturgy and a man centered doctrine so as to embrace paganism Pachama, Assisi Prayer meeting and the whole United Nations Sustainable Eugenics religion meant to lead mankind into the one World Religion and One World Governement that would :
This is Benedict XVI antithesis in CARITAS IN VERITATE 67 ECONOMIC ENTITY WITH TEETH IN IT ” In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
This is the UN-holy religion and so I don’t understand why anyone thinks Ratzinger is the pope. I guess you can continue to bury your head in UN-sand!!!!!!
A Simple Beggar,
I agree with you! Not that me agreeing with anyone is of any importance. I just want you and Louie to know that I am reading and following what you say. We find as the years go on that we MUST amend any false opinions or misunderstandings of the Holy Catholic Faith. The prayer part is the most important thing and then to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Lynda, What you said is the truth regarding heresies being based on false premises and fuzzy illogical thinking and here are some popes here below who show that some of the Vatican II popes who doubt for instance Christ physically rising from the dead are wrong and any number of false personalis “all men are united to God whether they know it or not” and pantheistic Pachamama mother earth premises:
LATERAN COUNCIL V 1512-1517 Ecumenical XVIII (The Reform of the Church) The Human Soul (against the Neo-Aristoteliars) * [From the Bull “Apostolic) Regiminis” (Session VIII),Dec. 19, 1513]
738 Since in our days (and we painfully bring this up) the sower of cockle, ancient enemy of the human race, has dared to disseminate and advance in the field of the Lord a number of pernicious errors, always rejected by the faithful, especially concerning the nature of the rational soul, namely, that it is mortal, or one in all men, and some rashly philosophizing affirmed that this is true at least according to philosophy, in our desire to offer suitable remedies against a plague of this kind, with the approval of this holy Council, we condemn and reject all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, or is one in all men, and those who cast doubt on these truths, since it [the soul] is not only truly in itself and essentially the form of the human body, as was defined in the canon of Pope CLEMENT V our predecessor of happy memory published in the (general) Council of VIENNE [n. 481] but it is also multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied. . . . And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare [see n. 1797] every assertion contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatize otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.
Errors to be condemened
1024 24. By vain and idle men, in keeping with the folly of philosophers, is the opinion devised which must be referred to Pelagianism, that man was so constituted from the beginning that through gifts added upon nature by the bounty of the Creator he was raised and adopted into the sonship of God.
1025 25. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices. 1036 36. Natural love which arises from the force of nature, is defended by some doctors according to philosophy alone through the pride of human presumption with injury to the Cross of Christ.
ST. PIUS V 1566-1572 Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) * [Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567]
[Errors of Michael of Molinos* Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, and in the Constitutions “Coelestis Pastor,” Nov. 20, 1687]1279 59. The interior way is separated from confession, from those who confess, and from cases of conscience, from theology and from philosophy.
Meant to say Vatican II false popes.
my2cents
So true but it takes grace for people to see that they have been missing THE GREAT APOSTASY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURH AFTER 1958 instead of the liberals phony add campaign the “New Evangelization” and Dynamic renewal.
Bob Kenney,
I hope In Caritas tries to understand how you are trying to encourage him in his behavior to be a better Christian in how he deals with people and that you are not trying to condemn him but help him grow in Christ. It is constructive criticism that you are giving him and not destructive. Although I will say if we take the Marines for instance they tare you down so they can build you up. Maybe he was in the Marines and had a drill sergeant like that. But its not like anyone joined In Caritas Home Alone assembly so I am not sure why he barks out Marine like commands. I guess he is waiting for us to join the ROTC . All we miserable miscreant fools for Christ need to look at and do something about our many faults and he is right about that. To thine own self be true when we look at the logs in our own eyes.
M.C.
Your statement here “You, Sedevacantists, spend plenty of time trying to yank souls from the Church” is simply not accurate. You have gotten into the discussion by then continuing to explain what you believe which is fine. You said M.C that we “yank people” from the Church and this implies that sedevacantists are NOT in the Church.
We are simply pointing out that the men who changed the Church changed the sacraments and replaced them with a false Counter church, false sacraments and a false hierarchy, false theology which is demonstrated M.C. by take your pick what is the difference between Pachamama- Bergoglio and JP II- Assisi or Ratzinger Assisi III or to go along with a false Vatican II double dutch modernistic theology meant to confuse people by mixing truth with errors church which is NOT the Catholic Church!
And by the way you are accusing us of what the Conciliar false popes and Churchmen are doing- “yanking people out of the Church” .
Even if you are right that Ratzinger is a true pope, that does NOT make Catholics who take the sede Vacantist position outside the Church. You yourself correct me if I am wrong think Bergoglio is an anti-pope and Benedict VI is the true pope right?? Well there is obviously confusion with the faithful going on here isn’t there because not everyone thinks Ratzinger is the true pope right?? And you don’t put them outside the Church right?
So why are you doing this with people that think there is NO pope currently. They could be right and you could be wrong. Some Catholics would call you schismatic and leading people out of the Church. I wouldn’t do that but others might. Now were you aware that in a time of confusion when people have valid doubts as to who might be the pope or even if we have a pope. Catholics who take a sedevantist position are NOT to be thought of as schismatic? Below is the proof for what I say:
“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff
because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in
circulation…” Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398
· “Nor is there any schism if……one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if
one resists him as the civil head of a state.” Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with
Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
· “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has
solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to
Sanchez and Palao].” de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
FR. HENRY IGNATIUS DUDLEY RYDER “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed.
“The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted Pope; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the right of judging. No single example can be produced of a Pope whose orthodoxy and succession was undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to sit in judgment…. During a contested Papacy the state of things approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallability is suspended.” (Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp. 30-31) R. HENRY IGNATIUS DUDLEY RYDER (1837-1907) THEOLOGIAN AND SUPERIOR OF THE BIRMINGHAM ORATORYSUCCESSOR AND STUDENT OF JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN
ARCHBISHOP PURCELL (1871) (who signed a petition against Papal infallibility just before it was solemnly pronounced but once it was he assented to it.) “If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” Address at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the infallibility of the Pope as defined at the Council.
Good point. I liked it.
Good point prisca ann Benedict needs to apologize the us and the whole Catholic Church but you see. The whole phony false Conciliar popes where always apologizing for true Popes and the True Church like John Paul II with all of his false “papal apologies” when he should have apologized for all of the pedophile priests he late rape the flock spiritually and physically like Marciel and McCarrick. Now this is what a true pope said of the false apologies and lack of faith that would come.
I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. The Persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide in altering the Faith, in Her Liturgy, Her Theology, Her Soul…….I hear around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”
Said by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Papal Secretary of State to Pope Pius XI upon investigating the message of Fatima. qtd. in Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire 1972 p. 52 and 53 .http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/assr_0003-9659_1972_num_33_1_1886_t1_0292_0000_4 He later was elected as Pope Pius XII. (Hasn’t Pope John Paul II felt ‘remorse for the Church’s past when he apologized for his predecessor’s and their policies??)
Fr. Hermann Kramer prophesied the following
“Because the inhabitants of New Babylon have outdone all ancients in cruelty, Gods remembrance will lay upon them all crimes committed against His people in all ages. According to the Greek text, the sins of Babylon have been ‘fastened on to heaven. Heaven is the Church, and the clause may man that the wicked inhabitants of the city have imputed their own sins to the Church and have accused her of every perversity of which they are guilty themselves or have blamed her for the punishment received, just the ancient pagans blamed the Christians for every calamity A greater guilt than merely committing sin, no matter how whole. heartedly, is to impute one’s own sins or mistakes to another and treat him as the culprit. They call sin virtue, and virtue Sin, Such meaning would fit better into the context, and the succeed. ing verse would follow logically from this meaning. (See Zach,
XIV.5).THE BOOK OF DESTINY by Fr. Herman B. Kramer p. 409-410.
This folks is all about the “Rome will loose the faith wrecking crew and become the seat of the anti-Christ as La Salette predicted.
Romanus sum I don’t think making a comment regarding who you think is a true pope namely RATzinger that “decisions with which we disagree, about which we do not know everything, and make mistakes, even if we only want a perfect Pope.” Romanus sum how about Catholic?? I think Louie knows that Popes don’t need to be “PERFECT” but they do need to be Catholic. Now just because Ratzinger is dressed up in red shoes and a Pope hat doesn’t make him a Pope or the fact that he seemed to “like the Latin” mass and supposedly “freed it for the people calling it with his big fat lie that it was the “extraordinary form”. No in actuality he is Thomas Cranmar hellbent on destroying the Latin Mass that when he was younger he accused it of being “ossified fossil” and keep in mind here that he wanted to ADD “new Saints to the Canon Here:
Ratzinger’s confession: ” this Motu proprio is simply an act of tolerance ”
September 12, 2008, on the plane that takes him to France,
Benedict XVI-Ratzinger publicly confirms his intention:
“This Motu proprio is simply an act of tolerance”
“There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican Council II and this liturgy [Editor’s note: of Saint Pius V]” This is part of his Hegelian Dialectic to hybridize the 1962 Missal and make it worse
“A fundamental identity which excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy”
I still think there is a possibility of enrichment for both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the NEW SAINTS, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc… and on the other hand, the NEW liturgy let us say more emphasizes the common participation but, always, is not not simply the assembly of a certain community but always an act of the universal Church, in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a reciprocal enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. Thank you. »Benedict XVI-Ratzinger, September 12, 2008
So the New Mass then reciprocally corrupts the 1962 Missal which was a trial balloon with a general ‘evolution” and experimentation SO AS to eventually destroy the 1962 Canon.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict) wrote on June 23, 2003 a letter, in German, to Prof. Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth a Pius Xchapel attender:
If the Holy See were to “authorize the old rite [Traditional Latin Mass] once again worldwide and without limitation,” as you wish it and have heard it by report, it is not so easy to say. Besides, too many Catholics share a negative attitude — indoctrinated over some years — towards the traditional liturgy, which they call proudly “pre-conciliar,” and many bishops would oppose in great numbers a general authorization of the old rite. The situation is different if only a limited authorization is envisaged….
Hybred Rite Reform of the Reform
But I think that in future the Roman Church must have only a single rite. The existence of two rites is hardly “managable” for the bishops and the priests. The Roman Rite of future must be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or the vulgar tongues, but based entirely in the tradition of the old rite. That single rite could integrate some novel elements that have proven themselves [from the Novus Ordo]: some Prefaces, some longer readings — more choices than before, but not too many: one Prayer of the Faithful, that is to say, a litany of prayers of intercession after the Oremus before the Offertory, where its primitive place is….
One must, however, be careful against stirring up too great a hope, too much of a hope, in the faithful tied to Tradition…” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict) wrote on June 23, 2003 a letter, in German, to Prof. Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth, of the Department of Classical Letters at the University of Bonn, who is an attendee of the Society’s chapel in Bonn Cardinal. see http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0602.htm
Therefore it seems that Pope Benedict would do away with the “Tridentine” Rite, that the Church must have only one rite, which is essentially a reform of the Novus Ordo. Perhaps all of his statements about “revising” the 1962 Compromise Mass of John XXIII (Oriens, Summer, 2002, Ratzinger speaks at Fontgombault 22 to 24 July 2001 see http://www.oriensjournal.com/11ratzing.html )and adding “new saints” names to the Canon would be his “reform of the reform” missal.
Here is a quote from Ratzinger here “”In concrete terms I will do nothing in this domain for the time being, that is clear. But in the future, we need to think, it seems to me, about enriching the missal of 1962 by introducing new saints. There are now important new figures: I think, for example, of Saints Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the Spanish Martyrs, the Ukrainian Martyrs and many others. There are many truly beautiful figures that are necessary for us. Therefore opening the calendar of the old Missal for the new saints, in making a well thought out choice, seems to me an opportune thing that would not destroy the makeup of the liturgy. One could also think of the prefaces that come from the treasure of the Fathers of the Church, for example, for Advent, and others: why not insert these prefaces in the old missal? ” We might say that he is a protege of the arch enemy of the old Latin Mass, Annibale Bugnini who also tinkered with the Mass of all time, a Mass Canonized in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V but which dates back to early apostolic times. What is the purpose of trying to fix a Mass that isn’t broke? Is this to the further the goal of demolition? Of tearing down the bastions?
Ratzinger and Bergoglio were sent to create Teilhard de Chardin’s phony “Mass on the World” which is the New Age and bring the Pachamama Amazonian paganism worship into Novus Ordo Western
Louie MC and Company,
So much for Bendedict XVI speaking out about anything:
The Vatican’s “Abp.” Georg Gänswein, who is both the head of Francis’ “papal” household as well as Benedict XVI’s private secretary, released a statement to the press today, Jan. 14. Vatican News reports as follows:
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household and Personal Secretary of the Pope Emeritus has issued a statement to the KNA and Ansa news agencies, regarding the book on priestly celibacy, carrying the signatures of Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah, to be published tomorrow in France.
“I can confirm that this morning, at the indication of the Pope emeritus, I asked Cardinal Robert Sarah to contact the publishers of the book requesting them to remove the name of Benedict XVI as co-author of the book itself, and also to remove his name from the introduction and conclusions”.
“The Pope emeritus in fact knew the Cardinal was preparing a book”, Archbishop Gänswein added, “and had sent a short text of his on the priesthood”, authorizing the Cardinal to use it as he wished. But the Pope emeritus “had not approved any project for a co-signed book, nor had he seen and authorized the cover. It was a misunderstanding, without questioning the good faith of Cardinal Sarah”.
(“The book on priestly celibacy: a clarification by Archbishop Gänswein”, Vatican News, Jan. 14, 2020)
So much for RATzinger sticking up for priestly celibacy or anything else orthodox or traditional. The Novus Ordo Sect is “smoke and mirrors” in order to cover up what it is really all about the “the smoke of Satan” to quote its “pope” Paul VI. This will definitely cut back on Ignatius Press making as much money off of this one. Now if they can just get Ratzinger Benedict Arnold to publish something about the Mass on the World Pachamama liturgies they plan on implementing in your local NO parish why the revenues will hit the roof! Especially if they put something about Yoga on the cover.
I suspect that the Bennyvacantists will take the position that Ganswein is lying.
Ann Barnhardt already has.
Has anyone ever been able to get a straight answer out of her regarding Benedict’s allegedly coerced resignation? How exactly does the situation improve if Ratzinger is still “pope”?
Because you still have Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo with either Ratzinger or Bergoglio.
Good Wednesday morning Bob Kenney,
Good to, “hear”, a new, “voice”. Amen. By the way Marie Tageye, “Amen”, does not intone, “yes”, by the one who exclaims it, as that is a protestant perversion. “Amen”, suggests, “so be it”, which is an expression that acknowledges something that has occurred or has been commanded, which is apart from the one who acknowledges it to be so, beyond his power or sphere of influence, not his fiat. Further, it is firstly an acknowledgement of something that has occurred and then an affirmation of that which has been acknowledged, rather than a simple acceptance as, “yes”. Amen. The one who exclaims, “Amen”, may not necessarily agree with what is being acknowledged, rather affirms that he knows it has occurred. It is a different understanding than, “yes”, which is a simple fiat.
Dear Bob, you claim to have read much of what has been written by this poor soul who is now writing to you. You did not attack the divine, living, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in your opening communication with me. You attacked me and that is fine, as I perfectly deserve all the persecution given me and then infinitely more, for each offense that I have given Almighty God in my life. Amen. Remember though, although I deserve it, God uses the offender bringing out that good, yet the offender remains utterly culpable for his injustice before God. Amen. Alleluia. It is Jesus the Christ Who cannot be attacked without a proportionate force of mitigation yielded by one who understands the attack. This is the perfect justice simply do the One Who Is. If you look carefully, you will understand that what is being done is not ad hominem, as you accomplished in your opening communication, with this miserable wretch now writing you. Amen. The proof of the accusation is given each time the proper adjective is used. When someone insists upon repeating error upon error, in light of correction, they are simply a fool. When they affront the divine Authority of Almighty God in his perfect, living Magisterium, they are a miscreant. When they accomplish these errors again and again with objective malice, they are an imbecilic moron, as they remain steadfast in a capricious hubris which is utterly mind bending. The pain they must endure and perfectly alone, as Jesus the Christ, through His Blessed Virgin Mother will NOT sustain them with His grace, as they affront Him. Amen. Alleluia.
Lastly for now, there simply are no Catholic Theologians to be known as publically, in this scorched and barren world today. The last would have had to be trained prior to 1958, which would make him about aged 92 today, when the Church in her sacerdotal hierarchy ceased to be present on this earth. Amen. The Truth is hard yet it simply IS OBJECTIVE and it requires the reception of the Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith to see. Amen. Alleluia. That is what the Faith is after all, our means of KNOWING TRUTH. Without freely receiving the Faith, we are utterly blind, as was I most of my miserable life. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you, Bob Kenney. I look forward to any further communication with you at this juncture. In caritas.
In case anyone missed it, Un Caritas has been caught misrepresenting Pius XII’s legislation on Papal Elections, and lying about the number of days it took to elect John XXIII. Here’s what the deceiver wrote:
.
Un Caritas: “Okay now you poor, poor, miscreant fool Marie Tageye, the floor is now yours. Demonstrate now for all eyes to see, precisely how Pope Pius XII somehow DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE MEANT, when he utterly as literally and pristinely commanded that the business of electing the next Roman Pontiff MUST BEGIN BY DAY 18, WITHOUT ANY DISTINCTIONS, THEREFORE WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS, and with the consequence of ANYTHING occurring apart from his precise commands, as being, “NULL and VOID”. Amen. Alleluia.”
.
The truth is that Pius XII allowed 20 days for the conclave to meet, not 18. And the conclave that elected John XXIII met in 16 days, not 19, as Un Caritas has been claiming.
.
Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, #37: “We also prescribe that after the death of the pontiff the cardinals present are to wait 15 full days for the absent cardinals. Permission is granted the Sacred College of Cardinals to delay the beginning of the conclave for a few more days; however, ONCE 20 DAYS AT MOST HAVE PASSED, THE CARDINAL ELECTORS PRESENT ARE TO ENTER THE CONCLAVE AND PROCEED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ELECTION.”
.
Pius XII died on October 9, 1958
The conclave convened on October 25, 1958
That’s 16 days.
.
“Following the death of Pope Pius XII on 9 October 1958, the papal conclave of 1958 met from 25 to 28 October and on the eleventh ballot elected Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Patriarch of Venice, to succeed him. He accepted the election and took the name John XXIII. … ALL THE CARDINALS WHO MADE THE TRIP REACHED ROME BY 22 OCTOBER WITH DAYS TO SPARE BEFORE THE CONCLAVE BEGAN 16 DAYS AFTER PIUS’ DEATH.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_papal_conclave
.
Now, Un Caritas, let’s see if you have the humility to retract your lies and errors and apologize to everyone for attempting to deceive them. If you refuse to do so – and we both know you will – it will confirm that you are puffed up with pride, just like your Father (John 8:44), and reveal the source of your blindness. “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.”(James 4:6)
In Caritas,
I stand corrected on the deeper and better understanding of Amen. And Amen on what you SAID IN Caritas and what I know is that compared to Blessed Trinity we truly are “miscreant fools” because we turn our backs on Him every time we commit even a venial sin and a mortal sin we cut off grace from the living God till we repent and go to confession or if that is not available make a perfect act of contrition. When we sin we don’t love Him and we stand judged by Him until we truly repent and do the above.
We don’t thank God as we should, but like 9 out of the 10 leopards cured we walk away happy to be cured, but thankless for the Holy One Jesus Christ who did such a wonderous thing for us. We don’t correct our own faults so as to be more like God’s Blessed Son who lived and died on the cross when we were ‘poor miscreant sinners as we are’. When He disciplines us we ask God why have you done this to us when we deserved everything He gave us so as to bring us on our knees for Hebrews 12 says:
“6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? 8But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. 9Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? 10And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. 11Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice. ”
Yes In Caritas. I have shed many tears for this fact that every thing we get we deserve because we have not followed Him as we should both individually and collectively as a Catholic people and I pray for you and Bob Kenney and me and Louie and all of us on this forum because I don’t want any of us to go to hell but I want us to repent of whatever we say or do that is against Jesus Christ or his One Holy and Apostolic Church. I do not want these miserable miscreant sinners who are taring the Catholic Church apart to go to Hell but I want them to repent and come away from this horrible Apostasy and Heresy but I am not seeing them do that and I keep away from them because they do not posses the Catholic Faith whole and entire but they try to crush the corner stone and they are the ones who are falling to bits and being crushed by the Corner Stone the rock- Jesus Christ-because they do not believe or live within the Unity of Christ’s one HOLY Catholic and Apostolic Church. (I don’t see them doing that so I avoid them like the plague that they are sent to punish us.) They “search for unity” as they play the part of the “Golden Calf Dancers” when it is right there already on the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that has gone underground and is in the Catacombs now.
These men at the top causing the Apostasy will go down into the pit of Hell if they don’t repent as Our Lady of Fatima reminded us. And they sure didn’t do their duty as Sr. Lucy said we must all do so we better do ourselves and those who live around us our family or we will end up there with them. May God help us all.
We get on this forum to see what is going on in what “purports to be the Catholic Church” but in reality it is NOT and we want to find other Catholics who are also trying to make sense out of this MESS that was jammed down our throats by Blasphemous men at the top; “miscreant fools ” not seeking out God because they are prideful and they think they are God. Many of them do not even believe in God because they are Arians, or Pantheists, or Protest Neo Catholics who “apologize for the true Church of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church, the Communists or Atheist’s running the Novus Ordo show . Those are the men who do not possess the Catholic faith and have NO authority. I know that I have NO Authority and In Caritas has no AUTHORITY and Louie has no Authority but Christ gave us perpetual Successors of the Apostles and they do still have Authority. (Perhaps it has been put on hold because mankind does not want to be ruled by Christ the King so He has somewhat withdrawn this power of dispensing sacraments so as to punish us for our unbelief and pride. This reality of God’s chastising hand against this miscreant generation of fools and banishing Catholics to wander around in the Vatican II desert like the Exodus Hebrews of old until everyone of the Vatican II “fathers” dies who made this robber Conciliar church and sowed the cockle in the Holy Vineyard of the Catholic Church whether wittingly or unwittingly by these dupes of the Devil.
My point is that we can in some places still get some manna (during this more than 40 years wandering around in the desert) from Heaven itself so as to carry on the Church Militant but we would rather grumble instead of thank HIM. Viva Christo Rey!
Maria Tageye: “You said M.C that we “yank people” from the Church and this implies that sedevacantists are NOT in the Church.”
.
Ratio is right. You sede vacatist heretics are not in the Church.
Maria Tageye: “We are simply pointing out that the men who changed the Church changed the sacraments and replaced them with a false Counter church.”
.
What your claiming is that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. That’s why you and all the other sedevacantists are heretics.
.
If you deny that, tell me where the Church is. And tell me if you believe the sedevacantist clergy – all of whom are heretics and most of whom are invalidly ordained – a true ministers of the sacraments,
So true A Simple Man. Ratzinger is a dying man and the Conciliar Church is dying with him- just look at all of the Novus Ordo Churches going bankrupt and the people in the pew leaving it and lawsuits and criminal prosecutions against their own Bishops and priests who are steeling from their collection plates and molesting children. I am not saying that some of these things did not happen in the Catholic Church as when St. Peter Damian wrote Liber Gomorrhianus addressed to Pope Leo IX of his time but today the Conciliar false Church is enthroning the theology of “Bergoglio’s who am I to judge” while he appoints manifest heretics and homosexual Bishops and perpetrators of infamy against the little ones of the flock of Jesus Christ and the innocent children corrupter in false neo Catholic Conciliar Schools who day in and day out hear heresy and get their minds warped by mixed up lay Catholic religion teachers. Guess what they had to clear out the Catholic education system and corrupt true nuns and priests in the late 1950’s and 1960’s in order to put into place their Alta Vendita plan here:
lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.”p.94,95.
“…It is corruption en masse that we have undertaken: the corruption of the people by the clergy, and the corruption of the clergy by ourselves; the corruption which ought, one day to enable us to put the Church in her tomb…. Let us then never cease to corrupt….Let us then never cease to corrupt. Tertullian was right in saying, that the blood of martyrs was the seed of Christians. Let us, then, not make martyrs, but let us popularise vice amongst the multitudes. Let us cause them to draw it in by their five senses; to drink it in; to be saturated with it; and that land which Aretinus has sown is always disposed to receive lewd teachings. Make vicious hearts, and you will have no more Catholics. Keep the priest away from labour, from the altar, from virtue. Seek adroitly to otherwise occupy his thoughts and his hours.
Make him lazy, a gourmand, and a patriot. He will become ambitious, intriguing, and perverse. You will thus have a thousand times better accomplished your task, than if you had blunted the point of your stiletto upon the bonesofsome poor wretches. I do not wish, nor do you any more, my friend Nubius, to devote my life to conspiracies, in order to be dragged along in the old ruts.
“It is corruption en masse that we have undertaken: the corruption of the people by the clergy, and the corruption of the clergy by ourselves; the corruption which ought, one day to enable us to put the Church in her tomb. I have recently heard one of our friends, laughing in a philosophic manner at our projects, say to us: ‘in order to destroy Catholicism it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman.’ The words are true in a sense; but since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her with the Church, corruptio optimi pessima. The object we have in view is sufficiently good to tempt men such as we are; let us not separate ourselves from it for some miserable personal satisfaction of vengeance. The best poniard with which to strike the Church is corruption. To work, then, even to the very end.”
(Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked by Mgr. George E. Dillon (Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale:Ca. 1999) pgs 90,93-95, 103- 104)
Maria Tageye: “This actually is truthful statement. We have been given fraudulent sacraments. They changed the rights. Go here and read any of this below and you will know why these Novus Ordo Sacraments are doubtful at the least (and we may not approach a doubtful sacrament) and outright INVALID at the most either way you should not go to them.”
.
The new sacraments aren’t in the least bit doubtful. If you disagree, pick the most doubtful sacrament of all, and explain in your own words why it is doubtful. I bet you can’t do it.
Perhaps Ratio we need to look at the teaching on Priestly celibacy in the Roman Rite and why it is the right thing and show the history of the plotters that laid down the plan of destruction well over 100 years ago. Remember I have demonstrated that Benedict is NOT really for priestly celibacy and he has had his dupe “Abp.” Georg Gänswein to withdraw Ratzinger’s name on that Ignatius Press book from Card. Sara to cause more confusion as I already posted.
Priestly celibacy has got to go in order to get their One World Religion (think about all the divorced priests they will have as a result and the neglect of the flock, as well as more monetary hardship for parishes to support the wife and children of such men besides how much his hands will be tied taking care of his own family. Is a married priest going to want to give the last rites to a man with a contagious disease and bring it home to his children at 4 in the morning? In England this happened a great deal with Anglican clerics just read Cobbett (who was a Protestant but Criticized the Protest Sect and Clergy and praised the Catholic Church) in his “History of the Protestant Reformation in England” pg 86-87 Tan books where he excoriates Protestantism’s married clergy who wanted to stay home in the 1776 War & other situations and this got many Catholic Converts from Protestantisms’ ranks on their death bed . ) I am not saying that in the Byzantine Rite they don’t have some married priests but NO married Bishops in that Rite and it developed in said Rite but in the Roman Rite it did NOT develop that way.
Returning to how the infiltrators would create the One World Religion directing this plot to rid the world of priestly celibacy shown here in this article http://www.cromleck-de-rennes.com/Abbe%20Roca.html
“Heterodox priest: Father Paul Roca (1830-1893):” by By Eugene Cortade below
Roca was banned again on 6 June 1884, probably by Bishop Caraquel, Bishop of Perpignan, because most likely this first publication. But we have not found a document stating this point in the diocese.
2.The Abbot Gabriel and his girlfriend Henriette . -Roman, announced as early as 1884 as being in press and to be published shortly by Garnier. But it seems that it was never released in volume. Roca made him appear as a serial in the magazine L ‘ Étoile , and then in The Roussillon novelist . It is a novel water rose and somewhat maudlin, showing love pure and impossible by the two protagonists; painful adventure that leads to death. The author wants to show the disasters caused by ‘the fatal discipline that requires priests to the unyielding harshness of forced celibacy. “At these shots, judge the value of this institution against nature and the havoc that it did in humanity.” (L’abbé Gabriel et Henriette sa fiancée available on Google books)
The priests : “they will load civil, too, national, communal support, family support, in the municipality as at home. The ugly wound of celibacy, source of corruption and sterility in all the peoples who have suffered from this scourge will disappear, even the barracks the day where she will be gone from presbyteries.” (Monde Nouveau – En exergue : Glorieux Centenaire 1889, 472.) That, among other things, what will be the new world according to Roca.
So you see folks this was planned to destroy priestly celibacy in the Roman Rite because the Roman rite more perfectly exemplified by the Celibacy and purity of Jesus Christ himself who asked his apostles to “imitate him”.
Vs pre Vatican II teaching on Priestly Celibacy here:
POPE GREGORY XVI wrote, “11. Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order. They have forgotten their person and office, and have been carried away by the enticements of pleasure. They have even dared to make repeated public demands to the princes for the abolition of that most holy discipline. But it is disgusting to dwell on these evil attempts at length. Rather, We ask that you strive with all your might to justify and to defend the law of clerical celibacy as prescribed by the sacred canons, against which the arrows of the lascivious are directed from every side.”MIRARI VOS ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI AUGUST 15, 1832
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess 14, Nov. 11, 1563, on Matrimony: “If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [ cf. Matt. 19:11; 1 Cor. 7:25): let him be anathema.” (Denz. 980)
The text of Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira (about 305 A.D.) reads as follows: “It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office” (Canon 33, Council of Elvira; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, pg. 25; c 1957 B. Herder Book Co.).
The same is found in subsequent epistles and canons, such as St. Siricius’ epistle Directa ad decessorem, to Himerius, Bishop of Terracina, Feb. 10, 385 wrote…
“Therefore also the Lord Jesus, when He had enlightened us by His coming, testifies in the Gospel, that he came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it [Matt. 5:17]. And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His Apostle. All priests and levites are bound by the indissoluble law of these sanctions, so that from the day of our ordination, we give up both our hearts and our bodies to continence and chastity, provided only that through all things we may please our God in these sacrifices which we daily offer. ‘But those who are in the flesh,’ as the vessel of election says, ‘cannot please God’ [Rom. 8:8]” (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, c 1957 B. Herder Book Co.).
The First Lateran Council, A.D. 1123… “We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the intimacy of concubines and of wives, and cohabitation with other women, except those with whom for reasons of necessity alone the Nicene Synod permits them to live, that is, a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no suspicion may justly arise” (Canon 3, First Lateran Council).
The Council of Trent , A.D. 1545-1563:
” Can. 9. If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage, and that such marriage is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or the vow, and that the contrary is nothing else than a condemnation of marriage, and that all who feel that they have not the gift of chastity (even though they have vowed it) can contract marriage: let him be anathema. Since God does not refuse that gift to those who seek it rightly, ‘neither does he suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able’ (1 Cor 10:13)” (Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Nov. 11, 1563; Doctrine (Concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony); Denziger, pg. 297).
From the Council of Carthage : “CANON III (419 A.D) below
Of Continence.
AURELIUS the bishop said: ” When at the past council the matter on continency and chastity was considered, those three grades, which by a sort of bond are joined to chastity by their consecration, to wit bishops, presbyters, and deacons, so it seemed that it was becoming that the sacred rulers and priests of God as well as the Levites, or those who served at the divine sacraments, should be continent altogether, by which they would be able with singleness of heart to ask what they sought from the Lord: so that what the apostles taught and antiquity kept, that we might also keep” (Code of Canons of the African Church, A.D. 419).
(H.E., Livre XL., chap. 1.)
What is said in this canon, that the council of Carthage orders priests to abstain from their wives at prescribed periods, is a misunderstanding of the decree, caused either by malice or by ignorance. This canon is one of those adopted by the Fifth Council of Carthage held in the year 400, and it is decreed that subdeacons, deacons; priests, and bishops shall abstain from their wives, following the ancient statutes, and shall be as though they had them not. The Greek version of this canon has rendered the Latin words priora statuta by these, idious horous, which may mean “fixed times”: for the translator read, following another codex, propria for priora. Be this as it may, the Fathers of the Trullan council supposed that this obliged the clergy only to continence at certain fixed times, and were not willing to see that it included bishops as well.
VAN ESPEN.
Although the Latin Church does not disapprove,(1) as contrary to the law of the Gospel the discipline of the Greeks which allows the use of marriage to presbyters and deacons, provided it was contracted before ordination; yet never has it approved this canon which with too great zeal condemns the opposite custom, and rashly assigns great errors to the Roman Church.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s
St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 392: “That virginity is good I do agree. But that it is even better than marriage, this I do confess. And if you wish, I will add that it is as much better than marriage as Heaven is better than Earth, as much better as angels are better than men.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1116)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350: “While you maintain perfect chastity, do not be puffed up in vain conceit against those who walk a humbler path in matrimony…. Because you have a possession of gold, do not on that account hold the silver in contempt.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 818c)
and deacons, provided it was contracted before ordination; yet never has it approved this canon which with too great zeal condemns the opposite custom, and rashly assigns great errors to the Roman Church.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s
St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 392: “That virginity is good I do agree. But that it is even better than marriage, this I do confess. And if you wish, I will add that it is as much better than marriage as Heaven is better than Earth, as much better as angels are better than men.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1116)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350: “While you maintain perfect chastity, do not be puffed up in vain conceit against those who walk a humbler path in matrimony…. Because you have a possession of gold, do not on that account hold the silver in contempt.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 818c)
JPeters
Good point about telling In Caritas what Pius XII said here: ”
ONCE 20 DAYS AT MOST HAVE PASSED, THE CARDINAL ELECTORS PRESENT ARE TO ENTER THE CONCLAVE AND PROCEED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ELECTION.”
God wants more importantly the Spirit of the Law and not the mere letter of the Law to be done as I pointed out to In Caritas when the apostles plucked the corn on the Sabbath and the Lord Said St. Mark Chapter 2: [27] And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. ”
To the legalists of his day who followed the laws of the sacrifice of animals to the letter but in their hearts were still wicked the Prophet Isaias Chapter 1: said, “[9] Except the Lord of hosts had left us seed, we had been as Sodom, and we should have been like to Gomorrha. [10] Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrha.
[11] To what purpose do you offer me the multitude of your victims, saith the Lord? I am full, I desire not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves, and lambs, and buck goats. [12] When you came to appear before me, who required these things at your hands, that you should walk in my courts? [13] Offer sacrifice no more in vain: incense is an abomination to me. The new moons, and the sabbaths, and other festivals I will not abide, your assemblies are wicked. [14] My soul hateth your new moons, and your solemnities: they are become troublesome to me, I am weary of bearing them. [15] And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood.
[16] Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes: cease to do perversely, [17] Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow. [18] And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool. [19] If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land. [20] But if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath: the sword shall devour you because the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. ”
Pray God give us a love for His Holy Laws so that we might perform the Heart and Letter of it. I hope In Caritas does understand the charity for which you show him in your kindness to take out from your busy day and demonstrate this important point of what Pope Pius XII told us regarding papal elections. If people would have followed that back in the 1958 election we would not be seeing the seed of Sodom today but the Holy seed of Sion fulfilled in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Marie–Tragically, the vast majority of N.O. catholics are deprived of the knowledge of the pre-Vatican 2 Holy, Roman Catholic Church. They don’t have a clue that the “church” they attend is a manufactured liturgy invented before they were born. They are also deprived of Sanctifying Grace which cannot be supplied by the N.O. “mass”. All they know is that “Father Bill” is so cute and so funny. When he is re-assigned, “Father Joe” might not be as cute or funny and therefore, their faith diminishes. It is a sad state of affairs, until Actual Grace, a gift from God, opens their eyes and hopefully they will discover the true source of Sanctifying Grace, the Traditional Latin Mass and the True Tenets of the Catholic Church established by Our Lord. Even with this awareness, it is like finding an oasis in the desert. You might know where the Oasis is, but is it reachable? I pray God will supply graces to those who seek the truth and believe in the Catholic FAITH when you no longer have trust in the manufactured pseudo “catholic” church. In my mind, this is where we stand without despair, with hope and faith in Our Lord.
MC, I don’t know what Louie is thinking, but it does seem to me, based on some of his more recent blog pieces, that he is seriously considering the sedevacantist position.
Perplexed as to why In caritas is not banned.
Marie Tageye,
Louie MC and Company,
So much for Bendedict XVI speaking out about anything:
Marie, I answer here because I spotted my name. I wont discuss the book because I don’t see this to be especially interesting topic. I also stopped reading exchanges between sedes in this tread as I have no interest in those anymore.
Although I found your post above starting with:
Your statement here “You, Sedevacantists, spend plenty of time trying to yank souls from the Church”
reasonable, interesting and worth answering. I cant do this now, maybe will find time over the weekend. Meantime enjoy ‘as usual’ conversation here and I will observe growing number of posts with each circle you folks make.
I assume it’s because he is sede-pope. No?
Well, believe me, you have the wonderful charity of Angels I’d always imagined when I converted to the Catholic Church. Well, all you have to do is say go away to the weaker like you just did. They will.
And then continue to make fun of people who you think are perishing. Who hold “stupidly” to the idea that a Pope must be Catholic. Outrageous concept that. Big joke. Ha-ha. And then go to “Mass” this week and say “I’m glad I wasn’t born a sinner like those sedes over there”. Stupid sedes.
While they are banished in fear and poverty, without a crumb, all because they believe we need a true and visible Catholic Pope.
Obstinate sede heretics.
You poor, poor, miscreant fool, Marie Tageye,
Firstly, you have no understanding whatsoever of this vile creature who goes by, “JPeters”. He’ll stab you in the back, so to speak, the moment the opportunity arises for this emissary of Lucifer, who hates Jesus the Christ, as he hates the Truth, as he affronts it continuously without rest. Amen. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” An evil tree cannot bear good fruit just as a good tree cannot bear evil fruit. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” The evil trees, The Christ will cast into the everlasting fire and JPeters evidences time and continually, he is on this wide road to perdition. Amen. I have confronted him on this site for the better part of 2 years, when he surfaces from his dark hole beneath the earth. Amen. Secondly, it was not written that the, “election”, of the invalid metaphysical matter as one of Satan’s own, Angelo Roncalli, was invalid because of the timing, per se. JPeters writes false hoods time and again, as that is his signature. He is another great accuser without any objective proof, simply his pseudo-intellectual conjecture as fallacy. Amen. The time period is 18 days not 20, yet that distinction here although true, has no bearing on the reality as it is, that Roncalli could not ever have been Roman Pontiff, as he minimally, “deviated from the Faith”, prior his faux election, and as per, “Cum Ex…..”, then, he was not even in truth a Bishop thus, rather as Jesus the Christ Himself commanded he was, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Amen. This is the Authoritative teaching of Blessed Peter in his Successors. Deny this and you deny the entire Catholic Faith, as a perfectly wretched and doomed heretic, as Authoritatively taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, as JPeters simply and objectively is. Amen. Alleluia. The 18 day time limit was introduced because it is essential to know this, such that one then knows with apodictic certitude that Apostolic Succession is lost, simply because a VALID CONCLAVE WAS NOT BEGUN within 18 days of the death of Pope Pius XII as he commanded with his full Apostolic power and Authority, binding all unto the Last Day, at the very pain of Hell. Amen. Alleluia. There is NO TURNING BACK AS 18 DAYS PASSED NOW 61+ YEARS AGO. There is no Conclave, imperfect or otherwise, now possible since that fatal and infamous day, Oct. 27, 1958, 18 days after the death of Pope Pius XII, deFide. Amen. The reality as it is that there are no valid clergy now visible in the cosmos, although to be known with apodictic certitude, is another witness to Truth. Amen. That is the utter import of knowing the 18 day rule, not because the Conclave was invalid because it did not meet to begin the business of electing the next Roman Pontiff within that 18 day rule. Any fool knows that by simply looking at the dates and doing the arithmetic. Amen. The capricious hubris objectively demonstrated by this sophomoric, jingoistic, heretical fool called, JPeters, is indeed legion. Amen. Marie, your intellective movements, as witnessed in your writing, are like the wind. You vacillate like a pendulum, which is objective evidence that your passions, the lower soul, are in the ordinate position, while you freely will your intellective power then, the higher soul, to be subordinate the passions. This is perfectly contrary to God’s Will, as He created them, man and woman, in His own divine likeness and image, as pure Intellect and Will. Amen. Alleluia. The passions must support what the intellect KNOWS. Amen. This is evidence of your fruit. You must stop this if you are to ever hold the divine and Catholic Faith. Amen. “Listen”, more and, “talk”, less. May Almighty God have mercy on you and me. In caritas.
Melanie: “I’m assuming you’d call me a Sedevacantist M.C., as I believe the seat is vacant because it OBVIOUSLY is, even though I am properly called a Catholic.”
.
Melanie, you are delusional. Sede vacantism leads to a denial of reality. The papal office is not vacant. It is occupied by Francis. He was elected by the cardinals and the entire Church recognizes him as Pope. He is no less pope that Pius XII or Pius X. You reject the pope that God permitted because you think you know better. You don’t. Francis is the perfect pope for our day. He is the punishment for the wicked – such as the wicked sedevacatists – and the benefit of the good, who are waking up as a result of him. God knew what He was doing when He allowed the cardinals to elected Francis.
Look at the pot calling the kettle black.
The Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth – His Mouthpiece and Representative.
You blaspheme by saying the likes of Bergoglio is a representative of Christ and that Christ speaks through Him to His flock. The Church is an instrument of SALVATION, not DAMNATION. You’re merely spewing out the “party line” of the blind who are leading the blind, as if we haven’t heard this diabolical concept before. What you and they say is ultimately then that Christ is leading His flock to hell, you blasphemer.
Bergoglio affronts the Great Commission, for one of many; would Christ affront Himself?
You, obviously, are a “Vatican II” man, and do not know what the only Vatican Council teaches about the actual Papacy.
The Pope of the Catholic Church must first and foremost be a Catholic; Bergoglio is no such thing. He can also never lose his personal faith, de Fide.
What we have here is a “Pope”, but a “Pope” of the NEW (world) ORDER church of Satan, NOT a Pope of the Catholic Church. You’d better wake up and quick.
ASB: “You blaspheme by saying the likes of Bergoglio is a representative of Christ and that Christ speaks through Him to His flock.”
.
The Pope has free will. He’s not a puppet that Christ uses to communicate with man. There’s been plenty of evil Popes who have deceived the faithful, such as Pope Stephen VI who deceived the Church by saying his predecessor was not a real pope and implying that his ordinations were all been invalid. Two of his successors pepetrated the same fraud on the Catholic Church from their papal office.
.
ASB: “The Church is an instrument of SALVATION, not DAMNATION.”
.
Instrument of salvation for the good, not for the evil. That’s why the good are benefiting from the scandalous papacy of Francis, while the evil such as yourself are losing the faith and leaving the Church because of it.
.
ASB: “What you and they say is ultimately then that Christ is leading His flock to hell, you blasphemer.”
.
Hey Stupid, the Pope is not a puppet that Christ speaks through. He is a man with free will, and the only time the man with a free will is prevented from erring is when he defines a doctrine, which almost never happens.
.
ASB: “Bergoglio affronts the Great Commission, for one of many; would Christ affront Himself?”
.
Bergoglio will answer for his sins, and you will die in yours, unless you return to the Church you left, and profess that he is the Pope.
.
ASB: “You, obviously, are a “Vatican II” man, and do not know what the only Vatican Council teaches about the actual Papacy.”
.
Hey Stupid, it is you and the other sedevacantist apostates who don’t know what the First Vatican Council teaches. You miserable heretics distort that council more that the Old Catholic heretics.
.
ASB: “The Pope of the Catholic Church must first and foremost be a Catholic; Bergoglio is no such thing. He can also never lose his personal faith, de Fide.”
.
Hey Stupid, of course Bergoglio is Catholic. Maybe not according to the private judgment of apostates such as yourself, but he is by the Church’s judgment, which is the only judgment that counts. And it is not de fide that a pope cannot lose his faith.
.
ASB: “What we have here is a “Pope”, but a “Pope” of the NEW (world) ORDER church of Satan, NOT a Pope of the Catholic Church. You’d better wake up and quick.”
.
I’m wide awake you fallen away Catholic heretic, and unlike you I know and believe the Catholic faith. Like your Protestant brethren, you have blasphemed by calling the true Church the Church of Satan.
Hey Stupid, I at least know I’m stupid and that’s why I rely on what the actual Church teaches about these matters. Your dumb statements offer NO PROOF whatsoever that you are correct, not that there is any. You are a member of the false church of the Antichrist and don’t even know it, just as prophesied by 2 Thess Ch. 2, you stupid, ignorant, miscreant, heretic, fool.
God help you. Time is running out.
No. It’s because he/she obstinately and pertinaciously refuses to humbly submit to the Church’s (and, thus. Our Lord’s) command that we be charitable—even to the extent that we show kindness to our enemies. The offer is still on the table for IC to embrace. I hope it happens. That said, IC’s refusal to embrace that offer means continued blackening of the image of Christ’s Holy Church by a faux “Catholic” who has willfully, pridefully rejected Christ’s admonition. Such a one should be banned for the good of all, in my opinion.
I should have specified MC’s comment.
It’s both calumnious and mocking to those who realize the vacant seat of Peter.
“Sedes” can be treated without justice.
JPeters
You miss the point of what CATHOLICS who happen to take the “sed” position somehow want a pope to be “perfect” that is nonsense. A true pope is NEVER required to be perfect in his personal life, but he is REQUIRED TO HAVE THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND NOT BE A MANIFFEST APOSTATE AND HERETIC AS BERGOGLIO IS.
Now you don’t want to see that right now but maybe you will later when things get “progressively worse” as maybe you didn’t notice the guys that believe in vital immanence and evolution of dogma have been running the show since the false Pope John XXIII was elected, then everything hit the fan because he claimed the Holy Ghost was opening up the window but really the UN- Holy Devils came in and created a cyclone for the past 60 some years. I did answer your last post asking me to tell you why I think the New Mass is invalid but Louie decided it was too long to post, maybe rambling or maybe he didn’t like what I said. It is his bloG and he can do what he likes. It is not my call on his BLOG. I like the fact that Louie wants to follow and understand Church teaching as its always been taught and by the way I like the fact that you want to follow Papal teaching because you looked carefully at the Papal Election document of Pius XII and corrected IC because you want us to follow Holy Mother the Catholic Church and you are just trying to figure out what is going on with this Mess that has been handed to us. God bless you and help you to find His Holy will in your life and what to make of what is really going on. None of us wants to be the blind leading the blind else we fall into the pit in the Great Apostasy :
Cardinal Oddi tells us The Third Secret is about apostasy.
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
… Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, Pope John Paul II’s personal papal theologian, quoted in the journal Catholic, March 2002
“It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” … Cardinal Oddi, quoted March 17,1990, in the journal Il Sabato
“Through some crack the smoke of satan has entered into the Church of God.” Paul VI
Now who are the guys “at the top” JPeters let me ask you that??????
Guess what it is NOT the Catholics taking the Sede Vacantist position or even the R&R position AT THE TOP MAKING THE APOSTASY & SCHISM. And here is a quote which goes say from one theologian that the Schism can come from a “pope” now I don’t believe that because it is a contradiction because Schism means a disobedience from the Catholic Church and from her Pope if there is one. Now how can that be that a pope would be in schism from himself and tare the Church in two when Vatican I said he would have a never failing faith and that the Holy Ghost was not promised to the Church that she might make NEW DOCTRINES which is what these clowns did. But if these below theologians were correct (and I don’t believe technically they are correct that a real pope can cause schism because we have to believe what the Church teaches NOT individual theologians who can be wrong and have been wrong on certain things) but if that were the case that would only mean that it was THAT PARTICULAR POPES FAULT- THE GUY AT THE TOP WHO WOULD BE LEADING THE APOSTASY OUT OF THE CHURCH AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW HIM IN HIS APOSTASY SO STOP Calling your fellow Catholics the “seds” heretics. Here are quotes for you:
Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto (c. 194, sec. 1, 2o). Since no one can judge the pope (c. 1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election –James Corridan et al., editors, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary 1983, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of American [New York: Paulist 1985], c. 333)
Suerez “Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tenat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. [If he (the pope), as is his duty, would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.] –Suarez (1548-1617, called by Pope Paul V “Doctor Eximius et Pius” [Excellent and Pius Doctor], usually considered the greatest theologian of the Society of Jesus), Tract. de Charitate, Disput. No. 12, p.
Cardinal Juan de Torquemada O.P. – 1388-1468: in two of his posthumously published documents, Commentarii in Decretum Gratiani (1519) and Summa de Ecclesia (1489) wrote: “In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism … Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church … Thus it is that Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed …”
In this way, the Pope could, without doubt, fall into Schism…. Especially is this true with regard to the liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church…. The same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion…. By separating himself from the observance of the Universal customs of the church, and by so doing with obstinacy, the Pope is able to fall into schism. Such a conclusion is only just because the premises on which it is based are beyond doubt. For, just as the Pope can become a heretic, so he is also able to do so with the sin of obstinacy. Thus it is that Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed….” –Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (Turrencremata), Summa de Ecclesia (1489) and Commentarii in Decretum Gratiani (1519) He originally spelled his name like this TURRECREMATA, Johannes de (1388-1468). Summa de ecclesia contra impugnatores potestatis summi pontificis et LXXIII quaestiones super potestate et auctoritate Papali ex sententiis Sancti Thomae. Lyons: Johannes Trechsel, 1496.
“There was really no schism, for the majority of the people desired unity under one head and intended no revolt against papal authority. Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope? Even saints and theologians were divided on the question…. Unfortunately, led by politics and human desires, the papal claimants launched excommunications against each other.” –The New Catholic Dictionary (1929)
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, OP: “Caietano, in the same work defending the superiority of the Pope over the Council, says in chap. 27: ‘Therefore, a Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church, for example, by refusing to give ecclesiastical benefits other than money or in exchange for services; and with all obedience and respect, the possession of such benefits must be denied to those who bought them.’ And Silvestre (Prierias), in the entry Pope, 4, asks: ‘ What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church?’ And in 15: ‘ What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?’ To which he answers: ‘He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.’
“Consequently, if he wished to give away the whole treasure of the Church or the patrimony of Saint Peter to his relatives, if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented …
“Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is licit to repel violence with violence. Now then, with such orders and dispensations the Pope exerts violence, since he acts against the Law, as we have proven. Therefore, it is licit to resist him. As Caietano observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.” Obras de Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid: BAC, 1960, pp. 486f.
Sedes are usually treated without justice. It’s a bit hypcritical, isn’t it. BTW, I don’t believe that the Chair of Peter is presently filled.
Do you ever notice (because I just did) that IC never responds directly to Louie’s blog? He only responds to the other posters’ responses. I would like to see him respond directly to Louie’s writings in the same manner that he responds to the rest of us who do not agree with him.
I would like to see him tell Louie in his own combox that he is committing sacrilege and a mortal sin by assisting at his traditional clergy’s mass. I would like to see him tell Louie that, because of this, he is a “heretic”, “not Catholic”, “outside the Church”, etc…..and then (despite using the word “objectively”) tell him he is on the certain path to Hell..if he does not change his ways and beliefs.
James, why is a lack of charity an issue for JPeters and not IC?
2Vermont–If IC attacked Louie the way he attacks commenters who don’t agree with him, maybe Louie will ban him from this blog. That would be nice.
MMF,
Well if I’m being a hypocrite, I would be most grateful to you for explaining where, so I can do something about it.
Thanks.
Are they comparable?
Aside from the obvious flying invectives, do you discern that JPeters could be of any assistance at all to the betterment of your soul?
How would you define “charity”?
“Well if I’m being a hypocrite…”
Not referring to you, James_o
James, Jpeters and IC both think they have the Truth. They both think sedes are out of the Church. They both think they are going to save sedes by telling sedes to believe as they do. I disagree with both, but yes, they are absolutely comparable…two sides of the same coin. You just don’t see it because you agree with IC.
This has been stated as nauseum: no one is attempting to “convert” any of those who are obstinate in their errors; there are readers who sincerely seek the Truth for whose benefit the Truth is defended, in the Name of Jesus Christ and in His defense as well. Such people do pop in from time to time to express their appreciation.
As clearly evidenced here in these very comboxes, there is NO unity without a Pope, OR, in these times, Christ’s Authoritative, perpetual and living Magisterium – Eternal Rome.
If Jurisdiction is not a critical issue to any particular person, then apart from God’s Grace there’s nothing anyone can say to convince them otherwise. Few want the Truth; it was to be that way from the very beginning.
Oh sorry, I read your post totally wrong.
Got it now. Duh.
my2cents,
What you are saying is nonsense here: “This so-called book, obviously written by ghostwriters, is nothing more than a red herring to distract the Faithful from the real problems in the “catholic” church–namely Vatican 2 and the fake prelates who pretend to safeguard the True Catholic Church. Phonies all of them.”
This statement from the Alta Vendita which I posted was published by Leo XIII himself and I even think Pius IX so you are dead wrong. One or both of those Popes put up the money to publish it so as to warn the faithful but they didn’t pay attention and so the plan came to fruition by the plotter who had long term goals and liberal progeny to carry it out later. I don’t have time right now but I have read this in various sites. It might even be in the book itself by Msgr George Dillon DD originally titled, War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization & retitled later, “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked and it has many extracts from the Original Atla Vendita book which the Italian Carbonari wrote. Below quotes are from the past popes who revealed the conspiracy against Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church a few OF THE MANY I HAVE. Roca was an apostate priest and Canon lawyer excommunicated by Leo XII and he was writer for his fellow Apostate Masons out of the Catholic Church and it was a definite plan that they planned to carry out with the help of their father the devil. Now this is Church teaching my2Cents below about those that conspire against the Church and how the conspirators meet and plan for long term Goals to overthrow Christ and his Catholic Church. Those books by Roca were written to corrupt Catholics in his day and they spread and came to fruition with Vatican II
.
REGARDING CONSPIRACY REALITIES/ PLOTS AGAINST THE CHURCH
King David said, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples grumble in vain? Kings on earth rise up and princes plot together against the LORD and his anointed one?” Psalms 2:1-2
Pope Gregory XVI who understood the ravages wrought upon the Catholic people of France during the French Revolution and its after math was sure not paranoid when he wrote : “If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. …In this you must labor and diligently take care that the faith may be preserved amidst this great conspiracy of impious men who attempt to tear it down and destroy it. May all remember the judgment concerning sound doctrine with which the people are to be instructed. Remember also that the government and administration of the whole Church rests with the Roman Pontiff to whom, in the words of the Fathers of the Council of Florence, “the full power of nourishing, ruling, and governing the universal Church was given by Christ the Lord. MIRARI VOS 1832
THEN IN 1849: “nostis et nobiscum” Pope Pius IX
Written the year following the publication of the Communist Manifesto:
1849″nostis et nobiscum” Pope Pius IX INTRO “… wretched enemies of all truth, justice and honor, who strive both openly and deceitfully with plots of every sort to spread their disorders everywhere among the faithful people of Italy. These disorders include the unbridled license of thinking, speaking and hearing every impious matter. They spread these like the foaming waves of a savage sea, and they exert themselves not only to shake the Catholic religion in Italy itself, but if possible to utterly destroy it. The method of their diabolical design has been made very clear both elsewhere and particularly here in this fair city, the seat of Our pontificate, where upon Our forced withdrawal, they gave free rein to their rage, although only for a few months. Here, in their wicked recklessness, as they cast divine and human affairs into confusion, they finally grew enraged enough to interfere with the work of the respected clergy of the city, disregarding the authority of their superiors, who, on Our orders, were attending fearlessly to religious matters.
18. As regards this teaching and these theories, it is now generally known that the special goal of their proponents is to introduce to the people the pernicious fictions of Socialism and Communism by misapplying the terms “liberty” and “equality.” The final goal shared by these teachings, whether of Communism or Socialism, even if approached differently, is to excite by continuous disturbances workers and others, especially those of the lower class, whom they have deceived by their lies and deluded by the promise of a happier condition. They are preparing them for plundering, stealing, and usurping first the Church’s and then everyone’s property. After this they will profane all law, human and divine, to destroy divine worship and to subvert the entire ordering of civil societies.
5…We cannot restrain Our tears, when We see that some Italians now are so wicked and so wretchedly deceived that they admire the vile teachings of impious men. In fact, they are not afraid to plot with them for this great destruction of Italy.
6. You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.
25. But if the faithful scorn both the fatherly warnings of their pastors and the commandments of the Christian Law recalled here, and if they let themselves be deceived by the present-day promoters of plots, deciding to work with them in their perverted theories of Socialism and Communism, let them know and earnestly consider what they are laying up for themselves. The Divine Judge will seek vengeance on the day of wrath. Until then no temporal benefit for the people will result from their conspiracy, but rather new increases of misery and disaster. For man is not empowered to establish new societies and unions which are opposed to the nature of mankind. If these conspiracies spread throughout Italy there can only be one result: if the present political arrangement is shaken violently and totally ruined by reciprocal attacks of citizens against citizens by their wrongful appropriations and slaughter, in the end some few, enriched by the plunder of many, will seize supreme control to the ruin of all.
Pope Leo XIII Masonic society …. (a) contagion of this fatal plague…. the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favours their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions.
3…Indeed, fearing nothing and yielding to no one, the Masonic sect proceeds with greater boldness day by day: with its poisonous infection it pervades entire communities and strives to entangle itself in all the institutions of our country in its CONSPIRACY to forcefully deprive the Italian people of their Catholic faith, the origin and source of their greatest blessings.
The Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, in their incessant watchfulness over the safety of the Christian people, were prompt in detecting the presence and the purpose of this capital enemy immediately it sprang into the light instead of hiding as a dark conspiracyWe have to deal with a deceitful and crafty enemy, who, gratifying the ears of people and of princes, has ensnared them by smooth speeches and by adulation. Ingratiating themselves with rulers under a pretense of friendship, the Freemasons have endeavoured to make them their allies and powerful helpers for the destruction of the Christian name. ” As the Pope said, “their ultimate purpose forces itself into view-namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.”Humanum Genus” Pope Leo XIII April 20, 1884
Pope Leo XIII made this point abundantly clear in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, that there can be no “reconciliation” with the principles of the Revolution:
“Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.”
Pope Leo XIII AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES February 16, 1892. ” 2. Again, at present, when contemplating the depths of the vast conspiracy that certain men have formed for the annihilation of Christianity in France and the animosity with which they pursue the realization of their design, trampling under foot the most elementary notions of liberty and justice for the sentiment of the greater part of the nation, and of respect for the inalienable rights of the Catholic Church, how can We but be stricken with deepest grief?
Was Saint Pope St. Pius X, paranoid IN HIS STATEMENT OF “DARK WORKSHOPS” REFERRING TO “SECRET SOCIETIES” regarding the ecumenical movement in Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25, 1910 on the One World Church?
“We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness . . . can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion . . . more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.” And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds.”
With the “watering down” of much of Christianity during our own age, so that the various “faiths” now move almost comfortably within each other, we see the coming to light of the Masonic cry “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!” Freemasonry’s aim is to be the One World Religion. Yes it is involved with political intrigue, but as the “Permanent Instruction” so aptly put it: “The conspiracy against the Roman See ought not to be confounded with other projects. Let us conspire only against Rome.” from the Alta Vendita
In ‘his encyclical of Dec. 28, 1878, Quod apostolici, Pope Leo XIII said: “Indeed, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that the cruel war that has been declared since the sixteenth century against the Catholic Faith by the innovators [ reformers], aimed at this goal of turning aside all revelation and overthrowing the whole supernatural order ….“ The goal, as at Eden, is to invert the order established by God—to lead men, out of the Garden, out of the Church, out of divine grace and into perdition, into Hell.
“The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies: it is up to the secret societies to take the first step towards the hurch, with the aim of conquering both of them. The-ta that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies
and the struggle goes on.”–Alta Vendita, Freemasonic plot to destroy Catholic Church (Actually they did John XXIII went to the OTO lodge in Paris every Thursday during the 1940 when he was the Papal Nuncio in Paris – it is in NicitaRoncalli by Bellgrandi
Freemasonry attacks Christianity “under the pretense of vindicating the rights of man and reconstituting society.”
— Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae,1894
Pope Leon XIII, encyclical Humanum Genus of April 20, 1884 on the Sect of the Freemasons:
“In their vigilant solicitudes for the safety of the Christian people, Our predecessors had well quickly recognized this capital enemy at the time when, outgoing of darkness of an occult conspiracy, it sprang with the attack in full day [… ] In the presence of all these facts, it was very simple that this Apostolic Seat publicly denounced the sect of the Freemasons, and publicly declared its constitution, as contrary to law and right, to be pernicious no Less to Christiandom than to the State; and it forbade any one to enter the society, under the penalties which the Church is wont to inflict upon exceptionally guilty persons. sec 4 and 6 http://www.fisheaters.com/humanumgenus.html
Masons “wish to win over the clergy by cajolery; once the novelties have confused them, they will withdraw their obedience to legitimate authority.”
–Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892
No my2cents it is NOT a red herring attempting to distract us from Vatican II these writings of Roca show us that they planned it and accomplished it. As philosopher George Santayana wrote””Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
In caritas, Thanks I do read what you say. Just because I agree with a point of JPeters doesn’t mean I agree with most of what he says.
What cause are you true to Romanus sum? Vatican II?? Bergoglio?? Ratzinger?? Have you read the Vatican II documents?? and the Vatican II “popes” books??? I used to be taken in like you are but I am not anymore.
So when I got to Bergoglio I just couldn’t take it any more. I could see that when I compaired what the Conciliar Church teaches vs what the Pre Vatican II Catholic Church ALWAYS TAUGHT YOU HAVE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICITON GOING ON. Just read the phony 1993 ecumenical directory http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html – Catholics can go to Protestant Bible studies condemned by the Syllabus of Errors IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.
. This is meant to confusion Catholics and implement the program of religious indifferentism. I could go on about how that document contradicts past teaching but you get the point. Now if you can’t see that you are part of a fraudulent system and that these Conciliar authorities are really anti authorities are actually for rebellion and revolution I can provide you with a few quotes. Are you for rebellion and revolution?? For that is what is going on right now in what purports to be the Catholic Church. IT IS THE GREAT APOSTASY and it is carried out by as Cardinal Oddi tells us
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
… Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, Pope John Paul II’s personal papal theologian, quoted in the journal Catholic, March 2002
“It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” … Cardinal Oddi, quoted March 17,
1990, in the journal Il Sabato
Once this happens to go into Apostasy Romanus sum well then those that go into it they GO OUT OF THE CHURCH and they can not be head of that which they are not even a member as St. Francis de Sales said. It really is that simple. If you can not understand what Cardinal Chiappi said then I can NOT say anything more to you. And by the way I think it was St. Theresa of Avila who said that it is better to HAVE NO SPIRITUAL ADVISOR THAN A BAD ONE. How about Mother Theresa of Calcutta??? You know that rotten Jesuit that molested hundreds of children. Should she really have been taking spiritual advice from such a man??? Think about it and stop lecturing people on “partially quoting what people say”. There have been whole books written about the heretical statements out of these Conciliar Popes – people like the Abbe de Nantes accusing Paul VI and JP II of heresy and they got slapped down and actually stopped saying public Masses so as to falsely obey frauds. What has it gotten the Church to follow frauds ! Nothing because the frauds are not following Christ and they are leading souls to hell. This is what Fatima is about.
Amen. To this. All the armchair theologians want see things their own way. Then they all call out Heretic this Heretic that, spineless, hypocrite. By your words you will be judged. Brother Bugnolo has clearly stated how the renunciation was invalid, that it was the last step to preserve the papacy from the Peronist and his cohorts, and the complicity of the cardinals in this action who failed to do due diligence on Benedict’s deliberate false renunciation. Well the lance was burst and the puss is before all to see. This Bergoglio is an antipope, not because of his apostasy but because canon law was not followed. There was no need for the conclave. It was illegal. Pray for Benedict, the true and only Pope. He is God’s Vicar on earth. Whatever his so-called heresies, spinelessness, errors, leave that to his Saviour.
Read Brother Bugnolo at FromRome. It is as simple and clear. The Recognise and Resist do the work of the anti church in recognising the man who calls himself Francis as Pope.
Who says? You?
I would rather the merciful judge in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist as my judge than any of you vipers
Oh you want it all put nicely and laid out on a plate and explained to you, cause you don’t want to have to work out your salvation, you don’t want to trust Christ, you don’t want to suffer for your faith.
Go to the FromRome blog where Brother Bugnolo lays it all out for everyone to see. Hint, he is a true son of the Church, not a sede vacantist.
I pray for Benedict ….. that he convert to the Catholic Faith and publicly repent for his part in creating, teaching and professing the false religion of Vatican II to the Universal Church ….. before he dies.
paultdale,
Welcome to AKACatholic.
1) “Oh you want it all put nicely and laid out on a plate and explained to you” That’s not what I said.
2) “cause you don’t want to have to work out your salvation,” Nice to see that you would presume to know my motives.
3) “you don’t want to trust Christ,” It is because I trust in Christ and the Church He founded to know that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholicism, for it preaches a different gospel.
4) “you don’t want to suffer for your faith.” Have you ever actually had a conversation with a sedevacantist before? Because if you don’t think they’ve suffered for their faith, you’re simply misinformed.
5) “Go to the FromRome blog where Brother Bugnolo lays it all out for everyone to see.” I’ve heard the “invalid resognation” argument before (I used to be a proponent of it). You still have the heresies of Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo with Ratzinger or Bergoglio; the former is simply a more subtle and sophisticated Modernist than the latter.
6) “Hint, he is a true son of the Church, not a sede vacantist.” Whenever there is no Pope, the entire Church becomes sedevacantist; it is a term that simply means that one believes the Chair is vacant. If you believe John XXIII thru Benedict XVI are true Popes, you’ve got bigger problems than sedes do.
“Brother Bugnolo has clearly stated how the renunciation was invalid, that it was the last step to preserve the papacy from the Peronist and his cohorts, and the complicity of the cardinals in this action who failed to do due diligence on Benedict’s deliberate false renunciation.”
Hypothetically speaking, if Benedict were the true Pope, wouldn’t it have been a lot simpler and more effective to simply put it all out in the open? To divulge in public, thru mass media, everything that the leftists in the Vatican had done or planned? Because as it stands, all Benedict’s action has done is allow for confusion to reign; has allowed untold souls to fall into error because of a false belief that Bergoglio’s teachings to be magisterial; has either remained silent or publicly accepting of many things that ‘Pope Francis’ has done.
Liberius suffered exile for publicly refusing to kowtow to Arianism. Manifold other Popes suffered martyrdom rather than betray the Catholic faith.
Ratzinger, by comparison, has publicly professed that the Jews’ wait for the Messiah is not in vain, among other things.
He would not be Pope, regardless of whether or not Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been around to become antipope.
paultdale,
“Who says? You?” It would actually be the Church’s own 1917 Code of Canon Law, her approved theological manuals, and countless papal encyclicals that condemned false ecumenical gatherings like Assissi as sins against the faith.
“I would rather the merciful judge in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist as my judge than any of you vipers” Nobody’s talking about judging you or the state of your soul.
There is no good in trying to respond, with the most fundamental truths of Faith and Reason, to logical fallacies and the attendant false premises. A couple of times, perhaps, but if a person persists with same, he is not bona fide, or he is incapable of basic right reason. Ad hominems and straw men; no objective dealing with the merits. Just say a prayer for those who make personal attacks. Lord, have mercy on us sinners. A Simple Man, you are good at speaking truths in a very simple, perspicacious way.
I rise to salute the greatest living humorist–“In caritas”!
“You pathetic, pseudo-intellectual, heretical, miscreant fool. Witness, “Lumen Gentium 16”, you hideous idiot….You miserable, non-Catholic, religion of man adherent, proponent, and Gnostic fool, on your sure as certain path to your very own personal eternity with your Prince of this world in Hell, as you objectively evidence being his slave…you heretical, miscreant, pseudo-intellectual fool. Amen. Save your soul, you hideous wretch. In caritas.
Marie Tageye &Co.,
This is an answer to Marie’s post somewhere above in this thread from Jan15/20 that starts with: M.C.
Your statement here “You, Sedevacantists, spend plenty of time trying to yank souls from the Church” is simply not accurate. You have gotten into the discussion by then continuing to explain what you believe which is fine. You said M.C that we “yank people” from the Church and this implies that sedevacantists are NOT in the Church.
I place answer here, at the end of the thread to get more width. It is inconvenient to read longish texts in narrow column. This text could be a long one, I don’t know yet how long. I do my best to keep it as short as possible but it cant be to short without loosing clarity.
There are few questions to choose from in Marie’s post. I will focus on why do I say Sedevacantists are outside the Church.
Marie: Even if you are right that Ratzinger is a true pope, that does NOT make Catholics who take the sede Vacantist position outside the Church. You yourself correct me if I am wrong think Bergoglio is an anti-pope and Benedict VI is the true pope right?? Well there is obviously confusion with the faithful going on here isn’t there because not everyone thinks Ratzinger is the true pope right?? And you don’t put them outside the Church right?
First, I will try to bring broad picture into our view. When we have that, detailed questions will need no answer or, if they do, answering them will be much easier.
Let’s start with thesis that everything you say, Marie, is true. All of it. That your sede-position arguments are correct. Then we do some thinking and compare what emerges (‘the church’) with what we know about the Catholic Church (‘the Church’). Let’s see if we have a fit.
How the church looks today?
If you are right, and we assumed you are, it means that from 1958 we do not have a pope.
Side note. I think that 1958 is your date. Every sede on this site seems to agree with that. You may have different date in mind. I remember reading something about papacy of Pius XII being also doubtful because he started liturgical changes (Bugnini!) and during his time Modernists re-grew into power which allowed them to advance in nearest future. But even if you do have different date it doesn’t change our output results.
Same applies to other issues – in case you are to claim ‘I’ve never said that’. I don’t intend to focus particularly on your personal believes.
We don’t have a pope for over 60 years. For all those years there is no papal authority to guide us. We do have Magisterium though. There is also no papal jurisdiction in place. I’m not aware of any mechanism that can fully substitute for that for over 60 year span. Initially, after ‘58, we did have jurisdiction of bishops to lead local churches, bishops who were put on their places by valid jurisdiction. But 60 years passed, many of those bishops retired or died. Many of those bishops fell for false popes so they are out of the church as well. So, how many bishops leads dioceses toady? Not many. (If you can, name one, please do. I’m curious.)
Priests and local churches. Majority of them fell away from the Faith, entered apostasy/sect, whatever the name is, and are not part of the church anymore. Some priest stay faithful till today, they cut off any ties to new, false church. Those priests are fine.
Summarizing: no pope, no bishops, no institution, no infrastructure with exception of scattered few. Faithful priests are getting old and there is nobody to ordain new ones. There are still faithful people here and there, some of them gathered around those old priests, some are to be found on internet media. Those people claim to follow letter of Magisterium of the past Church but without papal authority each group holds different opinion about various points of Magisterium and often fight with others. Even within single groups heated argumentation emerge.
So, Marie, tell me where is your church. Point it to me.
Some details.
If you can show me where the church is then it is visible, even if barely, and we are fine. Thesis is not proved but is not falsified either. Criteria are met.
If you say the Church is in your heart, the Church is hiding somewhere underground or something like that, then you have to explain why there is a difference between the church and the Church. Visibility, property of the Church, is not present in the church.
Let’s say that church is visible (I can see your posts on Aka after all.)
Is it church of Marie Tageye? Of In caritas? Of Fr Cekada? Of Holy Monastery? Of Fr Jenkins? All of them?
What about differences between each fraction? Fr Cekada says “A”, somebody else says “B”. Who is right? There is nobody to decide, there is no causa finita. It can’t be both “A” and “B” at the same time. As history shows, those discrepancies will only grow deeper and deeper with time.
Definition says there is only one Church so it can’t be that all are true the Church. I see contradiction here.
Definition also says that Church is ruled by a pope. We don’t have a pope today in the church.
You compare this period interregnums, to times when the Church stayed without a pope in the past but those are not parallel situations. In interregnum we don’t have a pope, true, but we can easily point out where the church is: bishops, laypeople, buildings etc. all waiting for new pope to show up on the balcony and ready to follow him as one, united Church. Usually interregnum lasts few weeks, few months, rarely few years. Situation today is that we already had couple popes showed up on the balcony but you rejected all of them (rightfully as per our thesis). This is not typical interregnum. This is new situation where church is without a pope for whole generation and there is no end of this state in sight.
Tell me now, please, how new pope will emerge. There are no cardinals, no bishops to elect a pope. There are no serious candidates either. How new pope will be elected? Why the church delays election for so long? Is pope Michel your pope? Why not? Do you think that God miraculously will sent one down? What are you base your thinking on in that matter?
Some say that we don’t need a pope, that it is enough to ‘be faithful to Jesus’. The point is that the church being without a pope contradicts what definition says about the Church.
And so on, and so on.
I don’t want to continue to save time. I hope you see problems emerging that bothers me with Sedevacantism, without even looking at details of validity of our thesis? Seems that accepting thesis inevitably leads to contradictions. Something must be wrong.
There are three possibilities here:
A) My reasoning is incorrect. I expect you to choose this one and expose faults in my thinking.
B) Thesis is false.
C) Both, thesis and reasoning are correct and there is no contradiction at all. In other words: my conclusions are wrong.
There are other theoretical possibilities like ‘definition of the Church is wrong’, but I don’t think any of us wants to go this way.
So, my stance is that thesis is wrong, Secevacantism is wrong because leads to major contradictions. The church that emerges from the thesis is different from the Catholic Church.
— — —
Now let me bring that broader viewpoint I mentioned before.
Once there lived two men who called themselves Catholics. One was sede other was not. Both died. Sede was suffering. ‘Deep your finger in a water’, said sede to the other one, ‘and give it to me, because I’m thirsty’. ‘I can’t do that’, the answer was, ‘There is a gap between us that nobody can pass.’ ‘Go then to my brothers and sisters so they can avoid my fate, they will listen to you’. ‘They have popes and tradition, if they don’t listen to them, they won’t listen to me’.
This story is about hardened hearts and hardened minds (not about sede :).
Humans work this way: will makes decision and mind follows. This is not a news, church teaches that for years, science says the same. Good example of that is marriage – this is an act of will. Of course person can decide to ‘follow the reason’ or to ‘follow the heart’(feelings) but this is still decision of will to do so.
This leading role of will is not specific to religion. Pagans or atheists choose not to submit to dogmas and their minds produce ‘proofs’ to confirm absurdity of Resurrection or Immaculate Conception.
You can see how it works by looking at mind which is ‘ordered’ to research on sede positions. Such a mind can do exercise like I did above, only in much greater extend. (Marian apparitions are excellent material but only for mind in, at least, ‘research’ mode.) It can look at various texts and provide materials to will to make final decision. When decision is made the same mind can look at the same texts and provide only ‘proves’ supporting decision and ignore anything that says different. Usual reaction of a mind to dander of acting against will is ignoring dangerous subject all together or approaching them with elevated aggression. I see many examples of that on Aka, I see them in your texts, Marie, in Louie’s texts (what concerns me much). Examples of that are probably in my writings too.
Excellent field to observe how it work is ‘Francis is the pope’ community. You see the same with NO (V2) but also in other religions and non religious situations. Look no farther than politics and today journalism.
You know that saying, ‘for who holds a hammer everything looks like a nail’, don’t you?
No other way is with sede. They decide to denounce conciliar popes and produce a lot of ‘proofs’ to rationalize this decision. If you think that your decision is based purely on reason you are kidding yourself. The problem is that sede position leads to contradictions which you may tend to ignore. That’s what I think.
I spend much time on this topic because even if knowledge about role of will in human conduct is well known and recognized, it is often forgotten.
— — — —
Let look at another story. I like using analogies because this way less writing is needed. It doesn’t always work, all analogies have limitations, but let’s try once more.
Remember, I don’t require you to agree with me just to understand what I’m trying to convey.
Imagine that we, you and I, going through prairies looking for lost horse of mine. We find it. Strangely, horse is laying on a side and has all legs roped down tightly. We are both puzzled what happened. I rush to cut the ropes but you stop me. ‘Wait!’ you call, ‘this is not your horse. This is not a horse at all.’. ‘How so?’, I ask. You pull out encyclopedia and point to definition of a horse. ‘See’, you say, ‘There is nothing about a rope here. This is not a real horse!’. I try to ignore you, but you pull another book. ‘See? This is a book about horse riding. They surely know about horses. There is nothing here about rope on horse’s legs either. This is not your horse. This is not a horse at all!’.
I’m still unconvinced but start paying attention. ‘Listen’, I say, ‘My horse is weak, it didn’t eat for long time, if I wont act it will die. I need your help, Marie. You know a lot about horses and I want you to help me free it and heal.’. You produce another book. This time about wild horses. ‘See? True horses are running, eating grass, and do other horsy things. This one doesn’t do that. This is not your horse, this is not a horse at all. Let’s go somewhere else and find true horse for you.’
This is about trap I was talking about in the other post. This is about trap for a mind. If I start listening to you, I dive myself into books to check if you are right or if I can rebuke you. I start examining true identity of the object at hand. My mind will be occupied with that task and horse can die.
If I will my mind as you did, even without realizing what I’ve done, and somebody else passing by asks me ‘Why are you standing here? Isn’t that your horse laying here? Cut the ropes!’. I may answer: ‘This is not my horse. I had similar one in the past but this is not the one. This is not a hose at all.’ Then I’ll pull out atlas of horse’s anatomy. ‘Here is the proof…’
This is mind trap we all fall in if we hang out in any neighborhood. You can find warnings against that in the Scripture.
— — — — —
And the last story to finish broader view layout. Short one and well known. It was used recently by others re B16-Ganswein relations. I borrowed and extended it because it does the job.
King of Rohan is under a spell. Kingdom is falling apart, people try follow king’s orders but orders are confusing and making little sense. Kingdom is under attack from outside but people don’t realize that enemy is already inside. People are in danger of perishing.
Rescue team shows up to take the spell off the king. At this moment poison starts pouring: this is not the king you want to rescue, this is somebody else, go away, go look for true king elsewhere, if you help this king you will act against true Rohan and against true king Theoden.
This is how I see situation of the Church today and role of Sedevacantists. In real life Holy Mother Church (Rohan) is attacked by multiple armies from many directions. The spell was cast by Modernists, not sede, and affects not only the king but much of his people. Spell is wearing off and some start to wake up. Secavacantists are ready for them: this is not true Rohan, go somewhere else…
You are intelligent person Marie. You know what I’m talking about. You asked questions indicating you are still, at least partially, in ‘research’ mode and are able to understand what your mind can do to you. (On opposite site, if will decide so, mind can benefit you tremendously. It can open treasuries of the Church unavailable to unprepared ones.)
I tell you that I have stubborn mind too. It wasn’t easy to let go of some of my convictions. I do not have all answers. I’ve made decision to stay with the Church and to restore it. That’s why I’m on Aka. Louie did a good job to achieve that goal, to restore true Catholic Church. Our Mother Church is under the spell of the enemy, she needs our help, I wont abandon her in sickness.
Yes, I could be wrong, but I do what I think is right.
— — — — — — — *
Now, when we are done with overlook of the situation, let’s answer some questions.
Are sede outside the Church?
Not necessary. A person can hold sede position and still be member of the Church if his mistake is not entirely his fault, if he had no chance to reach the truth, if he is willing to submit to Church’s teaching at any moment (he decided to follow the Church over what his will wills). The same (not necessary being outside the Church) relates (even more so!) to ‘NO people’.
But if a person knows what he is doing, especially if he is actively spreading poison, at some point he ends up outside the Church.
M.T.: Can you tell me in a reasoned way why you think the “spirit of Vatican II” is somehow different than Vatican II ???
Well, I don’t suppose I said that. This is topic for another longish discussion.
In short: I don’t think it is.
M.T.: Is you are telling Louie that this position which some Catholics throughout the ages have taken (as those who took the sed position in the Great Western schism) were placed in a “trap” and in fact were not Catholics
I don’t say that either. I don’t know enough about Great Western Schism to make such a comparison. I suspect they did not reject the Church back the (as sede practically do, even if they claim opposite) but, as I said, I don’t know details.
if you believe a pope is the pope you must obey Him and not resist him
This is not entirely true. I’m obliged to resist a pope who has deviated from the Faith, I must not follow.
M.T.: The only “trap” M.C is to be trapped in the Conciliar church.
Yes, this is also a trap, but absolutely not “the only trap”. There are plenty of mind traps out there.
I hope I managed to clearly express my position in regard of sede. I see you made not quite correct assumptions about me. I thought I made them obvious in my posts on Aka – but this is my ‘mindset’ 🙂 I don’t suppose you read and remember everything either.
That’s it folks.
Sorry for length but I couldn’t make it much shorter. Forgive me spelling and grammar errors. I know they don’t make reading any easier.
Don’t believe everything you think. 😉
my2cents,
Marie–Tragically, the vast majority of N.O. catholics are deprived of the knowledge of the pre-Vatican 2 Holy, Roman Catholic Church. They don’t have a clue that the “church” they attend is a manufactured liturgy invented before they were born”
Amen on that one. My mother is in her late 80’s and she almost got sucked into it for 2O years. She said to me that it was totally different and seemed so foreign to her. She comes with me to a Latin Mass offered by old priest who was ordained by a Bishop ordained under Pius XII. So you are right when people seek the true faith and attend the old Latin Mass they will find an Oasis. I was one of those people in the Novus Ordo confused and looking for why things were so bad and I got out of it. If I can then others can with faith and hope as you said in Our Lord.
M.C,
Thank you for taking the time to write your statements. I know you wrote the above because in Christian charity you believe that it will help me to see what you believe to be the objective truth in the One, Holy Catholic and apostolic Faith.
I have read all of your statements. The Horse has been out of the barn M.C for 60 years and for some reason you do NOT want to connect it with the Church that you attend because YOUR mindset is that it IS the Catholic Church so obviously not much is going to convince you. You have already determined in your mind that I am out of the Catholic Church and all the Seds with me even though I proved to you that in the Great Western schism St. Vincent of Ferrer followed an Anti-pope and see below for my rational that we are in Fact living in the time of the Great Apostasy.
I have already addressed the issue of long interregnums in other posts quoting Fr. O’Reilly SJ.
And so many of your questions for me – I have already addressed so if you were interested which I don’t think you are because you have made up your mind against taking that position— just do a search for my name Marie Tagey and you will see them
Here you say ” Don’t believe everything you think”. could also be applied to what you believe about the current situation happening in the Church. I don’t know if this will help you at all to understand my point but I will repeat what you said above
M.T.: Can you tell me in a reasoned way why you think the “spirit of Vatican II” is somehow different than Vatican II ???
You said M.C below”
“Well, I don’t suppose I said that. This is topic for another longish discussion.
In short: I don’t think it is.”
You are right M.C. the spirit of Vatican II actually is Vatican II and it is BAD this is what Pius XII said was coming for us when he was a cardinal in the 1930’s”
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. The Persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the SUICIDE IN ALTERING THE FAITH, IN HER LITURGY, HER THEOLOGY , Her Soul…….I hear around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.
A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that MAN HAD BECOME GOD. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”
Said by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Papal Secretary of State to Pope Pius XI upon investigating the message of Fatima. qtd. in Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire p. 52 and 53 .He later was elected as Pope Pius XII. (Hasn’t John Paul II felt ‘remorse for the Church’s past when he apologized for his predecessor’s and their policies & all the other Conciliar popes when they should be apologizing for the harm they caused?)
Cardinal Oddi said which is very simple and he was in the “Catholic Church” that you believe him to be in stated:
Cardinal Oddi tells us The Third Secret is about apostasy.
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
All of these bad things happened as a result of a Council Vatican II that changed the liturgy and theology M.C. which Pius XII warned about- that people would look for the red lamp like Mary Magdeline and weeping before the empty tomb, and ask were have they taken him which sure implied Jesus is missing right?? The red lamp is the light that goes on to show us the Eucharist is present right????? This is very simple but tragic M.C.
You talk about horses but the horse was let out of the Barn already with Vatican II but you don’t want to see it because you are very bothered by what I said.
You can’t stand sede Vecantist you think they play “mind games” and yet the very people who are playing Concentric Circles with the Catholic Church are the VII false popes who are teaching you that the Church of Christ actually contains all the World Religions which subsist in the Catholic Church which is why Bergoglio and Benedict told the Church of the New Advent NOT to Proselytize somehow escapes you as a “mind game”. No you accuse the Catholics who use common sense that if Francis De Sales said that a Pope man who is a manifest heretic would loose his office ipso facto without any declaration because he could not be the head of that which he was NOT a member of . So is St. Francis de Sales playing mind games with you also?
M.C.but the Church can not give APOSTACY OR EVEN an Universal Bad discipline- in her doctrine, liturgy and teaching. The Church of Vatican II contradicts this fact because people are losing their faith going to the New Mass and listening to the New Theology and the New Mass is harmful to souls. Now people in your Modern Magisterium what you obviously deem is the Catholic Church are saying this:
Cardinal Burke regarding the Amazon synod, “People may attempt that … but the document is an apostasy. … This can’t become official teaching of the Church. God willing, the whole business will be stopped,” August 13, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke said that the working document used for the upcoming Pan-Amazon synod organized by the Vatican at the request of Pope Francis amounts to “apostasy.”
Oct 7, 2019 Cardinal Burke said “However, “the working document of the Pan-Amazonian synod is a direct attack on the Lordship of Christ,” he said. “It says to people, ‘You already have the answers, and Christ is just one among many sources of answers.’ This is apostasy!” When asked if Germany’s “synodal path” is ecclesially valid, Cardinal Burke said, “It’s not valid at all. … [T]hey are undertaking a process that is basically outside the Church — in other words, attempting to create a church according to their own image and likeness. As far as I’m concerned, this synodal way in Germany needs to be stopped before greater harm is done to the faithful.”
Now M.G. this is what the Catholic Church teaches about Apostasy and those who commit it and put apostate statements in documents:
Pius XII, “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi # 23 June 29, 1943
This is the New Code of Canon law which you adhere to:
According to canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983, the heretic as well as the apostate from the Faith and the schismatic incur automatic excommunication, a.k.a. latae sentenciae excommunication or ipso facto excommunication.
Indeed, canon 1364 reads: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sentenciae excommunication …”
Canon 751 defines these three crimes: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after Baptism of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
And finally ”
I don’t say that either. I don’t know enough about Great Western Schism to make such a comparison. I suspect they did not reject the Church back the (as sede practically do, even if they claim opposite) but, as I said, I don’t know details.
You said M.C below
if you believe a pope is the pope you must obey Him and not resist him
“This is not entirely true. I’m obliged to RESIST A POPE WHO HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH, I must not follow.”
M.C. Vatican I told you that INFALLIBLY THAT ” “This gift of truth and NEVER-FAILING FAITH was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” [Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chapter 4, n. 6-7.]
m. c. IS THERE POISONOUS ERROR COMING OUT OF Bergoglio’s mouth and Benedict’s mouth??
And here M.C. you say to “I’m obliged to RESIST A POPE WHO HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH, I must not follow
Whereas Pius XI told us in Mortalium Animos NOT to attend ANY PAN religious assembly which totally contradicts what all the Vatican II popes promoted and furthermore Pius XI in that same document MA said ”
Pius XI MORTALIUM ANIMOS JANUARY 6, 1928 ,” #11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.
And Finally M.C. ”
M.T.: Is you are telling Louie that this position which some Catholics throughout the ages have taken (as those who took the sed position in the Great Western schism) were placed in a “trap” and in fact were not Catholics
” I DON’T SAY THAT EITHER. I don’t know enough about Great Western Schism”
So if you “DO NOT say that EITHER” the Seds are in a trap maybe you will someday read up on the Great Western Schism because that is the closest situation which is similar but this one is worse because it is an “APOSTASY” not just a Schism .
Were you aware M.C. that if you resist and do not submit to a True Pope that is a definition of “schism” ??
I LIKE YOU AM VERY LEARY OF PEOPLE WHO claim be Catholic but lead others out of the Church which is why I am very Leary of the apostasy of Bergoglio and the CONCENTRIC CIRCLES OF THE VATICAN II FALSE POPES who have purported a fraud- namely that the Vatican II religion is the Catholic Church and incorporates -1) Mankind, 2) Monotheistic Religions 3) Christians (protestant sects as into it. See Paul VI ECCLESIAM SUAM ENCYCLICAL
As, George Santayana,the philosopher wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” May God help us all as we grapple with keeping our faith and understanding the truth during this trial.
Also M.C.
Answer me this do you believe that Bergoglio is an anti-pope??
How did you come to that conclusion?? Did your magisterium pronounce that ?
Who is someone in your magisterium that you must recognize but resist their bad teaching ?? What is your criteria that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope??
Actually some of the personal decisions you have made using what you believe is your own common sense and Catholic principles is exactly what Catholics who take the sede vecantist do. Somehow when they do it though you are very sure that they are out of the Church- yet you are just a lay person so how do you determine that Ratzinger was forced to resign when he said that he did so of his own free will (if I am understanding your take on things properly if not please correct me on my impression of your stance on this current crisis and who may or may not be in your opinion a “true Pope??).
Marie Tageye,
I’m upset. Obviously I’m not able to write clear enough to convey my thoughts. At least not clear enough to pierce through wall you set around your mindset (maybe it wasn’t you, I don’t know).
Before I address points from your post below, let me try again. My goal is to make you understand my position how it is, not how you think it is.
It will be very short this time.
Think about my position as very similar to yours. I’m not quite sure that it’s the case, there may be some deep differences, but let them emerge later on. For now try to think of my position as same as yours with the exception that I recognize present popes as true popes and present church as the Church but under the ‘spell’ of Modernists. I do not defend NO.
I realize (after reading some of your posts and getting familiar with the way you think) that it may be hard for you to comprehend my position, to see how it is possible, but please try. You can ask questions. I’m willing to undergo test, maybe you will be able to tell me something that will change my mind. You will not achieve this by shooting at ghost targets thinking you are attacking m (my positions). My core question for now is: Where is your church, Marie? Show it to me. You completely ignored this one.
—
Now, let’s answer your post.
MT:. You have already determined in your mind that I am out of the Catholic Church and all the Seds with me even though I proved to you that in the Great Western schism St. Vincent of Ferrer followed an Anti-pope and […] that we are in Fact living in the time of the Great Apostasy.
I can’t tell for sure if anybody in particular is outside the Church. I have no authority nor ability to do that, Peter does. But ‘in general’ yes, this is my opinion. I acquired it after consideration not as a result of coin flip. (I do not know what is the point of bringing St Ferrer.)
MT:. have already addressed the issue of long interregnums in other posts quoting Fr. O’Reilly SJ.
And so many of your questions for me – I have already addressed so if you were interested which I don’t think you are because you have made up your mind against taking that position— just do a search for my name Marie Tagey and you will see them
I will look for post with Fr. O’Reilly. It is true that I do not read everything you post but the reason is not that I made up my mind but because:
a) your posts, although written with thought, don’t address directly questions I’m interested in,
b) are pretty long with plenty of quotes and I can afford to spend time reading and considering all of them at the moment, especially while a),
c) you were caught manipulating quotes for your advantage, so I don’t fully trust them. As said before, I cant spare time to study all texts you quote at this moment.
So, I’d very appreciate precise answers from you (as much as it is possible).
That’s exactly why I want you to understand my position.
MT: Here you say ” Don’t believe everything you think”. could also be applied to what you believe about the current situation happening in the Church.
Absolutely.
M.T.: “Can you tell me in a reasoned way why you think the “spirit of Vatican II” is somehow different than Vatican II ???”
MC: “Well, I don’t suppose I said that. This is topic for another longish discussion.
In short: I don’t think it is.”
M.T.: “You are right M.C. the spirit of Vatican II actually is Vatican II and it is BAD this is what Pius XII said was coming for us when he was a cardinal in the 1930’s[…]
and here goes some quotes and your comments to prove what we already agreed upon. Quite unnecessary, but I may use those quotes later.
MT: You can’t stand sede Vecantist you think they play “mind games” and yet the very people who are playing Concentric Circles with the Catholic Church are the VII false popes who are teaching you that the Church of Christ actually contains all the World Religions which subsist in the Catholic Church which is why Bergoglio and Benedict told the Church of the New Advent NOT to Proselytize somehow escapes you as a “mind game”.
Marie, didn’t I already agreed on that (even if only in simplified form)? I don’t want you post more quotes and rants about this topic. This is going nowhere. The difference I see is that because of V2 (again, simplification) you stopped recognizing Peter. I do recognize him but as one who is under ‘the spell’, who ‘deviated from the faith’. He is still Peter.
MT: you accuse the Catholics who use common sense that if Francis De Sales said that a Pope man who is a manifest heretic would loose his office ipso facto without any declaration because he could not be the head of that which he was NOT a member of . So is St. Francis de Sales playing mind games with you also?
No, no ‘mind games’ here. Francis De Sales expressed his opinion. This is not Magisterium though. Yet, I also think that he is right. Problem is, actually there is more than one problem, that no clear procedure exists about what should to be done in such situation.
The other problem is: who’s to decide decide if pope becomes manifest heretic the way he renders himself outside the Church. You? What about a person seemingly falling into heresy but who is entirely convinced he follows the Church (for whatever reason, he was mislead, is confused, whatever). He thinks he does what the Church teaches, is willing to to submit to Mother Church if he sees his error? Do you see problems I’m taking about?
Being heretic or schismatic obviously renders you outside the Church, but that refers to acts committed with full awareness.
MT: the Church can not give APOSTACY OR EVEN an Universal Bad discipline- in her doctrine, liturgy and teaching. The Church of Vatican II contradicts this fact because people are losing their faith going to the New Mass and listening to the New Theology and the New Mass is harmful to souls.
V2 is not the Magisterium, is not the doctrine. Often it is presented this way but both popes said it is not, V2 said about itself it is not. If you say that it is (to decisively reject it later) you are putting lie into somebody’s mouth to accuse him of being a lair. V2 is ‘pastoral’ – whatever it means. I think it means that V2 tries to guide rather than teach.
—
Now you quote some of Card Burke and about apostasy. Everything you say, Marie, is interesting and worth thinking about but I cant do everything at once. I’m a man. You know – can do only one thing at a time.
—
MT: ”if you believe a pope is the pope you must obey Him and not resist him”
MC: “This is not entirely true. I’m obliged to RESIST A POPE WHO HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH, I must not follow.”
MT: “Vatican I told you that INFALLIBLY […]
V1 is talking truth. V1 is talking about teaching. It is not talking it is impossible for pope to deviate from the Faith but that it is impossible for him to teach anything but Truth. (As Teach, nor as teach by making a speech or homily.)
What I said is pretty consistent with whole teaching and tradition. Don’t have all quotes at hand but I believe St Cajetan said exactly that.
Here is quote from Cum ex Apostolatus Officio:
Paul IV: the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith
That ‘may’ becomes ‘must’ in St Cajetan’s (I think it does).
MT: And here M.C. you say to “I’m obliged to RESIST A POPE WHO HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH, I must not follow”
Whereas Pius XI told us in Mortalium Animos NOT to attend ANY PAN religious assembly which totally contradicts what all the Vatican II popes promoted and furthermore Pius XI in that same document MA said […]”
Yes, as I said: I do not follow.
—
MT: Is you are telling Louie that this position which some Catholics throughout the ages have taken (as those who took the sed position in the Great Western schism) were placed in a “trap” and in fact were not Catholics
MC: ” I DON’T SAY THAT EITHER. I don’t know enough about Great Western Schism”MT: So if you “DO NOT say that EITHER” the Seds are in a trap[…]
No. This is misunderstanding. What I meant is that I don’t know about GWS to compare situation back then to today’s Sede. I do think that sede act upon decision to reject popes and produce plenty of ‘proves’ thinking that they are ‘rational’. In fact they are not, they are highly biased. More about that in my previous post if you can read it.
MT: Were you aware M.C. that if you resist and do not submit to a True Pope that is a definition of “schism” ??
I hope that after previous answers I don’t have to address that. If you disagree, please read what I said before. This time do it slowly.
MT: Answer me this do you believe that Bergoglio is an anti-pope??
How did you come to that conclusion?? Did your magisterium pronounce that ?
Who is someone in your magisterium that you must recognize but resist their bad teaching ?? What is your criteria that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope??
This seems pretty simple. Actually I said that couple of time already.
The only reason, or rather the true one, that Bergolio is an anti-pope is that B16 did not resign.
Other reasons like invalid conclave, said forced resignation, self-dropping of papacy due to heresy etc. although true, or potentially true, should not be seen as primary reason of anti-papacy because that leads to false conclusions like seat vacancy and others.
Procedures to elect new pope and for pope to resign are in the Cannon Law. Those procedures were not followed by B16 thus resignation is invalid.
Yes, there are possibilities that more than the law could be required but we do not have such a situation. I read some lawyers arguing for Bergolio this way (rejecting what law clearly states), but those voices were obviously weak and did ignore inconvenient facts. I can say they reached conclusions that were written before examination (‘mind trap’ again).
Bottom line is that that B16 did not resign as it is required by the law thus he is the Pope.
I suppose you will bring up Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to ‘prove’ B16 was never a pope. I did talk about this with A Simple Bagger. If you will, reach to this exchange and pick up from there. I really don’t want to go over everything again. Combox is not the greatest place for such discussions.
—
Technical note.
If you want to quote in cursive put ‘lower than’ sign, then letter ‘i’, then ‘greater than’ sign at the beginning of quote (3 symbols)
and the same but with a ‘slash’ before letter ‘i’ at the end (4 symbols).
For bolding use letter ‘b’ instead of ‘i’.
Hope this will help.
I will look to this Fr. O’Reilly SJ post later. Which post it is under?
To add to ‘manifested heresy’ topic.
To my knowledge teologians of V2 are fully aware about ‘possible deviation’ from tradition. (see hermeneutics of B16). They are working to prove that the is none. Working, and working, and working…
M. C. 1-21-2020
I read both of your above posts. Where is the visible Church if the V2 Church is totally false [ and it definitely is because in the Catholic Religion you have to believe and understand that the Catholic faith is true whole and entire NOT just parts of it ( with a false notion that true parts could be mixed with error)]. The V2 Ratzinger Church teaches a false theory of the “hermeneutic of continuity” which is just the fancy modernist way of saying we have the thesis which is the way the Church was always believed before Vatican II then the anti- thesis which is the false documents of Vatican II which we concocted while cleverly putting several citations of past Church teaching so as to fool the “conservatives” and then the “revolutionary subtly heretical statements” synthesis (to complete the Hegelian dialectic) . But notice M.C that in the V2 documents they never footnoted anywhere Pius XI Mortalium Animos which condemns their Pan Religious Assemblies (Ratzinger Assisi III or his prayers in the Jewish Synagogue) or the Encyclical Quas primas Kingship of Christ. They do not serve the Catholic Church M.C they serve their liberal careers and reputations as change agents otherwise we would not see the wholesale bankruptcy moral and physical of NO Diocese. I guess you think that the Catholic Church must be ruled or be under a “spell” but what is really “under the spell of modernism is the false church of Vatican II and the false V2 popes who promote the Great Apostasy”. As the Church says apostasy puts a person outside of the Church as does heresy.
Where is the visible Church? That is what you ask. I know where it is NOT – it is NOT in the Vatican II church. Are there some Catholics in the Conciliar Church who do not fully understand the peril their souls are in due to ignorance??? Yes but they are obliged as all of us are to find the truth. There is a true position on how we SHOULD understand what has happened and THE RIGHT RESPONSE to THIS CRISIS because we know that the Catholic Church cannot teach error BUT AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE THAT POSSITON AT THIS MOMENT- GOD KNOWS AND WE MUST STIVE ON OUR KNEES THROUGH PRAYER AND STUDY TO COME TO THE RIGHT POSSITION.
The Catholic Church has gone underground. It has NO visible true Pope so it is “scattered” and the Unity appears to be at a minimum because there is so much Apostasy that covers over the UNITY.
Now this is what Pius XII said “MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI BELOW (He no doubt was referring to the ‘New Theologians like De Lubac and Ratzinger who called into questions the ordinary infallible magisterium teaching he put forward, so as to confuse people. Now we can apply this to the Conciliar false popes who have thrown out the window unchanging Catholic Church teaching and implemented false religious liberty, false ecumenism, false Humanitarian sacraments – the ‘work of human hands’, denial of the Petrine Primacy and sins against the 6th commandment in Amoris laetitia)
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”
How does what Pius XII warned us about apply to today’s Crisis in the Church??? The Conciliar “popes” created a “Concentric Circle “ church M.C which contains as Paul VI stated in ECCLESIAM SUAM 1964 THREE CONCENTRIC CIRLES 1) Mankind, 2) Monotheistic Religions 3) Christians the phony “dialogue” is the way the Vatican II Church attempts to unite the whole world (a Teilhardian “cosmic goal”) in their pride; thereby they promote these false religions through enculturation techniques as in the Amazonian Synod and Assisi I, II and III-, John XXIII’s MASONIC United Nations “CONCENTRIC CIRCLES”. In fact the Conciliar Church is running circles around the Catholic people with the spell of this false cult of Man.
The Conciliar Popes M.C. STAND GUILTY OF IGNORING PAST POPES INFALLIBLE CHURCH TEACHING, BREAKING THE VISIBLE BONDS OF UNITY WITH THEIR HERESY AND LEAVING THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER SO OBSCURED THAT THOSE TRYING TO FIND THE HAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE IT DUE TO THE SMOKE OF SATAN WHICH PAUL VI TRIED TO IMPLY THAT THE TRADITIONALIST LET IN THE CHURCH WHEN IN FACT HE DID WITH HIS NEW MAN CENTERED PROTESTANTIZED PHONY VERNACULAR MASS WHICH OTTAVIANI SAID IN ITS LATIN [PRISTINE VERSION “WAS A STRIKING DEPARTURE FROM TRENT”!!!!!! THE WHOLE VATICAN II RELIGION IS A STRIKING DEPARTURE FROM TRENT OTHERWISE YOU AND I WOULD NOT BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT ON THIS BLOG.
If we have “legitimate Popes’ then we must OBEY them M.C. NOT resist them as Pius XI said here : “#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, RECOGNIZE AND OBEY the AUTHORITY AND SUPREMACY OF PETER AND HIS LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS.
Notice M. C how Pius XI said LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS THAT WE HAVE TO OBEY. Now he knew the Church has had anti-popes /false popes and he never said “ you have to resist a heretic pope because there is NO SUCH thing as a HERETIC POPE who as VATICAN I said that Peter and his successors would have a “never failing faith”. Mortalium animos 1928. Pius XI was for obeying LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY NOT ILLIGITIMATE as in communists like these clowns.
What we have now is Apostolic Succession (visible Church) in terms of emergency ration Bishops and priests who teach the Catholic doctrines and dispense emergency ration sacraments are here on this earth, just like you have in an interregnum which has been the longest ever and appears to have extinguished the Church but it has not. Any Bishop under Pius XII in good standing who resisted V2 and the false popes could pass down apostolic succession, not with jurisdiction but in terms of sacraments and the teachings of Christ’s Church. When Christ’s church began it was underground and towards the end of time it goes back to that.
We are dealing with “The Mystery of Iniquity” inside the “institutional Catholic church and Eclipses the true Catholic Church which Christ founded. You M.C alluded to this with your “spell” that seems to be cast over the Church which is from Satan the enemy and father of lies. We are dealing here with “principalities and powers of darkness from Lucifer and his angels. The “spell M.C. is from the devil appealing to these false popes and so then they have mouthed heretical statements so as to affirm and tickle the ears of the Secular World Powers who fully approve of what they say.
I am not going to submit myself to an “inquisition” about the emergency ration priest I go to nor do I think that Louie will submit to questions regarding the priest and Chapel he attends . Each person will have to answer to God for their position. M.C. you and I must answer to God for what we do and how we loved our own family and how we helped or hurt them to get to Heaven.
I also know that some of my fellow Catholics who take the sede vacantist position think that you should NOT go to any of these traditional Catholic priests and Bishops who do not follow the Conciliar Church but there is no pope to bind us to such a position and it would seem that they do not believe there is any earthly men walking the shoes of the Apostles today such as what In caritas told people on this site “…..Apostolic Succession is lost TPS, deFide” . I do not believe that and I gave him several posts to prove that apostolic Succession lasts till the end of time from the Rheims Bible 1582.
Here is the O’Reilly quote :”
Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly wrote regarding the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), that IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN INTERREGNUM THROUGHTOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD, OF AROUND FOURTY YEARS. At this time, all of the cardinals went over to an antipope, an antipope ruled from Rome, most theologians recognized an antipope and the true pope was the weakest of three concurrent claimants. The “schism” of competing claimants continued through the pontificates of four successive popes.
“If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been continued, the answer is that it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election. […]
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum. […]
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd). They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises. We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” (The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882).
May God help us all M.C. to know the full truth whole and entire. Often we fail and we can only see part of the truth because we are very fallible whereas our Mother the Church is infallible and no lie can be in Her. They can spin there “concentric circle webs” with the hermeneutic of continuity” all they want but you can not mix truth with error and be a Catholic in good standing and that is why M.C. they stand on quick sand and not the rock!
Marie Tageye,
MT: I read both of your above posts.
Then why didn’t you answer questions I’ve asked? If our goal is to find the truth we must ask questions and try to answer them. Without that it will become no more than shouting match.
MT: Where is the visible Church
I’m glad you asked.
As you know the Church was founded by Our Lord for salvation of souls. Lord put Peter as his earthly vicar and as visible sign for everybody to know where the Church is. Peter with other apostles, teach and rule the church to this day. It is pretty simple to find Her.
I understand you may be confused with what you see.
From the beginning Lord’s Church was attacked by devil who’s goal is to prevent salvation of souls. He did whatever he could to achieve that goal. I wont lie to you, Marie, recently he advanced tremendously, he managed to enter Church’s territory and create such a confusion that many, even within the Church, can discern his lies from teaching. This was foretold, we were warned. We should be better prepared, but we are not. Man without God’s grace is no match for devil.
Very good description of what is currently going on in the Church you can find in prophecy of st Francis. Listen carefully:
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, [ Franciscans ] and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death. .
There are many more more warnings about what we experience in present times. Situation is pretty bad, Marie, but I still encourage you to enter this Church. You will find no other place to save your soul. Look for Peter and you will know where the Church is. As I said, be vigilant because, for now, tuth and lies seems to be strangely entangled.
Other quote well describing situation today is this one (from memory): “Today, church and anti-church occupy the same liturgical and physical (or hierarchical) space.”
It wont last forever Marie. There will be a big schism. I think it may happen very soon. This was also predicted. We must prepare. Time is high. Do not delay, Marie, it is still not too late.
— —
MT: if the V2 Church is totally false
It is not “totally” false. If it was it would be too obvious.
Marie, let’s agree with your position on V2 for now. Don’t let detailed discussion about V2 steal our focus.
You still falsely assume I defend V2 or you simply want to change direction of our discussion.
— —
MT: Where is the visible Church? That is what you ask. I know where it is NOT
I know that you know where the Church is not and that you quickly point at the Church of Our Lord (with Peter etc.) if asked. This is ALL you sede do: pointing on the Catholic Church and saying: this is not it! leave it! don’t go there!
— —
MT: we know that the Catholic Church cannot teach error
And She does not. It is you who confuse Church and anti-Church and passes that confusion on others.
— —
MT: The Catholic Church has gone underground. It has NO visible true Pope so it is “scattered” and the Unity appears to be at a minimum
I even say that unity of that church is non existent.
What you are describing is church you created in your head. This is not the Catholic Church.
Let’s see more of that.
MT: Pius XI said LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS THAT WE HAVE TO OBEY[and on, and on]
Again, Marie, you interpret documents the way you like. You have your goal set: yank people from the Church. What Pius XI a(nd P XII and others) said is true, we have to obey pope we have to obey superiors, but not when their orders lead us to sin. If we receive such an order we must not follow. But even if we are ordered or suggested such, our superior (even a pope) does not automatically loose an office.
I hope you start realize that your interpretation creates church that is different from the church of Pius IV (‘we can defy a pope who deviated from faith’) and st Cajetan’s (‘we mustn’t obey’) and others. You created church you defend but which is not the Catholic Church even if you call it so.
There is no contradiction between PIV and PXI in the Catholic Church. There is one in your church.
— —
MT: In caritas told people on this site “…..Apostolic Succession is lost TPS, deFide” . I do not believe that and I gave him several posts to prove that apostolic Succession lasts till the end of time from the Rheims Bible 1582.
Here is the O’Reilly quote […]:”
I found your other post with O’Reilly’s quote. I also found interesting discussion initiated by Seeker’s post regarding Apostolic Succession (ApSu). Let me extract positions presented there with some comments. Apostolic Succession is topic I cut off in my previous post to keep it short(er) but which is tightly related to task of recognizing true Church.
(1)
Seeker quoted Fr Riley:
”In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the SACRAMENTS, the use of Epikeia is ALWAYS EXCLUDED.”
“In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, (Holy Orders and Matrimony) what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that EPIKEIA IS NEVER LICIT.”
(2)
A Simple Beggar said that ApSu is broken, there is no more valid successors of Peter and Apostles. ASB is Sedevacantist rejecting the Church, or, to said it the other way, who doesn’t recognize today’s bishops and Pope.
ASB quoted P12: bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction. This confirms what was said in (1).
Note: teaching of P12 was included in Canon Law of 83. with penalty of excommunication for consecrating bishops without papal approval, but the law also included just and necessary provisions for when such automatic excommunication does not apply (China, iron curtain situations and others).
Reasoning of ASB is sound (assuming her sede position being correct). Without papacy the Church ceases to exist, is done. Broken ApSu is one of the reasons.
(3)
A Simple Man proposed solution that makes sense and is supported by the Church’s law and justice (and common sense). ASM proposes that rules established by P12 can not apply today because of vacant papacy, thus impossibility to obey without exposition of souls to danger.
Weaknesses of his reasoning are:
(a) hypothetical consecrations to appear(ASM is also sede), Before papal recognition any consecration of bishops (thus clergy off those bishops) makes status of such bishops in the Church dubious (see ‘pope Michael’ case).
(b) lack of sede bishops to perform valid and licit (assumptive) consecration.
Proposition of ASM is interesting and provides solution to (1) but stays only as theoretical exercise without practical application thus leading back to ASB conclusion about broken ApSu.
(4)
Marie Tageye, being also Sedevacantist, does not question reasoning of ASB but rejects conclusion about broken ApSu.
MT correctly recognizes that broken ApSu contradicts promise of Our Lord (hell’s gates) with all consequences of that. To avoid exposing sede as not apostolic, thus non Catholic (Apostolic property is an essence of the Cath Church – see post of A Simple Man quoting st Thomas), she rejects (1) and introduces concept that jurisdiction needed for consecration of bishops within the Church is supplied directly by the Church (like in some cases of confession).
This solution seems to solve problem with ApSu in sede church because anybody (any bishop) can claim that he gets needed jurisdiction without need of papal approval.
This is exactly the situation that Mother Church tried to protect Her children from. “Epikeia is never licit” in this situation protects frightful from following dubious bishops and dubious liturgies. By this rule She protects us from situation when every sede church consecrates own bishops claiming to have jurisdiction directly from the Church.
Beside of that, there is still problem with bishops performing consecration as per (3b)
Jurisdiction directly from the Church would be theoretically possible in very long interregnum only if we had clear situation about where the Church is, if we had absolute certainty that there is no living pope. We don’t have that today (I’m speaking from sede position now). Any sede bishop consecration attempt would introduce even more chaos.
MT: Any Bishop under Pius XII in good standing who resisted V2 and the false popes could pass down apostolic succession, not with jurisdiction but in terms of sacraments and the teachings of Christ’s Church.
Yes, Marie, that sounds acceptable (only to show that you have ApSu in your church) but, please, show me where is that church of yours, where are your bishops?
I do not ask about your personal address. I asks about visibility.
If you point to single church, I expect, other sedes will jump on you immediately (to demonstrate unity). It will be fun to watch (except it is tragic).
(5)
I may add my position to this presentation.
I accept (1) – (approved teaching) and reject Sedevacantism as false and wicked.
I have no problems with ApSu thus with visibility neither. (I might have another problems though.)
Sorry if I misquoted / misunderstand something. Not intended if guilty. I wrote mostly from memory.
— —
MT: You M.C alluded to this with your “spell” that seems to be cast over the Church which is from Satan the enemy and father of lies. We are dealing here with “principalities and powers of darkness from Lucifer and his angels. The “spell M.C. is from the devil appealing to these false popes and so then they have mouthed heretical statements so as to affirm and tickle the ears of the Secular World Powers who fully approve of what they say.
Exactly that.
I said about ‘many armies’ attacking Rohan. True enemy is not divided though, all armies are under same command. You get it right, Marie. You and other sedes are working for him.
Stalin said once about French intellectuals: ‘useful idiots’. Today it would have way broader meaning (Sanders crew praising gulags as a fresh example).
Did you hear about that story from Florida, where some man stabbed another one because the other was Trump’s supporter? Stabber has mind set by media outlets. He hated everything about Trump. He acted on emotions.
You are doing the same job as those media do. We know that there will be martyrdom at the end of times. Faithful will be killed. I don’t say you will do it, I don’t say you intent to do it, but what you are doing is sowing hate toward the Church: “I can tell you where the Church is NOT”. You, and others are very passionate about that, you pass your emotions to others, you pass disdain and hatred for the Church (unintentionally, that’s my sincere believe). You work for the enemy, Marie.
— —
No new questions this time. If you wish to answer, please, relate to what I asked / said directly and in simple manner. Long quotes are unnecessary – you may post them if I question what you’ve said. I’m bit tired of finding new ways to say the same thing: your church, Marie, the church you have in your head is not the Catholic Church. I want you to hear the same voice St Francis heard: Rebuild My Church.
That is ‘rebuild’, not ‘reject’.