On Friday, May 25, 2018, voters in Ireland overwhelmingly voted in favor of the unceremonious murder of innocent human beings. As reported by the New York Times:
Ireland voted decisively to repeal one of the world’s more restrictive abortion bans, sweeping aside generations of conservative patriarchy and dealing the latest in a series of stinging rebukes to the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a well-known and much commented upon fact that in the lead up to the referendum, the man that many poor souls consider to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church on earth – Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or “Francis” as he is called – lifted not one finger to exhort the Irish people (the vast majority of whom self-identify as Catholic) to reject the grave evil of abortion.
Several days after the vote took place, Francis addressed a gathering of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations in Rome, saying in part:
Make every effort, in your respective countries and on the international level, to speak out in specialized environments but also in debates about legislation dealing with sensitive ethical problems such as the termination of pregnancy, end-of-life issues and genetic medicine.
Having read this, many faithful Catholics, who are deeply disappointed and saddened by the loss of faith in Ireland, will likely feel compelled to shout, hypocrite!
This is understandable, but if one considers Francis’ words very carefully, then it must be admitted that he is nothing of the kind.
As he spoke, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Francis was cognizant of the fact that front and center in the news at that moment were the results of the referendum; a lost opportunity for the overwhelming number of Irish citizens who self-identify as Catholic to vote in favor of Life (aka Jesus Christ) – at issue, in plain language, abortion.
This is presumably why he deliberately chose not to even utter the word, lest anyone get the wrong idea; namely, that he had any real concern regarding the outcome of the vote.
What is worse, one will notice that he chose instead to adopt the language of the abortion industry; referring to the wanton slaughter of human persons for profit as merely “the termination of pregnancy.”
And if this doesn’t tell us everything we need to know about where Jorge’s heart lies with respect to Life (again, aka Jesus Christ), he even saw fit to speak of the intrinsic evil of abortion as if it is just another “sensitive ethical problem.”
No, my friends, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a hypocrite; rather, he is a model of consistency, who from the moment he stepped onto the loggia at St. Peter’s on 13 March 2013 – day by day, week by week, year in and year out – has made it perfectly plain to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that he simply is not Catholic.
[NOTE: Thanks to a kind reader for pointing out an error concerning the date of Francis’ address to the Catholic Medical Associations. It has been corrected. 5/31]
Bergoglio is consistently hypocritical in presenting himself as Pope.
Look at their eyes. Empty and lifeless. MUST.WORSHIP.MOLOCH.
Was JP2 more of a hypocrite? Jorge doesn’t hide behind a “holy” mask. He is proud that he is not holy.
2 Ceents, He is part of a bigger agenda taking shape before our eyes posing under a banner of love for mother earth and all her sheep.
Simply not Catholic. So true. He is a perfect reflection of the countless Catholics out there all over the world who say they are Catholic but they too are simply not Catholic.
Well, Louie, I am sure that if Bergoglio was a hypocrite, Ganganelli “hanger of hypocrites” would be on it. 🙂
Perhaps the Trolls have already purchased their tickets for the Vatican’s new film on the Borg?
“Commissioned by the Vatican, the film ups the ante on papalolotry. Its deluge of glorifying images stimulates devotion to Bergoglio himself, papa to all the world. A quasi-erotic glow infuses the whole. It is the eros of surrender to a liberator, a defender against ideological bogeys: “the globalization of indifference”; “money drenched in blood”; “fear of foreigners.” The old creed proclaimed Christ risen. The new Bergoglian one, emblazoned on St. Peter’s dome during the 2016 light show repeated here, proclaims: “Planet Earth first.”
Hat tip to a friend who sent this to me , a dedicated Traditional Catholic lawyer, father of five, staunch defender of victims of the diabolical.
2 Cents , Woytola credited Opus Dei for his election. One of his first acts as Pope was to go kiss Escriva’s grave. ( later the Koran). This cult plays the game of up and down news on the Borg. The jewel in their cult crown is to get their Pope in the Vatican. They take a vow to the Pope, any Pope.
The brutal killing of an unborn baby is barbaric. Celebrating this barbaric act is nothing less than demonic, especially when celebrated by women who have been gifted by Almighty God to participate in the awesome act of creating a human being possessing an immortal soul. It would be difficult to imagine the just vengeance of God.
The Jewish peoples suffered the long Babylonian captivity . One reason was that they were sacrificing their children to Moloch.
“Moloch was an idol worshipped by the Hebrews and some other people of the area. The priests burned a large fire within the idol, and according to a number of Biblical and Talmudic references, the Hebrews sacrificed their children to the god by throwing them — live — into the fire (the children were termed “thy seed,” and the act, “pass[ing them] through the fire” in KJV). Accounts vary in details, e.g., the god was Canaanite in origin and only intermittently adopted by the Hebrews; the children were killed before they were burned (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. Moloch); the god was Carthaginian and the children were cast into the fire by priests, not parents (Gustave Flaubert ); etc”
Fr John O’Conner points to abortion as a chief sign we are experiencing the satanic new world order. Satan requires a sacrifice.
Will Peruvian Bishops resign like they did in Chile because of hypocrisy in the Vatican ?
No, so much more than that !
There appears to be an error with the dates: The Irish Referendum took place on Friday 25th May and Francis spoke to the Catholic doctors on Monday 28th May.
25th May 2018 was Whit Friday, the saddest day in Irish history, and the overwhelming win of the pro-death side was announced begore a triumphant crowd at Dublin Castle, on Saturday 26th May, eve of the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity whom the Irish people invoke in the preamble of their Constitution.
Of note, On 22 May 2015, a Friday before the Feast of Pentecost, the “marriage equality” constitutional referendum took place in Ireland.
With two of the four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance becoming “lawful” in Ireland by popular vote within the last three years, the offence against the Most Holy Trinity could not be greater – and Francis’ voice was silent before and after either referendum, and is silent still, as are the voices of all the bishops in the world regarding this tragedy of epic proportions.
“Francis’ voice was silent before and after either referendum, and is silent still, as are the voices of all the bishops in the world regarding this tragedy of epic proportions.”
Another example of how this is the so-called VISIBLE Catholic Church….
The VISIBLE Church is not in the N.O. Imposter “church”. Does it exist in the Catholic Faithful who hold dear to their hearts the True Church as founded by Christ? Not all have access to the True Mass which is not readily available everywhere on the planet. If someone could explain the VISIBLE Church during these sad times, I would appreciate it.
It is wherever those who are Baptised and profess the true Faith are. Some are fortunate to have a valid Mass and Sacraments. I don’t know who is teaching the Church with ordinary jurisdiction though. That’s the great mystery.
Thank you, The Papal Subject. I agree with your answer, There was a time I thought the SSPX was a safe haven in this crisis. Now , they are joining the enemy and have lost the fight. Their Crusader spirit is gone.
2 Cents , you probably have read this before but it is good to reread and know Heaven cares and knows what we are experiencing also..
“It is wherever those who are Baptised and profess the true Faith are. Some are fortunate to have a valid Mass and Sacraments.”
Comment: That’s a heretical definition of the Church. Baptized pure schismatics “profess the true faith,” yet are not members of the visible Church.
Thank you Ursula for that chronology. It serves to underline the depths to which Ireland has sunk…………….like spitting in the faces of the Holy Spirit and the Most Blessed Trinity.
Also can anyone else see the connection between:
* Bergoglio’s “friendship “with George Soros?
* Jorge signing up for Soros’ “Sustainable Development Plan by 2030” which includes abortion and euthanasia as population control?
* Soros paying $400,00 to Ireland to ensure the passing of the Same Sex Marriage Equality Act – [the silence of assent from Bergoglio]
* Soros paying $150.000 to each of the main Pro-abortion groups in Ireland to help the “Yes” vote [more silence of assent from Bergoglio]
* And finally Bergoglio’s dismissal of every Pro-Life member of the Vatican group that deals with Family and Life – and his replacing them with Soros agents?
God, the author of all life will not be mocked and if we say the Rosary daily, Our Blessed Mother will come to our aid. We have only to ask. God bless all here. GSF.
You are wrong Ignatio because all schismatics so far have also been heretics. TPS is simply giving Pius XII’s magesterial definition of Church membership. Be baptized and profess the Catholic Faith.
And thisnis why sedes say the entire NO secr is not the Catholic Church because there is not one cleric in its structure that professes the Catholic Faith. They profess a new man made faith called modernism.
Anti sedes like to think that “visibility” is the weak link in the sede argument. When in fact it bolsters our position. We sedes can always ask them to show us a visible indefectible church where there is unity of faith. If they can find one, it certainly is not the NO sect. It fails on unity and defectibility.
TomA, it is true that schism leads to heresy, which is why almost all sede-vacantists are also heretics, but pure schism alone separates a person from the Church.
To be a member of the Church, it is not enough to be baptized and profess the true faith. It is also necessary to be united under the same governing authority, as Pius XII teaches.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body… (…) It follows that those who are divided in faith OR GOVERNMENT cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Sede-vacantists are separated from the government of the Church, no less than the Protestants, Orthodox or Anglicans. The errors and heresies that cause all four groups to leave the Church may be different, but the result is the same.
In a previous discussion you stated that the institutional Church defected after the death of Pius XII. That is not only false, but heretical. What you may not realize is that Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church” does not simply mean there will always be baptized men on earth who “profess the true faith”. What it means is that the visible, institutional Church will not be overcome by heresy or cease to exist. It is the institutional Church, as such, that is visible, infallible and indefectible.
Louis Cardinal Billot: “The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and THIS VISIBLE CHURCH IS THE CHURCH TO WHICH HIS PROMISES PERTAIN; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible, and that in her and by her men would find sanctity and salvation.”
Msgr. G. Van Noort: “Once one proves that the one and only Church which Christ founded is visible from its very nature, then it necessarily follows: (a) that an invisible Church such as that to which Protestants appeal is a pure fiction, and (b) THAT ALL THE PROMISES WHICH CHRIST MADE TO HIS CHURCH REFER TO A VISIBLE CHURCH.”
The visible Church still exists today, according to the promise of Christ, and is governed by Pope Francis and the bishops united to him. They are the legitimate authority, whether you realize it or not. Those who are separated from this governing authority are not members of the Church, as Pius XII teaches, and therefore cannot be saved.
TomA: “We sedes can always ask them to show us a visible indefectible church where there is unity of faith.”
Comment: In sede-vacantism, there is neither unity of faith, unity of government, legitimate authority, nor the formal visibility that the true Church must possess.
Thank you God’s Servant First – may your valid questions soon be answered when Francis will visit Ireland from 25th – 26th August at the close of the World Meeting of Families.
Will he remain silent or will he call the Irish people to repentance by showing them the depth to which they have fallen and the danger to their immortal souls? Will he point out the mockery they have made of their Constitution by allowing provisions for same sex “marriage” and abortion alongside the Preamble to the same Constitution that begins: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, and seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
Again Ignatio, I am not trying to prove anything. You still have to justify how the Catholic Church can promulgate V2 without defecting. Sede’s are not a church so there is of course no attributes you assign to a church. But you are the one who cannot defend the V2 NO church as being Catholic. Your only evidence is that it remains visible. You have jettisoned all the doctrines in order to maintain the facade of the Church. You are making the mistake that the sede position is a competitor for legitimacy. It makes no such claim. It simply says that based on the heresies taught by the conciliar church that it cannot be the Catholic Church. It makes no claim as to why or where is the Church. You can attack sedes all day long, there are plenty of unanswered questions, but at the end of the day you still have to prove that the faith taught prior to 1958 is the same faith taught today. That is a task that you, Gang, and Blunder conveniently never get around to. So I suspect that again you will deflect the issue to some problem of visibility or apostolic succession (all valid points), but you will avoid at all costs clarifying for us how the Faith did not change at V2.
Funny, according to your conciliar popes, we all can be saved now. We have “elements” of truth according to your founding document. Your own pope does not believe in EENS. So actually, you are not in union with him either.
Yes, these anti-sede posters all believe in a defective Catholic Church..heresy. Anything to avoid the logical and Catholic conclusion that those that promulgated the false v2 religion weren’t and aren’t the legitimate hierarchy of the catholic church.
Thank you so much for this, sweep. I will print it and read each quote carefully even though I do not need to be convinced of the evil Modernist take-over of the Catholic Church. The crisis is horrific, but knowing these great saints and holy Faithful predicted these days gives a measure of comfort. Our Lord and Our Lady will come to our aid if we remain steadfast in our prayers. Thank you again.
In the N.O. church, there is neither unity of faith. unity of government, legitimate authority. nor the formal visibility that the true Church must possess.
Where is the unity of faith?.—each priest teaches his own religion from the pulpit.
Each bishop is a pope in his own diocese.
The visibility of the N.O. church is ugly.
Ignatio likes to argue apples to oranges. The sede position is not a counter church nor is it a dogma of beliefs. It simply holds that the gaggle of sodomites in Rome today are not the hierarchy of the Catholc Church even though they say they are and occupy the once Catholic real estate. Again, the reason we say this is because they teach a different faith than what was taught by the Catholic Church prior to 1958. Any questions anyone would have about why or how would be pure conjecture on our part. Ignatio et al, however, claim one of two things (both absurd btw). One, teachings pre and post 1958 did not change (absurd) or two, the teachings changed but its ok because we dont have to follow them (absurd and heretical).
Tom A, you perfectly put into words something bothering me. I can only liken this to a person saying, “Hey guys, the door’s open.” And then people opposed, for whatever reason, to addressing this open door begin to deride the man as a “Thedoorisopenist.” It’s just juvenile. Oooh the sedevacantist with his made up religion. I mean come on. I absolutely think the chair is vacant but if I were to be wrong is it because I imagined a religion or because some real bad actors have gone to great effort to make it appear empty? I’d love to believe we have a horrible Pope but I’d prefer to believe that Christ’s promise of an indefectible Church is true and I do.
Ignatio….then start practicing what you preach: submit to the authority you claim is legitimate. If these men are legit, then you too are a schismatic.
TomA: “You still have to justify how the Catholic Church can promulgate V2 without defecting.”
Comment: It’s very simple. It was the express intention of Paul VI that Vatican II not teach with infallible authority. This intention left open the possibility that the documents could contain errors, and the fact that Paul VI ratified the documents does not change it.
When a pope ratifies a council, it only ensures that the definitions are free from error, and Vatican II defined no doctrines at all, choosing instead to be a merely pastoral council. “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” (Ratzinger).
Errors in the documents of Vatican II does not imply the Church defected, but instead proves that when the Church refuses to “prevent the possibility of error” (which is what infallibility does), error remains possible. But I do not concede your assertion that VII contains any heresies, but only ambiguities and theological errors.
TomA: “You have jettisoned all the doctrines in order to maintain the facade of the Church.”
Comment: I haven’t jettisoned any doctrines of the Church. You, on the other hand, have jettisoned many.
TomA: “you will avoid at all costs clarifying for us how the Faith did not change at V2.”
Comment: The faith of the Church cannot change, and it did not change at Vatican I. Errors and ambiguities in fallible documents do not constitute a change in the faith or a defection of the Church, but your position necessarily entails both.
Whereas I believe every doctrine of the faith that was taught “prior to 1958”, you are forced to deny many such doctrines, including the doctrine founded on the promise of Christ, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”. According to this promise, the Church must continue to exist as Christ founded it until His second coming. To exist as Christ founded it, the Church must have a visible hierarchy, consisting of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (which they can only receive from the pope), since “THE EPISCOPAL ORDER NECESSARILY BELONGS TO THE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH” (Satis Cognitum). Without bishops who received jurisdiction from a pope, there is no legitimate episcopal order and no true Church.
In a previous comment, you stated that the entire hierarchy defected when they accepted Vatican II. The council of Trent declared this to be heretical:
“Canon VI.–If anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by Divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests and ministers; let him be anathema.
The Church is enduring what Pius IX predicted, when he spoke of “the triumph of a revolution during which the Church will go through ordeals that are beyond description.” THAT’S what is happening, but the visible institution has not defected. This is the “dark night” of the Church that Our Lady of Good Success predicted would begin in “the second half of the 20th century” – a true test of faith in which the elect will prove their fidelity to God by holding fast to ALL that the Church teaches, while most will end by rejecting one or more of the doctrines taught “prior to 1958,” as you have done by claiming the institutional Church defected.
To my fellow readers: Ignatio in all likelihood attends an SSPX Chapel, since he repeats many of the same arguments that other SSPX anti-sede apologists offer for their position.
It is to be noted that the SSPX does not permit their priests to get too deep into the anti-sede controversy, and instead “farm it out” to lay people like Salza and Siscoe who have NO FORMAL THEOLOGICAL TRAINING. Their “analysis” is continually changing as their errors are exposed; they make claims about the current situation that are not supported by Catholic teaching (e.g., sede-vacantists are heretics like protestants); and they frequently engage in ad hominem attacks against their opponents.
It is my opinion and suspicion that the SSPX maintains an unstated prudential reason – e.g., for the good of the faithful – that they believe justify them for behaving in this manner. If they have no such prudential reason, the Society is merely acting in a self-serving manner and using underhanded means to compete for limited traditional funds against other organizations who hold differing views of the current situation. It is also my opinion that no prudential reason justifies the behavior of the SSPX because their designated apologists often get a great many things wrong, and even advocate heretical positions on occasion. Thus their amateur apologists are often a great danger to the faithful.
As an example of how dishonest a person like Ignatio can be (assuming he, in fact, is acting on behalf of the SSPX) he accuses sede-vacantists of being schismatics for not allowing themselves to be governed by Rome and Pope Francis.
In view of the criticism leveled against sedevacantists by SSPX apologists like Ignatio, one would think that the SSPX submits to being governed by Rome and Pope Francis. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The Society selects their own bishops! The Society runs its own marriage tribunals!
Here is a citation to an explanation why the SSPX runs its own marriage tribunals:
Read this document. The document analyzes a new definition of marriage set forth in the new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The SSPX rejected this new definition, and holds to the definition set forth by the 1917 Code. Does this appear to be acceptance by the SSPX of governance by Rome and the Pope? Hardly!
Further, Ignatio here claims that the institutional Church has not defected. But this is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say (this quote appears in the article cited above):
“Inasmuch as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, and that their decision and the new law are as a whole influenced by these false principles, we must institute authorities to supply for these deficiencies, which faithfully adhere to the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic law. It is the only way to remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of the Faith, transmitted to their legitimate successors, who remained faithful until Vatican II.”
It certainly sounds like the founder of the SSPX thought the institutional Church has defected – after all he accuses the Roman authorities of being imbued with the heresies of ecumenism and modernism.
Notwithstanding this, Ignatio the likely SSPX hit man comes on here and claims with a straight face that the institutional Church has not defected! The founder of the SSPX where he likely attends mass suggested it has defected! Was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic too?
You are wrong Ignatio.
Paul VI was merely clarifying between solemn magisterium and ordinary universal magisterium. Furthermore, Paul VI states that Vatican II MUST be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the Faithful.
You, Sir, along with the other R&R folks are disobedient and do not submit to the teachings of your Pope. That is schismatic.
The link isn’t working. Google SSPX marriage tribunal and the open the link entitled “The Legitimacy and Status of Our Tribunals” to find the cited article.
2VT, therein lies the impossible conumdrum created by NO conservatives. If they assent they are heretics from the Catholic Faith and if they don’t they are schismatic/heretics from the conciliar faith. Either way they lose when it comes to dealing the conciliar church.
I’m finding this completely bizarre. This guy, apparently representing SSPX, claims that they are in union with Rome when they have proceeded as if Rome does not exist for going on half a century. Who can take this seriously?
This is a quote from SSPX News and Events: Can Cardinal Burke Say the Society of St. Pius X Is in Schism?
“On July 15, 2017, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Patron of the Order of Malta and former President of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, gave a conference in Medford, Oregon, in the United States. In answer to a question about the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), he answered that he believes this priestly society ‘is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.”
And their answer is a little longer than yes or no so here’s the link. This is union with Rome?
I would say that I doubt Bergoglio cares either way. Transcendental Meditation’s cool as well, so…if you believe he’s actually Pope I guess anything goes so whatever you want to do.
One more thing, credit where credit is due, Mr. Verrecchio already covered this last yr. https://akacatholic.com/breaking-cardinal-burke-slams-fsspx/
Here’s your Visible church.
“Where is the unity of faith?.—each priest teaches his own religion from the pulpit.
Each bishop is a pope in his own diocese.
The visibility of the N.O. church is ugly.”
Wow did you get that right 2Cents!
I just have to note one more thing. The SSPX article, that I referenced, takes the liberty of starting Burke’s quote after they state, “that he believes this priestly society ‘is in schism…” WHEN the actual quote from Burke is, “The, despite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.”
Maybe I’m a stickler for honesty but that’s playing a little fast and loose w/a quote for my tastes.
2Vt, in essence, Ignatio has picked the “I dont have to assent to V2 because it wasnt binding” excuse. As I said, those who defend the hierarchy have two bad choices. One, nothing changed (absurd), or two, it changed but I can reject it (absurd and heretical).
The demise of the N.O. fake church:
2Vermont: “You are wrong Ignatio. Paul VI was merely clarifying between solemn magisterium and ordinary universal magisterium.”
You sede-vacantist heretics all parrot the identical errors, just like the Protestants do. When Paul VI said Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority,” he was not “clarifying between solemn magisterium and ordinary universal Magisterium”. He was stating that Vatican II did not teach with infallible authority.
Only the definitive teaches of a council are infallible and ONLY THE DEFINITIVE TEACHINGS OF THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY ARE INFALLIBLE. A non-definitive Conciliar teaching does not become infallible just because the document in which it is contained was drawn up and approved by the bishops of the universal Church along with the pope (the universal and ordinary Magisterium). Do you sede-vacantist even think before repeating the errors you are taught?
2Vermont: “You, Sir, along with the other R&R folks are disobedient and do not submit to the teachings of your Pope. That is schismatic.”
This from a person who openly left the Church for a schismatic sect.
My2cents: “Dear Ignatio: In the N.O. church, there is neither unity of faith. unity of government, legitimate authority. nor the formal visibility that the true Church must possess. Where is the unity of faith?.—each priest teaches his own religion from the pulpit. Each bishop is a pope in his own diocese. The visibility of the N.O. church is ugly.”
Comment: The Catholic Church today, which you call the N.O. Church, has unity of faith in the same way the Church during the 4th century, at the time of the Arian crisis, had a unity of faith. The “N.O. Church” also possesses divine authority, all four marks, and formal visibility. If one lives their life focused on the problems and scandals in the Church, as do the sede-vacantist heretics, the material visibility will certainly look ugly, but that has nothing to do with the formal visibility
But if you believe “the N.O. Church” lacks the marks and visibility that the true Church must always possess, the burden lies on you to show where the visible Church with the four marks is today. Good luck!
The illness of sede-vacantism causes you to seek out and focus on the worst. Here’s an example of the material visibility of the Church today for those who have remained faithful. http://www.institute-christ-king.org/institute/latin-mass/
Yes, Ignatio, it is hard to find the visible Church thanks to the evil Modernist take over by the Novus Ordo “church”. Show me where the N.O. “church” possesses the four marks of the True Church without running for cover under the various institutes which celebrate the TLM. Find it in the “ordinary” dioceses and parishes. Good Luck!!
This entire mini-thread perfectly demonstrates the inevitable outcome of radical Tradtionalism as is exists today. SSPX is step one. In seemingly increasing numbers, the true fanatics quickly pass through this stage and turn on their former Latin Mass haven. This leads to SSPV, other splinter groups, broad denials of the Church and Popes’ authority and even existence, paranoia reinforced by questionable apparitions and writings, and the adoption of a unique vernacular (“Novus Ordo Sect,” “conciliar Church,” “conciliar Popes,” “new man made faith” and when met with disagreement, the refutation that it must be an “ad hominem attack.”) This is cult-like groupthink.
The reason no leader (antipope?) has emerged is precisely what Karl Keating said. There is no way to please everyone in this kind of crowd, and it will splinter itself down to individual members, each of whom sincerely believes that they are the last true Catholic. In that sense, perhaps “Catholic Nihilism” would be a more suitable name than “Home Alone”.
How right you are concerning “material visibility”, the “Daughters of Trent” are also highly representative of the Novus Ordo Church:
“The Institute of Christ the King, an international order of traditional Catholic priests loyal to Rome, suffered the scandal of its North American superior, Fr. Timothy Svea, being sentenced to 18-months in jail for tying a 16-year-old boy to his bedpost in the interest of sex games.
Svea, the U.S. Superior of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest Order, pleaded guilty 2/02 to exposing himself to and molesting teenage boys. Sentenced to 1.5 years jail. 20 year probation. Cardinal Burke brought Svea and his group to La Crosse to run a parish. Last known to be living in Marathon Co. Wisconsin. On WI Sex Offender Registry 2/5/12. La Crosse.”
2 Cents, the expression of the woman at extreme left says it all.
“What the hell kind of religion is this?”
It is imploding because of its internal contradictions (lies) and will collapse in its apostasy. A very conflicted “peritus” named Ratzinger contemplated as much back in 1969:
“And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”
The day will come when a true Pope occupies of the Chair of Peter and he will toss V2 overboard because it was nothing but a sorry mess of modernism and anyone who lived through it is long gone. On Sundays I have a smile a mile wide every time I look at all those beautiful little “trad” babies who will never know about or give a rat about “discernment”, “accompaniment” or “ecumenicalism.” You cannot miss and mourn what you never knew was lost.
The “Love Simon” poster in the back is a nice touch too!
That’s the whole point, sweep. It isn’t a religion. It’s a Masonic scheme to destroy religion.
Lol, I took a double take on that too LennyB but I don’t think it’s a poster. It looks like a selection on a main menu of Netflix or something like that.
To destroy the One, True Faith through a Doppelgänger stratagem.
Ignoratio: Only the definitive teaches of a council are infallible and ONLY THE DEFINITIVE TEACHINGS OF THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY ARE INFALLIBLE.
Comment: Of the fifteen official documents of the Second Vatican Council how many have the words Constitution and/or Dogmatic in their titles? How many are entitled as “declarations” or “decrees”?
Since you are fixated on alleging “ignorance” among other commenters you own it to yourself to know how your use of “definitive” stacks up against “Dogmatic Constitution” and “Ecumenical Decree.”
Ignatio is wrong again. Here are Paul VI’s actual words:
“There are those who ask themselves what the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the Council’s declaration of 6 March 1964, repeated on 16 November 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, IT AVOIDED PRONOUNCING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY WAY dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; BUT IT HAS NEVERTHELESS FURNISHED ITS TEACHINGS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, WHICH ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium MUST BE RECEIVED DOCILELY AND SINCERELY BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and purposes of the individual documents.”
Supremem Oridnary Magisterium= Universal Ordinary Magisterium = infallible.
Ignatio believes that Vatican II was promulgated to the Universal Church by a true pope and professed and taught to the Universal Church by true popes; therefore he must be obedient and submit to their teachings. Because he does not, he is in schism.
“A [general] council’s decrees APPROVED BY THE POPE ARE INFALLIBLE by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The DIVINE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, GUARANTEE HER INERRANCY, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; … The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature.” – Catholic Encyclopedia
Contrary to Ignatio’s heretical assertions, an ecumenical council stamped with the approval of a true pope can not promulgate ERRORS in matters of faith and morals.
Apples and Oranges again. The Arian heresy was adhered to by individual bishops. It was not promulgated and taught as Catholic teaching to the Universal Church by all of the world’s bishops and popes.
Ignatio, have you not been paying attention? That is the most absurd thing I have ever read. Now you are swinging back to the first option which is to say nothing has changed. Well that position is so absurd that its hard to know where to begin. If you really truly believe that the faith prior to v2 is the same as the faith taught now, well there really is no talking to you. You do have one more option to consider. Its not absurd but it is heretical. That is the modernist option that the Church had to change to remain relevant to society. So if nothing has really changed except scandal please explain the current Church teaching on EENS.
Catholic nihilism….excellent, it describes gay friendly, feminist, protestantizing Aggiornamento in a nutshell. Except there is perfect unity there….perfect unity into institutionalized apostasy. No thanks, you van count me out. Good luck with the new religion.
It lacks all Four Marks of the Catholic Church, so as a radical ecclesial revolution spawned by wicked men in the 1960’s, it cannot be on face value the True Church.
Damon Linker, in an article in “The Week”, entitled “Pope Francis’ Cunning Long Game”, May 23, 2018, has him pegged correctly.
“But I think the pope’s strategy for a longer game displays greater psychological acuity — and Machiavellian cunning. Francis may be betting that once the church stops preaching those doctrines that conflict most severely with modern moral norms, the number of people who uphold and revere them will decline rapidly (within a generation or two). Once that has happened, officially changing the doctrine will be much easier and much less likely to provoke a schism (or at least a major one) than it is in the present.
That’s the great advantage of pursuing a strategy of stealth reform: The seed planted now with a minimum of conflict bears fruits in the future with even less.
It’s never been more obvious that this is precisely what Pope Francis has in mind.”
Conclusion: errors of Russia are still spreading.