As mentioned in a previous post, there exist any number of magisterial texts offering clear, unambiguous instruction that, I must admit, seems to undermine the way in which most so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) view the post-conciliar crisis in the papacy. Here, as promised, I will provide some examples.
Before digging in, I’d like to offer a brief word of encouragement…
All glory and honor to God, my goal with this blog has always been simple: To seek the truth about what it means to think and feel with the Church and, once it is found, to embrace it, defend it and disseminate it – even if doing so costs me followers, friends and finances, which it usually does.
If you share this primacy of truth mindset, take a moment before reading further to thank God for granting you that grace.
If, on the other hand, you’re the type of person who finds it extremely difficult to admit errors in matters of faith, even when confronted with evidence that your long held views and opinions have been off the mark (something that has happened to every single one of us at some point or another), take a moment to pray for the humility to conform your intellect and will to the mind of Holy Mother Church, our only safe haven.
The common traditionalist view of the conciliar popes, the one I have taken for years on end now, largely consists of the idea that the faithful can, and indeed must, reject whatever a pope may teach that is tantamount to a denial of, or even casts doubt upon, what had consistently been taught by previous popes. In other words, we are dutybound to reject such novelties, otherwise, we stand to lose our faith.
Part and parcel of this approach is the understanding that the only papal teachings that demand our obedience are those that either pertain to matters properly dogmatic, or those that amount to a faithful repetition of what has always been taught, albeit perhaps in a different style or language.
The challenge in carrying out this approach is figuring out which papal teachings are which; that is, one must carefully decipher and weigh everything that comes out of Rome in order to determine whether it must be embraced or rejected.
As I pointed out in a post some months ago, this mindset is utterly foreign to authentic (read, traditional) Catholic life inasmuch as the faithful are compelled to act, in a sense, as their own rule of faith.
One can argue all day long that we are simply placing our trust in what the Church has always taught, but, ultimately, we are still counting on ourselves to determine what Catholic teaching truly is relative to whatever the current pope might propose. That, my friends, is precisely what it means to act as one’s own rule of faith, and it’s the reason why sincere traditionalists so often end up disagreeing with one another.
One thing about which all of us can agree, however, is that when simple lay faithful find themselves shouldering the burden of determining which papal teachings demand rejection, something is terribly wrong. The question we must ask is what is wrong?
The stock traditional answer – the one I have been gladly giving to anyone who will listen – is that we have been subject to an unprecedented series of bad Roman Pontiffs over the last sixty or so years, popes so doctrinally undependable that we have been put in the equally unprecedented position of having to sift through their teachings to figure out what merits our obedience and what doesn’t.
The problem, as we will see shortly, is that this answer is about as far from tradition as one can get. In other words, nothing in Catholic tradition even comes close to supporting this approach to the Roman Pontiff; in fact, there is much in Catholic tradition that plainly condemns it!
So, what does Catholic tradition actually have to say?
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae 24)
Get that? It must not be supposed that we are free to ignore, resist or otherwise reject any exercise of papal authority simply because it doesn’t concern matters infallible.
For example, consider the so-called canonizations of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Traditional commentators have gone to great lengths to make the case that canonizations are not infallible, and the reason is simple. If they are not infallible, we are – according to the common traditional approach – free to deny or otherwise reject them.
One small problem, however; authentic Catholic tradition would seem to suggest that their relative infallibility doesn’t matter one way or the other. Specifically, if the citation from Sapientiae Christianae above is to be taken seriously, we must conclude that since canonizations are an exercise of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that we are free to reject them.
Yes, one might insist, but even though we cannot resist the pope while resting on the excuse that what he proposed is not infallible, surely we are not called to hold, much less openly profess, those things coming from a pope that are reasonably considered opinion!
Cardinal Burke is famous for drawing distinctions between Jorge Bergoglio’s private opinions and that which constitutes a genuine exercise of papal authority. I get it. The theory is that while we must hold fast to papal teaching even when it does not concern dogma, as Pope Leo XIII states above, we are free to reject papal opinion.
This sounds great, but Catholic tradition instructs us otherwise:
As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei41)
Think long and hard about this. Who among us is willing to firmly grasp in mind and openly profess the blather vomited from the mouth of Francis on a near daily basis? For that matter, who among us is willing to firmly grasp in mind and openly profess the blasphemous heresies in Amoris Laetitia – a formal papal decree?
The answer in both cases is clear, we cannot grasp and profess such things, not if we wish to think and feel with the Church. And yet, unless Pope Leo XIII totally missed the mark in teaching us what sensus Catholicus means vis-à-vis the teachings, and even the opinions, of the pope, we must do so.
This is a difficult reality to face, so much so that some will even go so far in trying to avoid what tradition has to say about our duty toward the pope that they will insist that Amoris Laetitia isn’t really teaching (i.e., authentic magisterium), and this even though its author insists that it is.
Yes, one may object, but what about Aquinas’ teaching about resisting a pope?
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if they should stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’” (ST II-II, q.33, a.4).
This citation has gotten a lot of play since Francis arrived on the scene, and for obvious reasons; it is commonly used to justify, and to encourage, precisely what Pope Leo XIII insisted we must not do. We’ll address this specific quote from Aquinas momentarily. For now, let us ask:
In the presence of what appears to be a contradiction between two dependable teachers of the true faith, how are we to behave?
Simple, we are often told, hold fast to the traditional teaching, and reject the novelty!
For example, pretty much all of the most celebrated Catholic voices, both traditional and conservative, have been insisting that we must hold fast to what John Paul II taught in Familiaris Consortio, over and against what Francis taught in Amoris Laetitia, the former being the better informed.
On this blog, I have insisted that we must embrace what is taught in Casti Connubii, over and against what is found in Humanae Vitae, as surely Pope Pius XI was better informed than Paul VI.
That’s traditional, right? Well, as much as I hate to admit it, not so much. Once more, we’ll turn to Pope Leo XIII:
Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua)
With regard to the apparent discrepancy between Pope Leo XIII and Aquinas, note that the latter is speaking not of a pope who plainly teaches a false doctrine, he is speaking of those prelates whose behavior poses an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith. No less than twice in this brief treatment does Aquinas underscore this point by citing St. Paul’s confrontation with St. Peter, whose behavior he questioned publicly.
Questioning a pope’s behavior is a far cry from rejecting, refusing or otherwise resisting papal teaching.
But we’ve had bad popes before!
Much could be said about what are often cited as examples of papal errors past (e.g., on the part of Liberius, Honorius, John XXII), as if they compare to our present crisis. The simple fact is that they do not compare; they are but apples and oranges, and have been dealt with here in the past.
Yes, I know, the citations from the magisterium of Pope Leo XIII offered above, when considered in light of the common approach to the post-conciliar popes taken by nearly all traditionalists, are enough to make one squirm. Believe me, I take little delight in them. They stand as an indictment of practically every page on this blog, an indictment issued not by some other blogger, but by a Holy Roman Pontiff of most blessed memory!
On the other hand, I thank God for compelling me to go through this painful exercise.
Let us pray for one another, that we may be given the grace and humility to desire nothing more than to know and to be, to think and to feel, in a way that is truly Catholic.
“All glory and honor to God, my goal with this blog has always been simple: To seek the truth about what it means to think and feel with the Church and, once it is found, to embrace it, defend it and disseminate it – even if doing so costs me followers, friends and finances, which it usually does.”
The very fact that you’ve been down this road before lends to your credibility and sincerity.
Venerable Pope Pius IX:
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
St. Athanasius († 373):
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Catholics)
St. Vincent of Lerins († 445):
“What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.” (Commonitory)
The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534) declared: “It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio)
The theologian, Francisco Suarez S.J. († 1617), said likewise: “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
The Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. († 1621), wrote a treatise on the Papacy which was used as a basis for the definition of the limits of papal infallibility which was made at Vatican I. He wrote as follows:
“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, MAKE KNOWN SOME NEW DOCTRINE, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (6., Pastor Aeternus)
If sede position is the correct one, why could we not have the pope elected by the few remaining members of the hierarchy to end the crisis on all fronts? And that is in 61 years and counting… Think about that for a second.
“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have PERPETUAL successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5)
How long of a gap can we have in dogmatic proclamation of PERPETUAL?
Definition of perpetual is never ending.
29 November 1268 –1 Sep 1271 (2 years, 275 days). That was the longest period we have not had the pope in Church’s history. And only due to the deadlock in voting by the cardinals. So they have kept on trying to elect one in that period…And now 61 years.
Why no Heavenly warnings that we were to go without the pope for so long?
If many Church Fathers state that only thing that withholds the Antichrist is the papacy, why did he not arrive already?
Why does Our Lady of Fatima speak of pope as well as well as the bishop in white? Sedes will be quick to point you can not rely on private revelation. And some do even reject Fatima due to this.
How can we get out of this position if sedes are correct? How can the new pope ever be elected?
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” Tit. 3,10
Where was the warning in 1958? Where was any warning to the material heretic Pontiff in the last 60 years by any of the bishops?
And for the record, I do not think Bergoglio is the pope…
I attended the New Order until Amoris Laetitia. I no longer believe that we have had a Pope since Pope Pius XII but I share every question that Memento Mori 2 asks above. We have a real problem here. I’ve questioned my own faith for lack of sensible answer but in the end I trust God and I think we need to do something. Like take back the Vatican in Rome and install a Pope. These men occupying at present are not just impersonating Church hierarchy; as Ann Barnhardt points out there may be reason to investigate them and prosecute them for all sorts of unspeakable organized crime. Law enforcement is not something we typically leave to the Angels above to work out.
The quotes from Pope Leo XIII provided by Louie in his article, conflict with the quotes you provided above from authoritative predecessors. Catholics can freely reject any claims, from whatever source, even a pope, when they conflict with established teaching.
Memento Mori 2: “Venerable Pope Pius IX: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)”
Can you provide a source for this?
As for the other quotes you provide, they do not seem to be dealing with popes teaching error/heresy to the universal church; therefore, they are not relevant.
Memento, you have cherry picked a couple quotes, mostly from pre Vatican 1 theologians. None of which actually says a Pope can be an heretic. Only, if. The topic was debated for centuries but with Pastor Aeternus, the issue was pretty much settled once and for all. The Pope cannot be an heretic. Try reading something other than True or False Pope.
The Pope cannot be a heretic, but can a heretic be a Pope? I know it’s a silly question, but I couldn’t help myself. Happy Thanksgiving all.
“Perpetual….IN THE PRIMACY…” Therein lies the key:in the PRIMACY; that changes things a bit. According to 2 Thess ch 2 something is taken out of the way, and that is the Papacy, just as the FM’s always stated they planned to do (take it over, however, they didn’t REALLY…)
You’re starting to get it Louie. The *only* answer that makes sense is that God Himself is exactly like the Popes He willed.
It always helps to remember that most trads are awful people. Like 300 pound women lecturing others about sexual sins and when called on their blatant hypocrisy will shout, “that’s different! I have a slow metabolism” or some such other nonsense.
What phrase best describes a Trad? “Misery loves company”.
Do you have anything edifying that you’d actually like to contribute?
I am. Wouldn’t you like to know in advance if you are one of those “Catholics” Our Lord is referring to in Matthew 7:21-23?
For the record, it was not St. Peter that was corrected by St. Paul. It was Cephas, a different person. This “Cephas” position has been around since the early centuries of the Church. Peter Dimond (it doesn’t matter what you think of him) has done a definitive scriptural study to prove this is the true explanation. And yes, sometimes even great scholarly Saints such as Thomas Aquinas can be wrong. Watch the video on the subject and you’ll be convinced.
This idea of resisting a true Pope only applies if he is doing something harmful, like stealing your wallet. It is always safe to follow the true Pope in his doctrine.
Therefore the false traditionalists are wrong when consider a man a true Pope and yet resist him.
Per Haydock’s Catholic Commentary on Galatians:
“Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c. In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and ver. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages[centuries], except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apocryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age[century], and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age[century], in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. St. Jerome indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time St. Jerome ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of St. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas. In later ages, of Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but St. Peter.”
So on one hand, we have Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pope Pelagius II, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Baronius, Cornelius a Lapide, and numerous others who attest that the Cephas resisted by St. Paul was none other than St. Peter himself.
On the other hand, we have Peter Dimond who says that Cephas was actually someone else.
I think I’m going to stick with the Church Fathers on this one.
Dear A Simple Man,
Thank you for your scholarly response. The Early Church Fathers, when in unanimity, on the interpretation of the Holy Writ, and as the Holy Magisterium commands, are inerrant, requiring thus the assent of faith, at the pain of Hell. They also taught in unanimity, that the prophet Daniel prophesied the failure of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, gone thus from the face of the earth without distinction and as thus without exception, and further that this would be the very time of Antichrist, thus the efficient cause of same. Amen. In caritas.
A point of clarity, which is as you will see of utter import, in your interpretation of Immortali dei 41, as again copied and pasted here, along with 42 and the first sentence of 43, for the proper contextual understanding:
41. If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behooves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action. As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.
42. Especially with reference to the so-called “liberties” which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore. If there really exist anywhere, or if we in imagination conceive, a State, waging wanton and tyrannical war against Christianity, and if we compare with it the modern form of government just described, this latter may seem the more endurable of the two. Yet, undoubtedly, the principles on which such a government is grounded are, as We have said, of a nature which no one can approve.
43. Secondly, action may relate to private and domestic matters, or to matters public.
A careful contextual read, makes it clear that the Vicar of Christ is not speaking of Papal opinion there, rather the, “opinion”, is that of the faithful. Look to this statement that prepares for the next, which is the statement of not only the duty of, “opinion”, but also of, “action”, as found again here:
41. If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behooves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action.
You see, the Holy Father commands that, “If….Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behooves them to do, they [the Catholic faithful] will readily see what are the duties of each one [of the Catholic faithful] in matters of opinion [that of the laity not the Pontiff] as well as action [of the lay faithful again].
What he’s actually teaching and commanding there, is that the lay faithful must divorce themselves of their own personal opinions and then must submit to the Authoritative teaching of Peter in his Successors. That’s part of the reason this distinction is of such great import.
In the second and last sentence of 41, he commands thus:
” As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.
And now again with insert: “As regards opinion [as held by the Catholic faithful], whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind [by the Catholic faithful], and, so often as occasion requires [like here in the comment section of your blog], must be openly professed.”
For even greater affirmation, now read the first three sentences of 42, where the Holy Roman Pontiff gives a prime example of opinion held by many, as in error:
“42. Especially with reference to the so-called “liberties” which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore.”
He’s teaching Authoritatively there that these false opinions must be abandoned by the faithful as, “…the so-called, ‘ “liberties” ‘ which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind.”
He then commands that, “Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties,…”. He finishes this part then with this:
” Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore.”
Speaking of, “evil fruit”, as that, “…which the good and wise bitterly deplore.”
To finish the proper contextual understanding then, find here included the first sentence of 43, where he begins to speak of the, “action”, required by faithful Catholics: “43. Secondly, action may relate to private and domestic matters, or to matters public.”
Lastly now then, the greatest reason for this point of clarity, is the, “reality as it is”, truth thus, that the Vicar of Christ Jesus CANNOT, “teach and command”, “opinion”, rather he can only teach and command, Truth, which as the Angelic Doctor taught simply is, “reality as it is”, in contradistinction to how each miserable human person may be deceived into believing, “what”, it is, when truth simply is, “as”, it is. Amen. The scholastic understanding of, “opinion”, is that idea which from its very essence contains, “doubt”, and Truth cannot contain doubt, as doubt is contradictory to Truth, thus the Vicar of Christ cannot teach opinion, as he would then teach doubt, which is opposed to truth. Every iota of everything in the Holy Magisterium is either positively infallible or it carries the Charism of so called, “negative infallibility”, as does governance and discipline. If that were not true, then we would indeed be subject to error and sifting and sorting once again and then God would have deceived us, as I shutter in filial fear even writing those words. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray this helps. In caritas.
Louie: You wrote “One small problem, however; authentic Catholic tradition would seem to suggest…”
Authentic Catholic tradition does not suggest, nor “seem” to suggest. If that were true, it would not be authentic but mere opinion.
Our Lord gave us our primary tool on how to discern:
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
Saint Paul also said
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!..
Saint Paul lamented this was already happening in 1 Cor 11 also..
So the burden is still on individual Catholics to discern..that is the freedom afforded to us by Jesus Christ Himself…we are not a mindless cult. Stop treating Popes as if they are God’s little mouthpieces.
Good Thursday morning mpoulin,
You were correct unto your final sentence which is false, as you wrote this:
” Stop treating Popes as if they are God’s little mouthpieces.” You blaspheme Christ in that statement, as you blaspheme His true Vicars and the Holy Magisterium thus. I pray you do not intend such. The true as Holy Roman Pontiff was indeed, to use the profane vernacular, “God’s mouthpiece”, beyond any shadow, of any iota, of any doubt. Amen. Alleluia. You are correct about the, “freedom”, which Almighty God in His infinite mercy and beatitude gave us to choose Him in utter spite of this most wretched world. Amen. Finally, as the true Church has always taught, and as in perfect contradistinction to the apostate, “protestant” sect, it is with apodictic certitude that we do not achieve the Beatific Vision by faith alone, rather by faith coupled as implacably with proper reason, as the two, in truth, cannot be separate as they cannot be in any iota disparate. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Good Thursday morning Katherine,
Indeed what you write is true, in the understanding of the Angelic Doctor. “Truth”, in utter contradistinction to, “opinion”, is the intellect perfectly conforming to, “the reality as it is”, while at once and with apodictic certitude, it is NOT, the intellect conforming to, “the reality with any iota of doubt”, as this latter part is mere human, “opinion”. Amen. May Almighty God bless you. In caritas.
That discernment you advocate logically leads to only two conclusions. If the Pope teaches on faith or morals, I either assent to his teachings or I reject the teaching and thus separate from union with the man who claims to be Pope. There is no middle R&R way. So yes, by all means discern and look at the fruits. If the fruits are bad, it CANNOT come from Holy Mother Church. It would be blasphemy to assign the poisonous modernist errors and consequences of V2 and the NO to the Spotless Bride of Christ. That is why R&Rers anger me. They, more than the modernist apostates defile the purity of Holy Mother Church by claiming our Mother the Church feeds her children with bile and filth. There can be no way the NO V2 sect is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And before you challenge this conclusion with questions to deflect attention regarding visibility, let me save you some time. I don’t know. I have no clue what happened, why it happened, when or if it will end, or how it will end. I simply know the V2 NO sect is not Catholic. My only advise to all others who are concerned about this situation is that since the NO V2 sect is not Catholic, have nothing to do with the NO V2 sect.
You forgot one.
Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness 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.”
The Church doesn’t teach that a Pope cannot be a heretic, nor does it teach that a heretic cannot be Pope.
“It always helps to remember that most trads are awful people. ”
Ganganelli, how right you are. My pagan , infidel, Novus Ordo and Protestant friends are far better than any of my trad friends. As a whole, traditional Catholics are the worst group of people I have ever encountered, and the sedes are by far the worst of the trads. They are the true scum of the earth. But anyone who reads this blog is already aware of that.
“For the record, it was not St. Peter that was corrected by St. Paul. It was Cephas, a different person.”
Rand, you keep repeating that as if it is the gospel truth simply because the Dimond Brothers found a quote or two that supports it. But there are countless other quotes that say Cephas and Peter are one and the same. That is by far the prevalent view.
But Tom, your statement itself is a rejection of a papal teaching.
Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness 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.”
Sedevacantist’s have an entirely false understanding of the papacy and obedience, and are unable to make distinctions between the difference levels of magisterial teaching, and the corresponding levels of assent that Catholics owe them.
You should listen to the series of sermons by Fr. Ripperger on the Church, beginning with this one:
If one deviates from the Catholic faith, then they become a non-Catholic; as such, if such a Roman Pontiff did deviate from the faith (and was found out, as Pope Paul IV states; in other words, he refers to a deviation that is not occult or secret) then they would depose themselves from Chair of Peter ipso facto.
This is the same sense in which St. Robert Bellarmine explained it in “De Romano Pontifice”, that any such public act of heresy, schism, or apostasy would result in an automatic loss of authority. It is only at that point, having been judged by divine law, that the punishments of ecclesial law can be applied to the former Pope.
The sense you seem to be taking from that excerpt is that we should continue to acknowledge a non-Catholic as the Pope, which is a contradiction in terms. As such, since your conclusion leads to a contradiction, your interpretation is flawed.
” 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.”
The fact that the Pope has deviated from the faith is proof that he isn’t the Pope. All the discussions by theologians about the loss of Papal office through heresy, concern the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person. None admitted that the Pope in the function of his office as the ruler and teacher of the Church could lead the Church into error or corruption; thus would be protected by the Holy Ghost. The Conciliar Popes have led the whole Church into error by their false doctrine; and corruption by their evil discipline; therefore they cannot be true Popes.
You and Ripperger apparently use the same strawman regarding how sedevacantists come to their conclusions. Infallibility is not the criterion utilized in terms of assent; rather, assent is based on the Church’s divine commission to teach. A more thorough response to this line of thinking is here: https://novusordowatch.org/2015/08/true-vincentian-canon/
Furthermore, Ripperger’s quoting of Paul VI about V2’s lack of “extraordinary” authority in no way removes the obligation of Catholics to assent to it (if it had been truly from the Church), for it clearly met the criteria to be an exercise of the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium: https://romeward.com/articles/239752967/did-vatican-ii-teach-infallibly
And of course, A Simple Man,
So called, “Father”, Ripperger is no more a sacerdotal minister of Holy Mother Church than you or I, and we must know this with apodictic certitude. Anyone who denies that, simply cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith, as that is a rejection of the Authoritative teaching in, “Cum Ex….”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, and “Satis Cognitum”, for a wonderful beginning. Amen. The poor miscreant fool, as so called, “FormerSede”, as that is what he is in the objective witness, as he continues to parlay his obstinate error, as time and time and time and yet again. What he remains ever perfectly blinded to, is the Authoritative as infallible teaching of the Vatican Council, in its Fourth and Final Session, 18 July, 1870. Pope Paul IV was not in error and of course, as he could not ever be, with the apodictic certitude of divine and Catholic Faith, when he wrote this in, “Cum Ex…”:
“…may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”
“…if he be found”, as this was his query, as the Vicar of Christ, in the time before the divine Magisterium had defined precisely that Peter in his Successors were given the “divine gifts” of, “truth and never failing faith”, Amen, Alleluia. The True, the Beautiful, and the Good, simple are. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
“All the discussions by theologians about the loss of Papal office through heresy, concern the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person.” ~ Michael Wilson.
Of course, but the pope was considered to be teaching as a private person when he wasn’t defining a doctrine, ex cathedra. Teaching emanating from what is now called the authentic papal magisterium, were considered to be the teaching of a pope as a private person. See here, page 197: https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_612_AX-English.pdf
“None admitted that the Pope in the function of his office as the ruler and teacher of the Church could lead the Church into error or corruption; thus would be protected by the Holy Ghost.” ~ Michael Wilson
The only thing the Holy Ghost guarantees with respect to a Pope falling into heresy or teaching it, is that he will not err when defining a doctrine ex cathedra. All the talk about so-called “infallible safety” for teachings emanating from a pope’s authentic magisterium, which sedevacantists treat as a dogma, was nothing but an opinion invented out of the blue by Franzelin, and then adopted by a few other theologians, such as Billot and Fenton. It was never more than a minority opinion, and I doubt you can find any theologian today who accepts it.
With respect Tom, Our Blessed Lady of Fatima warned that ‘The Great Apostasy’ in the Church would “Begin at the top……” and SHE should know. As for feeling free to discount Fatima as a “take it leave it snippet” – dare I say we ignore and disrespect the Mother of God at our peril. God be with all here.
You utterly obstinate as miscreant fool, so called, “FormerSede”,
You no more hold the divine and Catholic Faith than a beast, as a dog. You demonstrate the darkened intellect of an imbecilic fool, the likes of which is so implacably darkened, as naturally understood, that you cannot possibly begin to glimpse in comprehension just how utterly foolish you are, you blasphemous as sacrilegious imbecile.
You opine this, you miserable miscreant fool:
“The only thing the Holy Ghost guarantees with respect to a Pope falling into heresy or teaching it, is that he will not err when defining a doctrine ex cathedra. All the talk about so-called “infallible safety” for teachings emanating from a pope’s authentic magisterium, which sedevacantists treat as a dogma, was nothing but an opinion invented out of the blue by Franzelin, and then adopted by a few other theologians, such as Billot and Fenton.”
And now, for all those who zeal for Truth, read now as copied and pasted from the Holy Ecumenical, as The ONLY Vatican Council (Fourth Session), in its Authoritative, thus binding all with the assent of Faith, at the pain of Hell, all those human persons who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith, within the operations of their intellects and wills as freely:
“6.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren  .
7.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.
You utterly miscreant as miserable non-Catholic fool, know this well, as again here edified for all those who zeal for Truth:
The Vicars of Christ, that, “…they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
“Religiously guard and faithfully expound the REVELATION OR DEPOSIT OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES…”
You miserable imbecile, what is it that you don’t, as a properly catechized 10 year old would, understand of this Authoritative command, binding with the assent of Faith and at the pain of Hell, as this:
“…Religiously guard and faithfully expound the REVELATION OR DEPOSIT OF FAITH…”?
“Religiously GUARD” and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of Faith…”, is as that which according to the non-Catholic fool, “FormerSede”, has not yet been, “defined as ex-Cathedra”. You sacrilegiously claim that only that which the Holy Roman Pontiff is about to define as, “exCathedra”, is all that he is given the protection of not committing error about when teaching or governing. How does one protect, as guard, that which they don’t yet have to protect or guard, you imbecilic moron? The Council there Authoritatively commands that ANYTHING AS EVERYTHING that has already been expounded, as then already contained within the Deposit of Faith, which is the Holy as divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, is protected by the Holy Ghost as within the Gifts of, “truth and never-failing faith”, that each of the Vicars of Christ, in the Succession of Blessed Peter, his mind, have been given. Deny this Authoritative teaching as you do, time and time and time, and now yet again, and you prove within the objective realm truth, that you simply CANNOT HOLD THE DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH, rather you miserable miscreant, you only pose as Catholic, as you hold NOTHING BUT ERROR AS CONTRADICTION. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that this admonishment, as properly given by one who actually holds the divine and Catholic Faith, as to the other who holds utter error in contradiction, which is true Catholic duty, touches your darkened intellect and will, by the grace of God alone. Amen. In caritas.
I don’t understand Louie’s reading of Aquinas:
Aquinas is “speaking not of a pope who plainly teaches a false doctrine, he is speaking of those prelates whose behavior poses an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith. No less than twice in this brief treatment does Aquinas underscore this point by citing St. Paul’s confrontation with St. Peter, whose behavior he questioned publicly.”
Yet St. Peter was Pope, which shows that Aquinas’s use of the Latin praelati at II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2 does in fact extend to popes. If it doesn’t, then Aquinas’s example is about the worst he could give to illustrate his point. (Maybe I’m missing something?)
“he only thing the Holy Ghost guarantees with respect to a Pope falling into heresy or teaching it, is that he will not err when defining a doctrine ex cathedra. All the talk about so-called “infallible safety” for teachings emanating from a pope’s authentic magisterium, which sedevacantists treat as a dogma, was nothing but an opinion invented out of the blue by Franzelin, and then adopted by a few other theologians, such as Billot and Fenton. It was never more than a minority opinion, and I doubt you can find any theologian today who accepts it.
But the Pope acts as Pope not only when he teaches “ex-Cathedra” but when he teaches as Pope even in his ordinary magisterium; Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis that H.G. #20: Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Pius IX condemned as erroneous the opinion of that Catholics are only bound to accept those doctrines proclaimed by her infallible magisteium; Pius IX
“Dz 1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church….Dz 1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
So Pius IX and Pius XII condemn the very opinion that you have expressed; that Catholics are only bound to accept those teachings that are issued by the solemn and infallible magisterium of the Church.
In your reply to A Simple Man, you wrote, “They also taught in unanimity, that the prophet Daniel prophesied the failure of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, gone thus from the face of the earth without distinction and as thus without exception, and further that this would be the very time of Antichrist, thus the efficient cause of same.“Is there more that you can add about teachings of the antichrist, especially more from Daniel’s prophecies? When False Francis commits another sacrilege or blasphemy, i have been re-reading our Apostle Paul’s epistle about the coming of the lawless one.
Along with F.F. blatantly opposing our Savior Jesus, i remember him stating: you have come to the end of the world to find me. (Seems to me, he was playing with words, the fact that he was from Argentina.)
False Francis also joked to the false bishops who made him their leader: May God forgive you for what you have done.
It is difficult to write as much as i would like to, this thing is a hunt and peck ipad.
Jesus bless you, thank you, Joseph
you read Louie’s response too quickly, he isn’t saying that St. Thomas isn’t speaking of a Pope, but that St. St. Thomas isn’t speaking of a Pope teaching error; but of a Pope or a prelate whose “behavior” is scandalous.
Here is the phrase in question: With regard to the apparent discrepancy between Pope Leo XIII and Aquinas, note that the latter is speaking not of a [B]pope who plainly teaches a false doctrine, he is speaking of those prelates whose behavior poses an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith.[/B] No less than twice in this brief treatment does Aquinas underscore this point by citing St. Paul’s confrontation with St. Peter, whose behavior he questioned publicly.
Questioning a pope’s behavior is a far cry from rejecting, refusing or otherwise resisting papal teaching.
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. Because of the change in terminology in the sentence, it seemed to me Louie’s main distinction was between ‘pope’ and ‘prelates’. I’m still having a hard time understanding his point, however.
If I understand him, he’s distinguishing between:
(A) those “whose behavior poses an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith”
(B) one “who plainly teaches a false doctrine”
The distinction, if I’m understanding Louie, strikes me as a false one, since B exemplifies A. It also strikes me as problematic because both A and B, not A alone, would seem to exemplify Aquinas’s own words, which are quite broad and indeterminate. He speaks, for example, of Paul’s cause consisting in what he perceived to be an “imminent danger of scandal concerning faith.”
Why do these words have to be restricted to scandalous behavior, as contradistinguished from plainly teaching false doctrine? I don’t see the justification for that interpretation anywhere in the text.
So, in short: I’m not following Louie here because (1) the distinction itself seems false to me and, even if it is a valid distinction, (2) I don’t see why Aquinas’s words are limited to just one of the things distinguished.
FormerSede: I am charitably rebuking you for calumny by calling some the true scum of the earth. This is not Christ-like nor a way a Catholic ought to speak about anyone, is it?
Dear Michael Wilson,
God be with you. Please be ever so careful in your descriptions of what the Holy Church has always know to be Her, divine and holy Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Period and end. Do not attempt to sort and divide anything as any one thing or everything, that has been both taught and invoked as commanded with governance and discipline, as from the Authoritative power of Blessed Peter in his Successors. Amen. EVERYTHING
as taught by and governed with the Authority of the Vicar of Christ, must be freely assented to, and by everyone as every human person without exception, and at the pain of Hell, who has ever lived since the institution of Holy Church by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Amen. The, “dogmatic definition”, is that much more rare occasion which the Vicars of Christ have caused truth to be better understood, by virtue of its definition proffered infallibly, within the Holy and divine Magisterium. Remember, it is not possible to have, “opinion”, contained within the Magisterium, and this can only be known as by the reception of the Divine and Catholic Faith. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that you are helped. In caritas.
Dear Joseph a Christian,
God be with you. You are intuitively receptive to the Freemasonic speech, as that which is “plainly hidden right before our eyes”, of the vile one, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio an emissary of Lucifer as his Prince, the first false pope, as one of the vicars of Antichrist, who is not even a sacerdotal minister, as an apostate to the Holy Faith; rather, he never received into his ontology the sacerdotal priesthood, as his was the false sacrament of order, given him by the religion of Antichrist, masquerading in its temporal manifestations only, as the Catholic Church. Amen.
Please obtain, for about $10.00, the book, “The Pope and the Antichrist”, which is the compilation of the 4 lectures given by a true Shepherd of the Church, as established by the Son of God made true Man, one Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, during Easter Season, 1861. As he was a true Bishop in union with his true Pope, he could not err in his teaching on the Faith, as these four sermons are. Amen. Alleluia. They are a most precious Gift from the divine Providence of the One Who simply Is, as we are not.
You speak of 2 Thess 2, which in the Church’s pious belief, is the Apostle’s interpretation of the prophetic warning of the prophet Daniel. “…Such that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way…”. Then, the very next thing the Apostle writes, as occurring consequent to the loss of this man who holdeth, as from the earth, is Satan in all his power and lying wonders as deception, bringing forth the, “man of sin”, as the, “son of perdition”. Amen. The Antichrist was the efficient cause of the loss of the Holy Sacrifice thus, as the false pope who could not offer it. The only was the world could lose the Holy Sacrifice was to first lose the Vicar of Christ, as this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. No Vicar of Christ in the world, no true as Holy Sacrifice to be found, as the contrary is also true, and as thus the Vicar had to first be, “taken out of the way”, before Antichrist could come into the world. This is the divine as Catholic Faith, as inerrantly taught by the Early Church Fathers in unanimity. Amen. Alleluia. I pray this helps you, by the grace of God alone, as in your reception. Amen. In caritas.
I think the distinction is valid when speaking of the Pope vs an ordinary bishop; the former cannot teach heresy, but can still be guilty of scandalous behavior, as in the case of St. Peter, who taught the right doctrine in which both Jews and gentiles were equal members of the Church; yet did not eat with the gentiles in order not to scandalize the Jewish Christians that still observed the distinctions of the Mosaic law.
Dear Michael Wilson,
Know with apodictic certitude that Holy Church has always taught, that while the Gifts of truth and never failing faith are Charisms uniquely immanent to Blessed Peter in his Successors, as they are both episcopal and immediate, the charism of infallibility (the Gift of truth thus) in teaching the Faith and Morality, flows from Blessed Peter to those Bishops in union with him, such that they also then cannot err in their teaching on Faith and Morality. This is the divine and Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation, deFide. Amen. God bless you. In caritas.
Memento Mori 2:
A couple of things…
With regards to that quote regarding the “Bishop of Brizen”, there is no “Brizen” that was the seat of a bishop. There was a “Brixen”, but the bishop at the time of Pius IX, Vincent Gasser, was a supporter of papal infallibility. It makes no sense that Pius IX would write a letter to such a bishop who, being a defender of papal infallibility, would entertain the thought that a future pope could teach anything contrary to the Catholic Faith. So it’s very likely this quote is a bunch of fairy tales.
You misuse/misunderstand the use of the term “perpetual”. It was used against the protestants who said that any authority/infallibility/etc that St Peter had stopped with at his death, and was not passed on to his successors. It doesn’t mean we couldn’t have a pope for a long time. There have been several instances where the interregnum was more than 2 years.
The “resistance” quote of St Robert Bellarmine applies to resisting evil *commands* of a morally bad pope, e.g., an order to blow up St Peter’s basilica, or let’s throw a wild drunken party. It doesn’t mean resisting his *laws* such as liturgical changes, catechisms, canon law, canonisations, etc. If you had actually read that quote in the book rather than copy and paste it off the internet, you would have read in the next chapter that an heretical pope loses office immediately without declaration, and that this is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers of the Church.
The same goes with selectively quoting from “Pastor Aeternus”… instead of copying the same quote that the R&R use as if to justify their position (which it doesn’t!) just continue on read the next few paragraphs which states that “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error”, and 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.”
If you’re going to quote anything, make sure you check that they are right, or complete, first.
You sound exactly like an SSPX priest I once knew.
“As a whole, traditional Catholics are the worst group of people I have ever encountered…”
Keep it up. You’re the best argument for traditional Catholicism ANYONE could possibly want. Your invective against us will drive many towards the true faith.
Amen and amen. It is edifying to be explicitly reminded of these truths.
Just a comment – if false doctrine is plainly propounded, then there should not be scandal (objectively) as the Faithful cannot innocently or unwittingly be led astray by such. However, it can still tend to aid in people committing sin, as with all publicly-promoted moral evil.
MW: “I think the distinction is valid when speaking of the Pope vs an ordinary bishop; the former . . . ”
I favor more a distinction between broad and narrow notions of ‘behavior’ in order to make Louie’s distinction work. Originally, I took ‘behavior’ very broadly, so as to mean any human act. But if we restrict it, as I now think Louie was doing, to mean human deeds in contradistinction from human words (written or spoken), then I’d say the distinction works after all.
But this still leaves unresolved the second problem I laid out above, which is that Aquinas’s words appear to extend to any human act that presents an “imminent danger of scandal concerning faith,” whether the act be a human deed or a written or spoken word, as in the case of plainly teaching a false doctrine. Why one would restrict Aquinas’s words to the latter, I don’t know.
In caritas: “the charism of infallibility . . . in teaching the Faith and Morality, flows from Blessed Peter to those Bishops in union with him, such that they also then cannot err in their teaching on Faith and Morality.”
That’s an interesting point. But if it’s true, then how do we explain the recent case of Bishop Stika, who said “Mass is Not the worship of Jesus”? Stika’s idea is obviously false, yet you’re saying bishops don’t err in faith and morals?
One must avoid an unrepentant, stubborn heretic.
On Pope Benedict’s apparent resignation, I think it is wrong for the apparent pope to resile from the Office. I don’t think there was sufficient reason to leave the Office. How is it that popes are generally expected to and generally do die in office? It is a duty borne with humility to death, not something which one can put down because one is in chronic ill-health. Surely, many popes have been in ill-health for a long time prior to death? Was the reason for leaving the Office a valid one? It seems very dubious. Can one not fulfill one’s duty as pope – defence of the Holy Faith and strengthening of fellow bishops in the Faith, etc., whilst being severely physically incapacitated?
I fail to understand how any pope could think it good to leave the Office on the grounds of chronic illness, a novel idea surely? And resignation per se is almost unprecedented, very exceptional.
Is he, then, and in all reality, a bishop of the Catholic Church? Or is he a bishop in some other, false (Novus Ordo/New Order) church?
In caritas is not saying bishops don’t err in Faith and Morals, the actual Catholic Church teaches so, and therefore we MUST conclude that the institution presently posing as the Catholic Church (and for the last 61 years) is nothing of the sort.
Truth is conforming the intellect to the reality that IS, per St. Thomas Aquinas. In order to arrive at the Truth we must be willing to work through our own cognitive dissonance.
Formersede, sedes have no problem making distinctions between different levels of magisterium and the levels of assent required. R&Rers seem to forget that the key term is “levels of ASSENT.” Get that? ASSENT. By and large except for a very few theologians in extremely rare circumstances, the faithful must adhere to papal teachings with the appropriate level of assent. There are no appropriate levels of dissent. If you want an argument over the context and literal magisterial level of Cum Ex, take that up with you know who on this site. You both are reading that document entirely wrong.
The simple answer is that Joseph Ratzinger is a modernist, with a modernist’s understanding of the papacy. He was most probably forced to resign, by the St. Gallen group, because he was not advancing the freemasonic cause quickly enough, but rather stalling it, thereby infuriating those evil men who wanted their man Bergoglio to usurp the Seat in 2005. Now, with having successfully pushed Benedict the light modernist out of the way, we see how quickly the progression towards the one world religion ensues.
Benedict in his traditional vestments was still a modernist, thoroughly committed to the heretical teachings of Vatican II, upholding the doubtful and sacrilegious new sacraments, and the problematic new code of Canon law, which allows non-Catholics access to the
In his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, he states that the sacrilegious and non-Catholic Novus Ordo Missae is just another “form” of the Roman rite. A novelty if there ever was one, and yet the R&Rs praise and celebrate this document as having “freed” the true Mass, as if it was imprisoned in the first place.
It makes one wonder if Benedict ever possessed the charisma of infallibility, which would have prevented him from issuing heretical teachings and errors in legislation.
Our Lady Undoer of Knots, pray for us.
Oh’, Tom A again, “speaks”,–falsehoods. Amen.
There are no, “levels of assent”, in which to be distinguished, within the divine and Holy, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. There is only, “total and complete assent”, as in, “Unity”, as in the faith of a child. Amen. The Holy Magisterium, as per, “Satis Cognitum”, teaches that the Catholic Church is comprised of two elements of visible, “Unity”, as the, “Unity of Faith”, and the, “Unity of Communion”. Amen. Alleluia. Tom A plainly indicates time and again, that his freely willed assent is not into the Catholic Church, rather into membership within a non-Catholic sect, which calls itself, “Sedevacantism”, and apparently this is the belief of this non-Catholic sect, that each member can sift and sort that which is One, as Universal, as in One God, as in divine. Amen. Each member of that non-Catholic sect, is thus on his own personal path to Hell, deFide. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not comprised of non-Catholic sects, as this thing itself plainly speaks. Amen. You remain, obstinate in your error, consequently then on the sure as wide path to your own personal eternity in Hell, Tom A.
For anyone at all, who may have any interest at all, as in one iota of interest, as in utter opposition to the gnostic fallacy continuously parlayed by Tom A, in saving their eternal soul, as they glorify Almighty God, hear this.
To suggest for one moment that there are so called, “levels of (sic) magisterium”, as Tom A suggests, is to suggest that we can sift and sort that which is divinely commanded by Jesus the Christ, as in His divine, Holy, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, through which God teaches and God governs. Amen. Tom A’s intellect is so darkened, that he completely mischaracterizes the meaning of the word, “UNIVERSAL”. “Universal” means ONE, complete, total, whole, unity, and these meanings are completely inseparable from its very immanent understanding, and of course, as from any word, as each word has its own meaning, given by the Logos, as Meaning Himself. Amen. To even begin to suggest that, that which is ONE, and not only ONE, but one in Christ Jesus our Blessed Lord and God, can be severed into pieces, is sacrilegious and as thus it is absurd, it cannot be. Tom A is literally stating that Jesus the Christ, the God-Man, the Savior and Redeemer of this wretched world, to which Tom A belongs, as this thing itself speaks time and again as res ipsa loquitur, is not One God but many, as though there are levels of God, as He Is Truth because He commanded Himself as Truth, and as if His Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is Truth, can be severed, divided, sorted, sifted, and then decided upon by each and every human person. If that were true, then God deceived us, once and again. Amen. Tom A speaks heresy because he does not belong to the Catholic Church, as is self evident by his blasphemous and sacrilegious commentary, over and over and over and over and yet again. Amen. Believe what Tom A believes and you too are surely on your own personal path to Hell. Amen. May Almighty God have mercy on His true children. In caritas.
Now and again, Tom A, DEMONSTRATE, for all eyes to see, FROM THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM HERSELF, the teaching whereby a Catholic, yes a, “Catholic”, as in a true member of the Mystical Body of Christ, may sift and sort the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and then decide upon which, “level of truth”, as if God is leveled, any teaching or command is at, in this false,” hierarchy of truth”, which you, Tom A, suggest exists. As if there could ever be such a fallacy, whereby any Catholic may, “partially or partly”, offer his assent to Truth, thus withholding in that act, some level of assent, which means he doesn’t in truth assent at all, as only in accordance with his own caprice. This is the, “religion of man”, whereby each man determines his own personal level of faith in truth, that which he may wish to have, and at any given point in time. That is not the Catholic Church speaking, now is it???
“Tom A is literally stating that Jesus the Christ, the God-Man, the Savior and Redeemer of this wretched world, to which Tom A belongs, as this thing itself speaks time and again as res ipsa loquitur, is not One God but many, as though there are levels of God, as He Is Truth because He commanded Himself as Truth, and as if His Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is Truth, can be severed, divided, sorted, sifted, and then decided upon by each and every human person. If that were true, then God deceived us, once and again. ”
Tom A has said no such thing, and I honestly believe that you know better.
You are arriving at conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the premises under the norms of strict canonical interpretation.
The reason that so many on this website’s comment section have issues with you is in terms of your demeanor and presentation, since you profess to have apodictic certitude on matters that are not self-evident at all. That you assume to have such, in spite of all good-faith arguments to the contrary, with a palpably bitter zeal, is what grates on so many.
I will leave you with a quote from Pope St. Pius X’s first encyclical, E Supremi:
“13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. “For the Lord is not in the earthquake” (III Kings xix., II) – it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: “Accuse, beseech, rebuke,” but he took care to add: “with all patience” (II. Tim.iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. “Come to me,” we find Him saying, “come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you” (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: “I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax” (Is. xlii., I, s.).”
I know not of who you are in real life, so I cannot speak for your interior dispositions.
Howver, because of your exterior dispositions, based on the way that you present yourself, your words are as a clashing cymbal.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Dear A Simple Man,
I fully submit to the Apostolic teaching, and of course, of Pope Saint Pius X in, “E. Supremi”, as to the entire Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Amen. Again, your admonishment of me spoke not one iota to the truth of what was written about Tom A. All you did is copy what I wrote, and then offer your fiat, as that is all that you offered, that what I wrote, simply IS NOT SO, as deemed by A Simple Man’s fiat. Demonstrate how it is not true, A Simple Man, or you then behave just as the man you are defending, in his continual as profound demonstration of error, in spite of now almost endless correction. Tom A demonstrates not one iota of receptivity to truth in correction of his profound error, nor has he ever. If you disagree, demonstrate where he has. Amen. His behavior is tantamount to criminal, as it is profoundly and persistently heretical, in spite of repeated correction, which he denies to acknowledge, demonstrating himself thus to be reprobate, and the true Church views that as gravely criminal and to be rejected as same, and you A Simple Man, by your fiat, now defend his error. The Christ commanded that it would be better that a man who would lead any of His children into error, have a millstone placed around his neck and be cast into the lake. Amen. Is that in any stretch other than masculine as militant, A Simple Man? Understand what you do. Amen. This is a man who continues to freely choose to remain in personal as obstinate error, while at once he continues to connive the truth, which is utterly dangerous for unsuspecting souls. You obviously remain blind to this reality as it is. You seem to retort from the masculine, as this is the, “Church Militant”, after all and of course. The Christ commanded that He did NOT come to bring peace, rather the sword. What is it that you do not understand about that COMMAND of the God-Man, A Simple Man? The Truth divides as a sword, the wheat from the chaff, such that the truth then springs forth and is plainly seen. No tippy toes allowed in truth, A Simple Man. You misinterpret what Pope Saint Pius X was teaching in, “E. Supremi”, as it relates to the continuous as obstinate and objectively known behavior of Tom A, and in spite of rebuke ad nauseum. Your personal blindness to this, reality as it is, truth thus, does not somehow change that same, reality as it is. The danger here does not stop with Tom A, rather he continues to parlay his error, ever so insidiously, such that Christ’s children, those who truly seek Him, and you’ve seen examples of just who these persons are, as characterized in their writing on this blog, A Simple Man. Amen. Tom A is very dangerous and dangerous threats to Truth are not to be treated with kid gloves. Now, a passage from, “Immortale Dei”, is copied and pasted here for your edification:
“46. In these Our days it is well to revive these examples of Our forefathers. First and foremost, it is the duty of all Catholics worthy of the name and wishful to be known as most loving children of the Church, to reject without swerving whatever is inconsistent with so fair a title; to make use of popular institutions, so far as can honestly be done, for the advancement of truth and righteousness; to strive that liberty of action shall not transgress the bounds marked out by nature and the law of God; to endeavor to bring back all civil society to the pattern and form of Christianity which We have described. It is barely possible to lay down any fixed method by which such purposes are to be attained, because the means adopted must suit places and times widely differing from one another. Nevertheless, above all things, unity of aim must be preserved, and similarity must be sought after in all plans of action. Both these objects will be carried into effect without fail if all will follow the guidance of the apostolic see as their rule of life and obey the bishops whom the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.(27) The defense of Catholicism, indeed, necessarily demands that in the profession of doctrines taught by the Church all shall be of one mind and all steadfast in believing; and care must be taken never to connive, in any way, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows. In mere matters of opinion it is permissible to discuss things with moderation, with a desire of searching into the truth, without unjust suspicion or angry recriminations.”
Intellective love, that which infinitely surpasses affective love, is hard, A Simple Man, as Truth is hard, as He came not to bring peace but the sword, such that profound error can be plainly seen. Witness my, “demeanor”, with those who are not profoundly obstinate in error. You know who they are. Amen. I rest in Caritas. In caritas.
>>>sedes are by far the worst of the trads. They are the true scum of the earth.<<<
Were you formerly scum?
Were you once even truly sede?
Because you're the most uncatechized "sede" I've ever encountered.
Our Dear IC,
In Charity, Your rantings in this Combox display a unique combination of triple talents simultaneously self-inflicted:
1) Narcissistic Arrogance.
2) False Charity devoid of any sincere Humility.
3) Tools of a Fool…Not from Christ or His One True Faith.
It matters not if what you say might be right. If you don’t deliver it in true Christ centered Charity (vs your self-centered rants) you are always WRONG!
Net Result? Your delivery and arrogance is the equivalent of a Human “Kill Switch” to the One True Faith.
That takes work, time and anger to perfect it to the level of vitriol you display. In Charity? You need some professional help. Please get. You are wasting your God given talent and admitted depth of knowledge.
Jacobum, he really does not have a depth of knowledge. He is very good at repackaging the 5-6 quotes he has memorized that justify his predetermined conclusion. He is incapable of drawing distinctions that theologians have drawn for centuries, nor is he capable of understanding the context of the sources he quotes. If it sounds familiar, it is. The Michael Matt’s and Steve Skojec’s suffer the same error. They just start with the false premise that sedevacantism cannot be correct. The difference is that he starts with a premise that may actually be true.
But the Pope acts as Pope not only when he teaches “ex-Cathedra” but when he teaches as Pope even in his ordinary magisterium.” ~ Michael Wilson.
The pope was only considered as truly teaching as pope when he defined a doctrine, ex cathedra. What today is called the authentic papal magisterium was considered the pope teaching as a private doctor. If the pope was teach the Church as a private doctor, the teaching was authoritative, but it wasn’t considered to come rom a pope teaching as pope.
“Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis that H.G. #20…” ~ Michael Wilson.
Yes, everyone knows the sedevacantist proof-texts – the ones they themselves ignore when they consecrate bishops without a mandate and when they reject the liturgical laws promulgated by Pius XII. The obligation to accept the non-infallible teachings of a Pope admits of exception.
“So Pius IX and Pius XII condemn the very opinion that you have expressed; that Catholics are only bound to accept those teachings that are issued by the solemn and infallible magisterium of the Church.” ~ Michael Wilson.
I never said Catholics are only bound to accept what is solemnly defined. What I said it s pope was only considered as truly teaching as pope when he defined a doctrine, ex cathedra.
A child is bound to obey its parents, but since parents are not infallible, such obedience admits of exceptions. The same principle applies to a pope when he is not teaching infallibly, which is almost always.
Good Saturday morning Jacobum,
Please see the response to Tom A above, A Simple Man’s comment to me, and then my response to him. The human intellect must conform to the, “reality as it is”, which is, “truth”, as per the Angelic Doctor. Tom A’s intellect not only doesn’t conform to the reality as it is, he connives the truth, time and time and time and yet again and again, as does FormerSede. These men are dangerous to unsuspecting souls who are truly seeking the Truth, as Jesus the Christ, and they are then led astray. Their language is noxious, as it is pure poison, as it subverts the truth and in Tom A’s case even more dangerous, as it is a twist here and a twist there. He affirms what is actually true and then injects his poison. This simply cannot be dealt with by putting, “the gloves on”, so to speak. It requires a clear rebuttal in no uncertain terms. This is per the teaching and Authority of the divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Read again, “Immortale Dei”, that dear Louie wrote about here. You’ll find the part pasted above that speaks to this. The defense must meet the level of aggression. If you look, you will see that my, “demeanor”, as ASM refers to it above, is not the same with those who do not repeatedly affront the truth, as with perfect obstinence, in spite of now countless corrections, which they simply reject with caprice, as they never produce proof of their position. That is most especially so for Tom A, whose arrogance is simply writ large. FormerSede perfectly misinterprets divine teaching but he at least attempts to prove his false position. Amen. So called, “Sedevacantism”, is a Satanic lie, as are all the other false sects. It is simply a, “pious deception”. These sects are not the Catholic Church and we must know that with apodictic certitude to save our souls, as the Catholic Church is precisely Who She has always been, as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Supernatural Society of Heaven on earth. Think about it. The Church is inviolable, as that is what She has always taught. She is impenetrable thus. She is always here unto the Last Day, as The Christ commanded that He would remain with us unto the Consummation, and the Church received this command of The Christ, and has always taught this as thus. Look to another Encyclical that dear Louie has recently written about, as, “Satis Cognitum”. Pope Leo XIII there Authoritatively teaches that aspects of the Church have been and will be, assailed by Satan, and yet the Church in Her foundation remains unchanged. This is infallible Catholic teaching Jacobum. You and I have had our back and forths in the past on these same pages. I don’t believe that I’ve taken this posture with you, for instance.
Think about it Jacobum, if the force of defense does not meet the force of aggression, the assailant as violent aggressor will overcome his victim. The victim here is not the spotless as inviolable Mystical Body and Bride of Christ, which the miserable creature has no power over in Truth. The victims here are the vulnerable, “children”, as The Christ speaks of those who truly yearn for Him. They maybe led astray and if the likes of Tom A and FormerSede do not beg God for His forgiveness in, “perfect contrition”, before they take their last breath, they will then know what the Infinite Judge meant by His warning as command about those who would lead his children into error, as this thing itself objectively speaks, as res ipsa loquitur, and of course, whether the villainous heretics know it or not. The true Church commands that the obstinate heretic is a worse criminal than a murderer, who can only take the flesh, while the heretic can steal the soul. Amen. Can you imagine the posture a true Catholic would have had to use to oppose Luther? Of course Luther thought that he was correct as well. No one deliberately seeks the lie. They simply believe that the lie which they freely adhere to in their darkened intellects and will, is the, “reality as it is”, “truth”, thus, as the Angelic Doctor taught. Amen.
As I wrote to TPS in the last article’s combox, I am a perfectly miserable wretch, perfectly deserving of my own personal eternity in Hell, and I KNOW THAT. I also know that it is only by the reception of Almighty God’s grace, that the perfectly imperfect fallen nature of this miserable wretch as me, can indeed be and must be perfected to get to Heaven and the Beatific Vision, as the Christ Himself commanded us: “Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” A perfectly untenable command without the reception of His grace to accomplish His command. Amen. Alleluia.
The battle in defense of most Holy Truth becomes ugly this side the veil, Jacobum, and of course, as the true Catholic is a member here of the, “Church Militant”. A spade must be called a spade. No mincing of words. My hope and prayer is that even the implacable ones will submit to Truth before they draw their last breath. In the meantime, the vulnerable souls must be protected. Amen. This is authentic as true Catholic teaching, as the Christ commanded that we must have the same zeal for the salvation of the other, as we do for ourselves. When the other is doing Lucifer’s work, whether they know it or not (and of course all but all do not know it), that must be vigorously defended against and without kid gloves. If the defense does not overpower the offense, who loses? In this case, the vulnerable souls, actually seeking Truth, and not their own comfortable as perfectly miserable deception, are the ones who lose. The Truth is hard as He commanded He came not to bring peace but the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is then plainly seen, as the wheat separated from the chaff. Amen. Of course the poor miserable fool as Tom A will continue to offer NOTHING but his worthless fiat as his opinion, that what is written by me and from the divine Magisterium as is objectively proven, is simply my, “misinterpretation or opinion”, of what was definitively taught by the Vicars of Christ. We must KNOW what they taught and submit to it fully or each and every one who must know it and submit to it (all but all in this world but for the, “inculpably ignorant”) but does not, goes to their own personal eternity in Hell. Amen. Tom A continually places an affront to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor and as accepted by the Magisterium by Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X. “TRUTH”, is the perfect conformity of the human intellect to the, “REALITY AS IT IS”. Period and end. The holy as divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium simply, IS REALITY and of course, as it is TRUTH. When the miserable human intellect does not conform, as PERFECTLY, to what the Magisterium teaches and commands, that same fallen intellect then holds DOUBT, as its only conclusion about the teaching and governing is its own OPINION, about what is taught there. Doubt from its very essence leads to ERROR as the Popes have also taught. It is only as singularly possible to know the Magisterium as the, Reality as it is, when the intellect is receiving the light of grace to see it. Period and end. That is Church teaching, as the Angelic Doctor taught that first the intellect must inform the will, and then by virtue of the soul’s reception of grace into its operations of the intellect and will, can it then freely choose, the will that is, the good over the privation of the good which is due, as the evil. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you receive the grace to see, Jacobum. In caritas.
Oh’ and again Tom A,
As james__o has suggested of you on at least a couple of occasions now, in charity Tom A, as in the zeal for my salvation as if your own, please point out my errors in demonstrating the divine Magisterium, such that not only do you assist in my salvation but others who maybe reading. Amen. The See of Peter is vacant and of course, Tom A, but your miserable as so called, “Sedevacantism”, sect is no more Catholic than the epicenter of the church of Antichrist, as that which rests in Rome. You continue to falsely believe that you can hold the Catholic Faith in your miserable apostate sect, which simply CANNOT be the Catholic Church, as it does not have the Vicar of Christ feeding it, you miserable miscreant, as this is objectively who you are, only you are malevolent as well, again objectively witnessed and as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Your fruits are poisonous as noxious error Tom A, which has been demonstrated for you time and yet again.
Now and again, Tom A, in charity shown toward me and any other who may read, DEMONSTRATE, the errors in Magisterial understanding that you claim in your fiat of me, as now rests as your OPINION only, and correct them using that same divine as holy Catholic, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, the Truth thus. You don’t even produce fallible as singular theologian’s opinions to the contrary, you miserable fool. So please do now, for all eyes to bear witness. The floor is yours, Tom A, have at it, or your perfectly miserable commentary rests in your utter arrogance, as merely Tom A’s fiat. I’m sure your fiat will bring many souls not to Heaven with you but that other dark, intrepid, perfectly isolated place, as Hell. Amen. In caritas.
Oh’ Tom A, where art thou?,
Still waiting for the Magisterial correction Tom A, to assist in not only my salvation but any and all who receive your correction freely into their will, as you further edify the true teaching of the holy as divine and Catholic, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Still waiting Tom A. Have you no zeal for your own salvation, yet alone that of any other in your midst? I’m just wondering. In caritas.
Catherine, remember that Ratzinger was one of the authors of “subsists” at the heretical vatican 2 false council. This was a direct denial of previous teaching that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. The man did not hold the Catholic Faith so could not have been Pope nor is even a member of the Church.
And yes, Tom A, why would it possibly matter, as in one iota of any understanding of any matter at all, that Ratzinger from Hell, the German pig, as a vicar of Antichrist, would author anything as, “subsists”, at your so called, “heretical Vatican 2 false council”, when that very SAME council is NOT an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church? It’s like asking why doesn’t that Toyota car look like that Mercedes car, when Toyota is not Mercedes, and so just WHAT IS YOUR POINT, Tom A??? Who could possibly give a damn what the utterly hideous, vile, malevolent, as utterly malignant beast as Joseph Ratzinger would possibly write, as a vicar of Antichrist in the church of Antichrist. Really Tom A, why do you waste your precious little time on such absurdity. Call the SPADE THE SPADE THAT IT IS. IT AINT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, so who gives a damn about its false (not, “anti” but FALSE as it is a false church) popes, what they say, whatever their Satanic council teaches, as churches beget councils and councils DO NOT BEGET churches. Amen. Save your soul. I pray that your implacably darkened intellect is opened by grace. Amen. In caritas.
Tom A–Even when you are right, you’re wrong.
As ASB has clearly edified for you already, what the Authoritative as definitive teaching and governance of the holy and divine, as Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches and commands, of anyone who actually holds as freely in their wills, the divine and Catholic Faith, is not only to feed us as lambs by the Supreme Shepherd as Vicar of Christ, such that we know what is true and such that we know what we must do, but as well and as importantly to allow us to know what is a LIE, purporting itself to be truth. Our Blessed Christ Jesus our Lord and God forewarned us in His commands, as in the Gospel of Matthew chapters 7 and 24, that there would be, “ravenous wolves”, “dressed in the clothing of Sheep” ( false Bishops thus), Amen. What the definitive teaching tells us is that these men are not only, NOT Bishops/Popes of the Catholic Church, they are heathens, resting outside the Holy Church in the wasteland of this world, where no salvation is to be found as, deFide, a matter of Faith. Amen. Alleluia. We must have the faith as a child to get to Heaven, as the God-Man commanded. What do you think this means, Cam? We must believe what the true Church teaches, and perfectly receive it into our intellects as The Truth, which it is, in spite of what the false church teaches, which calls itself true, while in truth its author is the Father of Lies. Amen. A 5 year old child believes his father, regardless of what he tells him, simply because he KNOWS that he is his father. We must have that kind of Faith in what the true Mystical Body and Bride of Christ Jesus has taught us, which remains in the true holy and divine Magisterium, inviolate as untouched as it is impenetrable, even by the Hideous One as Satan, and unto the Consummation of this world on the Last Day. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you are helped by the reception of God’s grace. Amen. In caritas
“Call the SPADE THE SPADE THAT IT IS. IT AINT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, ”
But…he has? This complaint seems like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
The reason why Tom A (and anyone else) would care about the writings of Bergolgio, Ratzinger, Wotjyla, and others that promote the V2 sect is precisely because there are those who mistakenly identify it as the Catholic Church. As such, their contradictions must be pointed out, for the sake of edifying others who have honest questions.
That, I believe, was Tom A’s point, as you so loudly asked.
Good Saturday afternoon ASM,
That which may first appear as nuance is actually, as literally, one of the central areas of the summa and summit of Lucifer’s deception, in his church of Antichrist, masquerading as the Catholic Church, as established by the God-Man. Amen. Please, “hear”, me out, as you do.
Critically look at this statement of Tom A:
“Catherine, remember that Ratzinger was one of the authors of “subsists” at the heretical vatican 2 false council.”
Who is the second subject of that statement? “Ratzinger”, yes. So far so good. Now look at the object of the second subject as Ratzinger, which is, “…the heretical vatican 2 false council.” There in lies one of the epicenters of Lucifer’s summa and summit of his grand deception, which is the church of his Antichrist, while all dressed up in the metaphysical accidentals of the Catholic Church, is and can only at once remain, desolate of the metaphysical substance, as of all things Christ Jesus, as His Vicars, Sacraments, and Gospel, Amen. Lucifer wants us lost in his conundrum that while the, “vatican council 2”, can indeed be in error for some, and false (as in truth it is false and of course) for others, for those with the eyes to at least see that much (which of course for most of my life I was blind to), and yet that same church which proffers that same false council, is still the Church established by Jesus the Christ. Amen. If you don’t immediately accept that deception as the, reality as it is, just look to the 2 poor, miscreant as imbecilic fools, which Tom A so graciously compared me to in his little screed above, as Michael Matt and Steve Skojec. Those two are so implacably darkened in the operations of their intellects and wills, that it causes me to shudder in fear for them, each time I read their words, and then imagine each one of them drawing his last breath as he closes his laptop.
Lucifer wants our intellects, “off the ball”. The, “ball”, is his false church. He wants us focused on, “the council”, which is the, “hoop”, that the ball enters, and then he can toy with our intellects by using our imaginative power of the lower soul, which he has utter access to. The, “hoop”, as, “the council”, is meaningless without, “the ball”, as, “the church”. As long as our intellects are, off the ball, and focused on the hoop, he wins. Everyone who gets to the Beatific Vision in this time of the desolation of Antichrist, will get there part and parcel to their faith as a child, as our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior commands. We must know then and with apodictic certitude, as that is what is achieved when the human intellect perfectly conforms to the divine Magisterium as it is, and through the RECEPTION of God’s grace alone, that this creature beast thing from Hell IS NOT AS IT CANNOT BE, the Mystical Body and Bride of Christ, simply because HE COMMANDS IT SO, through His teaching and His governance, in His divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Amen. Alleluia. To Hell with the false, “vatican 2 council”, as it is simply distraction and diversion as the HOOP. As you don’t win a basketball game with your focus on the hoop, as you must have your focus on the ball to win the game, you don’t get to Heaven acknowledging a false council, rather you must know with apodictic certitude that it is the false church of Antichrist that proffers that false council, otherwise you get caught up in the conundrum of false council but yet true church, for one. Amen. I do pray you are helped by the reception of Almighty God’s grace, A Simple Man. Amen. In caritas.
Interesting. Could this have been a material heresy on his part? Also, if Benedict isn’t a true pope, why did the enemies of the Church remove him? If they were successful in establishing a new religion and church at Vatican 2, then what does it matter if there is a least bad antipope like Ratzinger? Isn’t the fact that he’s an antipope suffice for their cause?
Thank you for your patience with me. I have a lot to learn yet.
All revolutions eventually turn on each other.
Thank you, Tom. God bless you for being honest in blogging for the sake of Catholics seeking truth. It is not a convenient truth because it brings us face to face with the real evil in the NO church, even the R&R crowd remain under it if their church is affiliated with Rome. I belong to a NO church, in my diocese one Church has the Latin Mass regularly. I believe sincere, faithful Catholics are discovering the truth of our circumstances. Take courage! I imagine there are many like myself who don’t post comments, but appreciate what you’ve written because they have come to the same conclusion.
Thank you nhmontg, and all the others who had kind words in reference to my posts.
I no longer respond to certain individuals. I suggest others to refrain as well.
Kind words in the face of evil, contradiction, and lies, misguided compassion, popularity contests, stoking our egos via human respect – all rubbish which leads to hell! What about the Truth?
The NO (New Order) church is affiliated with Rome; it is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is eclipsed by the false church of Antichrist. The Catholic Church is not evil or duplicitous nor does it require “restoration” or “renewal” (Council of Trent). It is Holy and being ONE it possesses unity of Faith and worship – not two different forms, with the once true being called “extraordinary” which is only “tolerated”. Lastly, its members are subject to the true and lawful Popes and those bishops in Union with him; if we no longer have a true Pope then we must cleave to antiquity and the commands of the last true Pope and those before him with respect to how we must conduct ourselves and what to do in the present circumstances. This is what it means to be a little child; we do not have to figure it out for ourselves and simply “do the best we can” and just HOPE that we make it to heaven. No. Jesus Christ called us sheep for good reason: sheep are extremely unintelligent creatures; of ourselves we can neither do anything at all nor can we know how to act in the face of such a horrendous situation such as this without looking to the authentic Magisterium of Holy Mother Church for the answers.
Dear Former Sede,
In reference to: A child is bound to obey his parents, but it admits exceptions, the same goes for the Pope.
The Popes do not teach that there are such exceptions; on the contrary, they teach that Catholics are bound to accept even the teachings of the Pope’s ordinary magisterium; I quoted Pius XII’s “Humani Generis” and Pius IX’s Tuas Libenter”. So I am a bit disappointed that you would respond by stating that the Pope only teaches “as Pope” when he defines a doctrine ex-cathedra. As you have pointed out that this rarely occurs, it would rule out most of the teachings of the Popes in the history of the Church. But what is even more surprising, is that you did not produce a single authoritative source to back up your opinion.
from what I understand, the reason that the enemies of Benedict removed him, is that he was in their estimation, “too conservative” and not moving the Church fast enough in the road of revolution. Several writers have pointed out that there are two strains of thought in the modernists ranks; 1. The “Conservatives”, grouped around Joseph Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI) who founded the magazine “Communio”; 2. The progressive group that founded their own magazine: “Concilium”; headed by the then Archbishop of Milan,
Carlo Maria Martini S.J. The progressive group is the one that people claim forced Benedict out of office, through blackmail and produced the present Pope, a protoge of martini, Jorge Maria Bergoglio S.J.
There is a whole series of articles on the “war” between the two pressure groups in the English edition of the “SiSiNoNo”; but most of the information is now a bit dated, as it goes back to the 90’s and early 2000’s; here at this site: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/index.htm You can pick your way through these articles or read them all if you like.
Tom A.-Good advice to all of us. Louie is being very patient===maybe too patient. Civility is a virtue.
Indeed, Mary has warned us at least three times that the Great Apostasy would begin at the top; here’s another clear warning from La Salette: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse.”
One must not forget to consider however, that apostasy is one of the sins for which a man ipso facto is severed from the Church:
“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very 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]
If we are to believe Mary’s dire warnings and magisterial papal teaching, then those responsible for this apostasy, and tragically those who were led into it, can no longer be considered fellow Catholics in the Church founded by Christ because they do not have the Faith, as is made evident by their manifest public rejection of it, becoming instead members of the false sect that is currently eclipsing the true Church.
Indeed, may God be with all here and, in His Mercy, may He lead us to the fullness of Truth and Charity, that we may be saved.
Kyle of Canada
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.
Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Christ our King: Thy kingdom come, in our hearts and from sea to sea. Amen.
“… and tragically those who were led into it…”
My take on it is that they ALLOWED themselves to be led into it. It was presented to them as an easier, softer way to live and they gleefully signed onto it. But I know that only God can judge individual hearts.
Who were the pre-Vatican II popes that were declared by the Church to be heretics?
Answer: None. But R&R Gallicans love to quote documents out of context. Especially those about Pope Honorius, Liberius, John XII, etc. They will always avoid Catholic sources to understand these Popes and cling to Protestant sources that seem to justify their R&R Gallican position. Even when you point them in the proper direction and let them know that their understanding comes from enemies of the Church, they refuse to listen. They rather make their bed with protestant enemies than understand Catholic truths on these historical matters. That is why R&Rers are in many ways more dangerous to the Catholic Faith than oblivious Novus Ordites.
Who were the pre-Vatican II popes that were declared by the Church to be heretics?
Yes, “beginning” at the top doesn’t mean it remains there as if a heretic pope could remain at the top.
Yes, I am still waiting for Memento to post the source of this so-called “Letter” from Pius IX to “Bishop of Brizen”. It’s much more likely that it’s just some more anti-sedevacantist propaganda.
Michael Wilson:”But what is even more surprising, is that you did not produce a single authoritative source to back up your opinion.”
Not surprising to me.
By the way, nice to see you here Michael!
In caritas (11/30):
I see your view better now. Thank you. You’re arguing that even bishops, in union with the Pope, can never (individually) err in faith and morals and that this is Catholic teaching. Consequently, cases like Stika’s show that the man in question is outside the Church (a ‘false’ bishop?).
Some questions I have, then, are these: (1) Where does the Church teach this? (2) And does the teaching apply to bishops whenever they speak or only when they speak in an official capacity? Thanks.
Answer: None. But R&R Gallicans love to quote documents out of context. Especially those about Pope Honorius, Liberius, John XII, etc. They will always avoid Catholic sources to understand these Popes and cling to Protestant sources that seem to justify their R&R Gallican position. Even when you point them in the proper direction and let them know that their understanding comes from enemies of the Church, they refuse to listen. They rather make their bed with protestant enemies than understand Catholic truths on these historical matters. That is why R&Rers are in many ways more dangerous to the Catholic Faith than oblivious Novus Ordites.
The Church does not teach that a Pope can be a heretic nor a heretic be a Pope. The Church does not teach that 1+1=2 either. The church does not have to teach such basic elementary obvious facts. A man who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church. It is so obvious that it does not need to be declared. Only an absolute idiot could possibly believe that someone who is not a member of an organization is a member of an organization. Its such a contradiction that only a willful stubborn soul could propose such lunacy. And BTW, Pope Pius XII DID teach that an heretic is not a member of the Church.
“…a willful stubborn soul…”
I think you’ve nailed it, Tom A. FS slips and slides like Jello when one is trying to reason with him and show him the truth. He’ll have none of it.
Neither will Tom A. He connives the truth. Are you not, “listening”? In caritas
And the implacable one speaks again,
Still waiting for your Magisterial correction Tom A, in charity. You continue to give your fiat that the interpretation written is wrong and you’ve not yet written a word to prove your fiat, your worthless opinion thus. Do you not yearn for the salvation of my soul as your own, Tom A. We await the correction. In caritas.
Oh’ Tom A,
Still awaiting the Magisterial corrections, as there are multiple according to your fiat, your as yet worthless opinion, as you demonstrate no truth as proof, as from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Reality as it is, Truth thus. We await your correction Tom A. In charity. Do you not yearn for the salvation of the other as much as yourself. Apparently, you have no yearning for your salvation Tom A, as you offer no correction in truth. This thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. Amen. In caritas.
Except when it isn’t. Cuckservatives, for example, are among the most civil people on the planet. And they’re total losers as they continually slide left. But at least they’re nice. Pathetic.
Swedes and Minnesotans are also among the nicest people on earth. And now Sweden crawls with hordes of stinking Muslims and Somalians. Just plain pitiful.
Displacing the Phony Right: Review of James Kirkpatrick’s “Conservatism Inc.: The Battle for the American Right”
That is, both Sweden and Minnesota now crawl with hordes of stinking Muslims and/or Somalians.
I have a feeling you’ll be waiting a long time!
Good Sunday evening Cam,
God be with you. What is written Cam, IS NOT, “my view”. To help edify what is most important again Cam, find here what you last wrote:
“You’re arguing that even bishops, in union with the Pope, can never (individually) err in faith and morals and that this is Catholic teaching.”
Know Cam that it is not my argument, rather it is definitive as Authoritative and infallible teaching and governance of the divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Christ commanded of His Apostles: He who hears you, hears Me. Amen. There is not one iota of one iota of error to be found in the holy as divine Magisterium. Anyone who says that there is, simply is NOT Catholic, as they deny the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. You cannot be a member of the Church and deny even one infallible teaching on Faith and Morals. That is Authoritative teaching itself, as in, “Satis Cognitum”. Anyone who suggests that there is an, “hierarchy of truth”, in the Magisterium, is a liar and his father is NOT God thus, but the Father of Lies, Satan, as he is an heretic. The true Catholic Church has always taught that spreading heresy is a grave crime, worse than murder, as it kills not the flesh, but the eternal soul. Amen. The Truth is hard but He commanded that He came NOT to bring peace but the sword in division, as it is in division that the truth springs forth and is plainly seen, as the wheat separated from the chaff. Amen.
As to address your questions:
“Some questions I have, then, are these: (1) Where does the Church teach this? (2) And does the teaching apply to bishops whenever they speak or only when they speak in an official capacity? Thanks.”
Cam, please study intently and pray for God’s grace to enlighten, as to vivify your intellect, such that it conforms perfectly to the, Reality as it is, of the following 4 Ordinary and Universal Magisterial teachings: “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”—Pope Paul IV– 1559; “Satis Cognitum”–Pope Leo XIII–1896; “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”–Pope Pius XII–1945; and “Ad Apostolorum Principis”–Pope Pius XII–1956.
There cannot be ANY OPINION involved in any Magisterial teaching, Cam. Within the very essence of, “opinion”, is to be found doubt. Doubt Cam, simply CANNOT get a soul to Heaven, ONLY TRUTH gets any as every soul to Heaven that gets there. We know that as The Christ commanded: Ego Sum Via, Veritas, et Vita. I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Amen. The human intellect must conform as perfectly to the Reality of the Authoritative and infallible teachings as they are, as they are taught and commanded by the Supreme Pastor of Holy Church, as the Vicar of Christ. He is the Teacher of teachers. There is no man, nor are there any men in the cosmos, who can perfect as to better clarify what the Supreme Pastor teaches. ONLY by the RECEPTION of God’s grace can the intellect perfectly conform to the Reality as it is. This is the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and his teaching has been received by the Magisterium, in the Pontificates of Pope Leo XIII and Saint Pius X. Amen.
Yes Cam, whenever a true Bishop who was in union with his true Pope, taught on Faith and Morals, whether to one man in his Episcopal office or to his entire diocese, whether spoken or in writing, whenever, wherever, and however, he was protected by the Holy Ghost, who Himself chose that individual man to be a Shepherd of Christ’s Church, as Bishop, in the first place. That is also infallible Church teaching, Amen. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
Oh’ and again, Tom A,
Yet still awaiting your correction in charity. You claim that the Magisterium is, “misinterpreted”, misread, that it is only, “opinion”, as rendered about it. In charity Tom A, you must demonstrate a correction, otherwise you objectively demonstrate by the lack of any effort at correcting, that you care not about the eternal salvation of the one that you claim is rendering erroneous, “opinion”, about the Magisterium. Let me help your implacably darkened intellect just a bit, Tom A, by attempting to jog your imaginative memory. “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, as does the only as Singular Vatican Council, Authoritatively as definitively teaches and commands that anyone who holds the divine and Catholic Faith must submit as freely and completely to the Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, in matters of governance and discipline, with the same assent of faith as that given to his teaching on the Faith and Morality. You’ve made the claim that I, “misinterpreted”, that and thus have given only my, “opinion”, about it.
Please Tom A, in the interest of the salvation of your soul, my soul, and anyone else who may read, CORRECT THE ERROR IN “INTERPRETATION” (as if a 10 year old wouldn’t know precisely what the Pontiff teaches and commands there) as you claim, Tom A the miscreant, has been made. We await the correction Tom A, as in authentically Catholic caritas. Amen. In caritas.
You simply CANNOT BE SERIOUS, now can you Tom A ?,
This stuff simply cannot be made up. It can only be borne witness to. For anyone who cares to know who you really are as Tom A, your name will be placed into your context of your admonishment of so called, “R&R Gallicans”, in your vernacular Tom A. You simply CANNOT SEE THE PLANK IN YOUR OWN EYE, now can you, you utterly poor, miscreant fool? You are on your own personal as sure path to Hell Tom A and you point the finger of judgment upon someone else who belongs to the same false church of Antichrist as do you, simply in another non-Catholic sect, another, “pious deception”, you imbecilic moron, as fool.
You had this to say:
Even when you point them (TOM A) in the proper direction and let them (TOM A) know that their (TOM A’s) understanding comes from enemies of the Church, they (TOM A) refuse to listen. They (TOM A) rather make their (TOM A’S) bed with protestant enemies than understand Catholic truths on these historical matters. That is why R&Rers (TOM A) are in many ways more dangerous to the Catholic Faith than oblivious Novus Ordites.”
You are GUILTY Tom A of the same miscreant, imbecilic, foolish assent into the church of Antichrist and you are perfectly BLIND, now aren’t you, fool. This is called authentic Catholic admonishment Tom A. This is the hard truth Tom A, and it cuts like a sword, as The Christ commanded. Amen. You are on your own personal as certain road to Hell, JUST LIKE THEM, and you are so implacably blinded in UTTER HUBRIS, that you will most likely not even know until you get there, Hell that is. I pray you submit in humility to the Catholic Church you poor, poor, miscreant fool. In caritas.
See, “Satis Cognitum”, Tom A,
As you wrote this:
“They will always avoid Catholic sources to understand these Popes…”. You personally, as you Tom A, do not understand, “these Popes”, and then you Tom A, have to yield to theologians, JUST LIKE those of THE “R&R”, NON-CATHOLIC SECT. What’s your point Tom A?, as OPINION YIELDS OPINION, as it only can, AS IF OPINION COULD EVER YIELD TRUTH, you patently imbecilic fool. The lesser CANNOT PERFECT THE GREATER, YOU IDIOT. Again, you are GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIME which you accuse the other of FOOL. Your intellect is so DARKENED Tom A, that you couldn’t possibly know just how dark you are; you cannot glimpse the darkness you hold, miscreant.
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches that those who DO NOT HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH, will NOT understand that which it teaches, as the Magisterium, you FOOL. That’s why the holy Magisterium is as gibberish to you Tom A, because you DO NOT, as you CANNOT, hold the Catholic Faith, as is objectively witnessed of you, time and time and time, and yet again. Wake up Tom A, before you draw your last breath. I pray you lose your hubris and find humility, you miscreant fool. In caritas.
Poor, my…… 2 …..cents,
The blind leading the blind. Tom A and his sycophant cadre of non-Catholic fools. The witness is utterly spiritually pathologic as it is pathetic. You are members of the church of Antichrist and you don’t even know it and of course you don’t, as you receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”. Amen. Wake up 2 cents as you are on the wide road to Hell, in following the malevolent one as Tom A, and not the holy and divine Magisterium, given us by the Son of God, who teaches and governs through His Magisterium unto the Last Day. Amen. Alleluia. Tom A teaches you to deny this and to do whatever you choose, as there is no one here to govern you, as to seek, “recourse”, as the malevolent fool Tom A teaches. Your recourse will be an eternity in Hell. You must know this as the miscreant that you are to save your soul man. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Oh’ 2 Vermont,
You cannot help yourself, as once and again you demonstrate that you simply cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith. Anyone as everyone (the few who remain on this earth) who holds the Catholic Faith knows with apodictic certitude as a matter now deFide and since 18 July, 1870, that an heretic could never, ever, ever, ever, nor has an heretic ever, ever, or ever been the Vicar of Christ in this world. Any speculation about this was closed then, you miscreant fool. You simply are not Catholic and this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur, as The Christ commands: “You will know them by their fruits”. An evil tree cannot bear good fruit. It is utterly as sacrilegiously evil to suggest that a Vicar of Christ could ever be an heretic, before or during his Pontificate. Period and end. Wake up, seek the Truth with all the zeal you can muster, lose your pride, study, weep, pray and fast or die and go to Hell. I pray you assent one day to the divine and Catholic Faith. In caritas.
IC, it’s gotten to the point where you come across as verbally abusive. Do you not realize how you come across?
Do you honestly wonder why Tom A no longer responds to you?
Notice that IC does not take this tone with everyone, and he defined the “offensive” terms in another recent reply. These matters have ETERNAL consequences, and souls are being led astray by certain individuals who – while no longer ignorant regarding the Magisterial documents and commands as set forth by IC – still obstinately reject and sift them, and opine as to their relevancy under the extreme and dire circumstances of our time.
This is a WAR, and ultimately not one with flesh and blood. All seekers of Truth must learn to set aside their pride and sensibilities and consider the CONTENT of the message. Nevermind that it sounds “mean”; is what someone is stating actually the teaching of Holy Mother Church and Her authentic Magisterium, or merely yet another opinion (most often regurgitated ones as mine once were)? I’ll tell you what’s really mean. What’s really mean is being “nice” and not caring that another is in error and on their way to eternal damnation. We don’t need more “safe spaces” or any such effeminacy in this God-forsaken world; we need the TRUTH. People had better MAN UP and quick, and a dose of humility wouldn’t hurt either.
The following is the Haydock Bible Commentary on the Epistle of of the Apostle Jude verse 22, “curiously” placed as the last Epistle before the Apocalypse:
 “Reprove, being judged”: He gives them another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three sorts of persons:
1 st, With persons obstinate in their errors and sins; these may be said to be already judged and condemned; they are to be sharply reprehended, reproved, and if possible convinced of their error.
2 d, As to others you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great danger of.
3 d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt manners, that defile both the soul and body.
Don’t waste your breath ASimpleMan. It’s best just to ignore.
It’s easy to see to which category of persons described above 2Vermont belongs…
I would argue that there is a significant difference between rebuking the errors of others and the sort of puerile invective that IC is delivering to Tom A’s person.
From the outside looking in, IC appears to be condemning Tom A even on matters where they would be in agreement, such that no matter *what* Tom A says, he’s always in the wrong.
It all comes across as a sort of petty vendetta, and it has the side effect of inducing others to simply ignore IC whenever they speak (which is a shame, as I think they have a valuable perspective, even if I disagree with some of their interpretations of magisterial documents).
If your manner of speaking is inducing people to simply ignore you rather than respond, the problem **just might** be with you.
“If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” – 1 Corinthians 13:1
I have a feeling you’re right!
To A Simple Beggar, here’s yet another example of what I was talking about in the comment thread further down regarding Tom A and IC.
2Vermont, in a rather pithy comment, expresses incredulity at the very concept of a “heretic pope” remaining at the top of any hierarchy, for the simple reason that public heretics render themselves a non-Catholic. (For reading comments elsewhere shows that 2Vermont, as far as I know, doesn’t consider anyone from John XXIII onward as a true occupant of St. Peter’s Chair precisely because of their public heresies.)
Then “In caritas” comes along and upbraids him as though 2Vermont actually believes a heretic can be a true Pope, **even though he doesn’t believe that. **
The apparent pettiness of such nitpicking looks downright pitiful and embarrassing.
I’m sorry, IC. Can you repeat that? I wasn’t listening.
Good Monday morning A Simple Man,
A woman, as A Simple Beggar, who holds the divine and Catholic Faith, as this thing itself does speak, as res ipsa loquitur, for anyone else who also holds the One true Faith (the Unity of Faith) and witnesses in her words, demonstrating Catholic teaching, and you the Simple Man, withdraw from this teaching, in your innuendo of me, in response to her. The woman leads the man, as he claims, A Simple Man, in true Church teaching, as it relates the rebuke of the reprobate, and the man, as A Simple Man is repulsed, withdraws into his, “safe and nice”, corner. A Simple Man, you have no true understanding of the, “Church Militant”, as it is war, as militant. You have no idea, the crime of obstinate heresy, as this thing itself does speak, A Simple Man. The Church has always taught this crime as being worse than murder and She dealt with those criminals as such. You have no idea who this miscreant as imbecilic fool Tom A is, as that is readily apparent in your words. You defend obstinate error as heresy when you defend him, whether you, A Simple Man, know this or not, as you are now repeatedly demonstrating your blindness. Amen. Again, the Catholic women leads the purported Catholic man, as A Simple Man, into the teaching of the Church, and you withdraw and you do so in such a repugnant fashion, as to be, “nice”. Do you know what the root of the word, “nice”, is, A Simple Man? “To be ignorant”, as in ignorant of truth. You are now demonstrating your own flavor of foolishness, Simple Man.
I find it interesting that when your errors in assessment are corrected, all you proffer is silence. No rebuttal, A Simple Man. That seemed to be good at first, hoping for your reception of truth, now it is not so clear. Amen.
Tom A is very dangerous and you fail to see it because of your own spiritual blindness as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Do not deny the command of the God-Man, ASM. Tom A’s fruits are poisonous and rotten and he has sycophant followers, as they follow him in error, and not Christ Jesus our Lord and our God in His holy as divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Do you not see Tom A’s continual affront to the Magisterium? Recently he wrote that because, “Tonsure”, is a Juridical power, the lack of performing this Rite of Holy Church does not, “invalidate Sacraments”, it simply invokes, “ecclesial penalties”. The imbecilic fool then again places an affront to the teaching of the Vatican Council and Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, whereby he Authoritatively declares this about anyone who fails to give the same assent of faith to governance and discipline as to teaching on Faith and Morals:
46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”
This is an implacable hatred now demonstrated of the Vicar of Christ by Tom A, time and time and time and again, as when you repeatedly affront the Magisterium, in spite of Catholic correction using that same Magisterium to correct your now implacable error, you demonstrate your hatred not only of the Vicar of Christ, but and of course, of The Christ Himself, Who IS Truth. Amen. The defense must meet the level of aggression against Truth, A Simple Man. What do you not understand about force and counter-force? The Holy Roman Pontiff teaches this in, “Immortale Dei”, for instance, as has been demonstrated here previously. The Holy Council of Trent teaches this clearly about tonsure, no less. Without tonsure you cannot have, cleric, and without cleric, you simply DO NOT HAVE the ontological matter for the reception of the form of the Holy Sacrament of Order. PERIOD AND END, AS FULL STOP. That is the faith of a child, ASM. Period and end again. We MUST AS WE CAN ONLY ACCEPT THESE EDICTS, as they are, “REALITY AS IT IS”. To suggest that there is any greater reality in the cosmos than the Holy Magisterium, is heresy itself. Amen. To suggest as Tom A also has recently suggested, that there is an, “hierarchy of Truth”, in the Holy Magisterium, is utter heresy, damning him once again, as Truth simply CANNOT BE DIVIDED AS CHRIST CANNOT BE DIVIDED. You don’t see this as utterly dangerous to vulnerable souls, as your own, A Simple Man? He remains perfectly obstinate to correction and never offers an intellective rebuttal, just his FIAT, that I am wrong. You cannot get more hideous than that, as it relates the darkened state that his soul is in. That is infinitely evil enough as his eternal soul, IS ON ITS WAY TO HELL, in the objective forum of reality, as it is. Amen. And then there is the secondary evil, arguably worse, as he maligns Truth, and he does it often subtly, leading then the most vulnerable souls to perdition. This is pure evil ASM and you are blind to it.
You are blind to the reality that we live in the time of the desolation of Antichrist. As such, life in this world is only going to get more hideous. Amen. Apostolic Succession has been forever lost, deFide, as per, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and this occurred as of October 27, 1958, 18 days after the death of the Angelic Pastor, as Pope Pius XII. Period and end. You are blind to that as well, and yet your blindness provides no remedy for you, A Simple Man. Apostolic Succession was to be lost and then Satan was to bring forth the very person of Antichrist, as the Early Church Fathers taught in unanimity, thus deFide. Those who are spiritually blind are willfully blind when they purport holding the Catholic Faith but the objective evidence demonstrates the opposite, as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Amen. There is only ONE prophesied time of the loss of Apostolic Succession, and of course, as once lost it is forever lost unto the Last Day, as the prophet Daniel prophesied and the Early Church Fathers in unanimity clarified. Amen. I pray that you receive the grace to see. As long as dear Louie allows, I will not cease nor desist in walling off the error of the likes of Tom A. His cunning is made manifest in his faux withdraw from commenting to me because of the admonishments, when in truth it is because he and his implacable error are now glaring, and he has nowhere else to hide, but in retreat. Amen. May Almighty God have mercy on His true children. In caritas.
Good Monday morning A Simple Beggar,
Your defense of Catholic Truth itself speaks, as you use the Truth in defense of the Truth. Amen. Alleluia. May Almighty God continue to bless you and keep you in His Catholic Faith, which you hold, as this thing itself also speaks. In caritas.
Oh’ and again, A Simple Man,
Do you understand the context of the English language? 2 Vermont is another who remains obstinately heretical and offers only her (not his as she recently made known objectively her sexuality) fiat in rebuttal. She wrote this in part:
“…as if a heretic pope could remain at the top.” What don’t you understand about that statement, ASM? As if A (sic) HERETIC POPE———–could REMAIN (REMAIN) AT THE TOP. Dear ASM, to remain somewhere, you have to first be there as to REMAIN there, now don’t you??? Again, what do you not understand about the context of this statement???
Again the point is, to suggest that an heretic can be a Vicar of Christ since 18 July, 1870, IS UTTER HERESY. Period and end. Heresy, and again, when obstinate, is a crime worse than murder. So what’s your point again, ASM? In caritas
“Niceness” has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the fact that your approach doesn’t appear to be working. To reduce this to a matter of “safe spaces” is sheer silliness.
I’ve replied to you elsewhere, but here it is again, regarding the matter of supplied jurisdiction:
First, such is all that the Church needs to function in a time of emergency, as we have now. We have at least two historical precedents for this fact: The Great Western Schism when the true Pope was unrecognizable, yet bishops continued to be consecrated and act; and the interregnum from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months) between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the Pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction (only supplying the sacraments) until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted (by consecrating those priests) thereby giving the people access to bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary Jurisdiction.
It therefore follows that your apparent interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s “Ad Apostolorum Principis” – namely, that the immediate nature of the Roman Pontiff’s power of jurisdiction thus contradicts “supplied jurisdiction” as a concept – is in some manner erroneous, simply because we have historical magisterial precedent to the contrary. Likewise, your interpretation of “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis” – that Apostolic Succession is now forever lost since the death of Pius XII – is **not** deFide or self-evident, in light of the fact that Christ promised he would be with us all days **unto the consummation of the world**. You may argue that said consummation has been ongoing since 1958, but one could just as easily argue **in good faith** that it has yet to happen.
Second, literally holding to every jot and tittle of ecclesial law in these times would render even Baptism inaccessible. Without the ordinary mechanisms of governance in place during this extended interregnum, the principles of equity and prudence should be considered when performing canonical interpretation of any kind, as argued here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=14&catname=1
Third, to reduce honest disagreements with your magisterial interpretation as demonstrating an implacable “hatred of Christ” is laughable:
“This is an implacable hatred now demonstrated of the Vicar of Christ by Tom A, time and time and time and again, as when you repeatedly affront the Magisterium, in spite of Catholic correction using that same Magisterium to correct your now implacable error, you demonstrate your hatred not only of the Vicar of Christ, but and of course, of The Christ Himself, Who IS Truth.”
Will the Papacy ever be restored? Perhaps, perhaps not.
But if you think this is going to convince anyone that the only way to hold to the Catholic Faith in these times is to be a “home alone” sedevacantist, then I can state with confidence that you’ve failed in that endeavor with regards to my person.
Have a good day, and may the Peace of Christ be with you.
Thank you, In caritas. Those texts you mention are helpful somewhat, though I can’t say I see where exactly in those texts your position can be found. The Catholic teaching on episcopal infallibility, if I’m correct, has been that bishops are preserved from error under two circumstances: (1) in the case of a general council and (2) when they universally propose something for the faithful to believe. (This is something everyone can more or less find in one catechism or another.)
In both cases, however, the teaching presupposes the bishops are speaking together rather than individually. Yet you are saying that, even when they speak individually, the are preserved from error? And this teaching is found in the texts you mention? (A quotation would really help, if you have the time. Thanks.)
ASM, why do you continue arguing with a madman? Are you also mad? Only the mad argue with the mad.
FormerSede: What exactly did you become, when you purportedly “left sedevacantism”? A mason? A neo-Gallican heretic? The masons love Love LOVE the status quo where one of their own (or at the very least one of their dupes) usurps the Chair of Peter.
The neo-Gallicans love the status quo too because they can return to their favorite heresy – that of passing judgment on the papal magisterium. Do you love the status quo too? In my own case, I hate Hate HATE the status quo where a non-catholic clearly usurps the Chair of Peter.
In any case, to relieve you of your ignorance, Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that one outside the Church cannot rule the Church:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 15
Note that the teaching of Pope Leo XIII is not subject to any qualification. For instance, Pope Leo XIII did not say that “universal pacific acceptance” by dubiously catechized Catholics enables one outside the Church to rule the Church. Do you feel edified? You should. I also thank you for the opportunity to practice one of the spiritual works of mercy – instructing the ignorant.
Hello A Simple Man,
You sir, are objectively as patently wrong, and this thing itself speaks, as you now rest in utter opposition to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. Period and end. As has been written in this space numerous times now, you CANNOT SUPPLY THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPLY. There is no Jurisdiction left to supply in the cosmos, SINCE THE LOSS OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, on October 27, 1958, and this must be known with the apodictic certitude of the human intellect conforming, as PERFECTLY, to the Reality as it is, of the Magisterial teaching and Authority of Pope Pius XII. You couldn’t understand the plain context of 2 Vermont’s heresy above, how are you going to understand this? Pope Pius XII taught, with his full Apostolic power and Authority, requiring anyone who actually holds the Catholic Faith and doesn’t just think and claim that they do, but objectively witnesses that they do, as in full submission to same, the, “Unity of Faith”, and under the pain of Hell in opposition. Amen. The Vatican Council and, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, both definitively teach that each Catholic, and again anyone who truly holds the divine and Catholic Faith in the witness of their, “Unity of Faith”, and not their purported fiat as yours’, must submit to what you profanely comment about as, “every jot and tittle”, of the Holy Roman Pontiff’s commands. The Council and the Vicar of Christ declare as discipline, that anyone who does not yield in total submission to, again as you profane the sacred, “every jot and tittle”, of their governance and discipline, not giving it the same assent of faith as to submission of teaching on Faith and Morals, does so at their very own peril as, “the loss of Faith and salvation”. Amen. What do you not understand about that Authoritative command, ASM?
As per, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, the maximum time in which the Cardinals had to convene to begin the business of selecting the next Vicar of Christ, was 18 DAYS. Period and end. He closed this with his full Apostolic Authority, commanding that, ANYTHING AS EVERYTHING that was done apart from these precise as strictest of commands was to be, “NULL AND VOID”. Now and again, ASM, what precisely do you not understand about this, that a properly catechized 10 year old who actually held the divine and Catholic Faith would understand? These things speak as res ipsa loquitur. Pope Leo XIII definitively taught that Magisterial teaching would be as noise to the heretic, heathen, apostate, because they do not hold the divine and Catholic Faith as to receive the grace to see. Amen. The Magisterium Judges you as it Judges us all. Amen. The fact that 18 days after the death of the last Vicar of Christ expired now, more than 61 years ago, definitively as Authoritatively closes the line of Apostolic Succession with Pope Pius XII. If you don’t receive this into your intellect and then choose it in your will as freely, ASM, you are outside the Catholic Church where there is no salvation, deFide. Period and end. PRECIOUS NONE OF THIS IS MY OPINION, as it was Authoritatively taught by the last Vicar of Christ this world can ever see. There is no Biblical Prophesy nor Church Tradition, which teaches restoration of Apostolic Succession once lost in its prophesied time. Amen. In fact, the opposite is true, as the prophet Daniel prophesied and the Early Church Fathers edified in unanimity, thus requiring the assent of Faith as they cannot err in unanimity, that the “desolation” which Antichrist would incur, would remain unto the Last Day, as unto the Consummation of the world with the Second Coming of The Christ. Amen. Alleluia. Our Lady in her Immaculate Heart Triumphs with her Beloved Christ then. Amen. Alleluia. I do pray you receive the intellective lights of grace to see. In caritas.
The bumbling as babbling reprobate and imbecilic fool. You are a poor excuse for a man, Alfonso, as you offer no correction for me, therefore you evidence no love as caritas. You have no true interest in my salvation, therefore you objectively have no interest for your own, as that is what the true Church teaches. Amen. In caritas.
ASM, I too tried to engage him in a logical debate. As you are finding out, it is futile. You do make excellent points refuting his interpretations. I too made those same refutations. I must says yours are much more succinct and clearly developed. But you will find such logic useless in penetrating certain minds.
Oh’ the reprobate fool again speaks in malevolence,
Where is your correction Tom A? I continue to ask you for the correction which you have never yielded, as once. You have never once, you liar, ever demonstrated anything but your reprobate as foolish fiat in purported correction. You have corrected NOTHING in truth, as you have no power to, “correct”, divine Magisterial teaching. You are such an imbecile that you believe you are above the teaching of the Son of God, in His holy Magisterium. The Hell that awaits you fool is unimaginable. Save your soul reprobate. To do that you must divorce yourself of unmitigated hubris. Demonstrate now and again Tom A, where you have actually as truly, “corrected”, what was written by me. You now believe your fiat can produce that which you’ve NEVER ACTUALLY PRODUCED? You are despicable Tom A. An heretic as heathen, writ large and you celebrate it among your fellow cadre of sycophants. God have mercy on you and them. In caritas.
You profess that the Church has somehow lost all jurisdiction without her visible head, as though the Church herself cannot supply jurisdiction in spite of historical evidence to the contrary. You profess that I have merely spoken by fiat, when I have provided evidence to the contrary. You profess that I am somehow profaning the Magisterium by recognizing the simple reality that equity and prudence have been taught and utilized before in matters of canonical interpretation during times where Ordinary Jurisdiction was otherwise not available.
You profess that Pius XII would have been satisfied by cutting off the line of apostolic succession (for one can easily make the argument that he intended to prevent modernists from wreaking havoc in the time of interregnum, entrusting matters to the next true Pope to maintain discipline and order; do you honestly believe he would have condemned the actions of traditionalist bishops who have maintained the Faith in the face of the Vatican 2 sect? Do you truly believe that he would condemn CMRI, SGG, and so on?), when the longstanding principles of equity with regards to law recognize that lawmakers have not recognized all possible outcomes and possibilities of their legislation; such also applies to the Roman Pontiffs in matters not related to the unchanging divine law. That you believe Vacantis Apostilicae Sedis definitively closes the matter is well apparent, yet you will find that extraordinary circumstances require nuance in terms of what is in greatest service for the sake of saving souls.
You know why I say the above with confidence? Because it has happened before; supplied jurisdiction has been utilized by the Church before. This is not my “fiat” as you are so fond of saying, but cold, hard, history. Since you are so fond of proclaiming the perpetual nature of the Magisterium in ALL its facets, do you believe Pius XII would have condemned Gregory X for recognizing those bishops who had been consecrated during the interregnum?
I would not dare presume, because the man himself is dead. However, you seem quite willing to presume that the ecclesial regulations set down by Vacantis Apostilicae Sedis, enacted during ordinary times, would still be acknowledged as binding by Pius XII in these troubling days, particularly as it pertains to ecclesial law and not divine law. And ecclesial law, as I’ll once again re-iterate to you, HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE PAST, even on Magisterial matters. That is not fiat, but history.
Now, unlike you, I will not presume to anathematize you for your decisions, as you have chosen to bind yourself by the dictates of your conscience and your own fallible interpretation of the Magisterium and Canon law. Why? Because I lack the authority to do so, just as you like the authority to bind the consciences of others on **our** interpretation of the Magisterium on matters of ambiguity in light of the current circumstances. Without a true Pope, all that we can perform is a holding action, as it were. I believe you and other “home alone” sedevacantists are unnecessarily depriving yourselves of many graces through the sacraments, but you are clearly convinced by this position. I don’t blame you, even if I disagree with your conclusions.
And no offense, but with regards to canonical interpreation, I trust the analysis of Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, Pivarunas, etcetera a lot more than yours. Why? Because they actually have historical precedent backing theirs, and theirs is motivated by a palpable interest in the common good.
Now, I see that you have gone and assigned me to the ranks of the “obstinate.” I can’t presume to know the full depths of prior arguments you and Tom A have had before in prior threads (because it seems that it’s been ongoing for a while), but as far you and I are concerned, on the matter of jurisdiction, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree (and regardless of what you profess, your analysis is **absolutely** just an opinion, because it presumes that what was applicable in ordinary times is still applicable in extraordinary times; as I’ve already demonstrated to you, such would render even Baptism inaccessible beyond the proximate danger of death, as but one example). As such, I shall follow the example of Luke 9:5, shake off the dust on my feet, and move on.
Have a good day.
Well said ASM.
For one point (as that is all that I have time for at the moment), you said the following to IC:
“Since you are so fond of proclaiming the perpetual nature of the Magisterium in ALL its facets, do you believe Pius XII would have condemned Gregory X for recognizing those bishops who had been consecrated during the interregnum? I would not dare presume, because the man himself is dead. However, you seem quite willing to presume that the ecclesial regulations set down by Vacantis Apostilicae Sedis, enacted during ordinary times, would still be acknowledged as binding by Pius XII in these troubling days, particularly as it pertains to ecclesial law and not divine law. And ecclesial law, as I’ll once again re-iterate to you, HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE PAST, even on Magisterial matters. That is not fiat, but history.”
The way I look at all of this is pretty simple and it must be simple because our very salvation depends upon it. It must be thus so that even 12-year-old in the state of grace can understand it, or even the simplest of souls, intellectually speaking.
Now with respect to the Great Western Schism, that situation occurred centuries prior to the reign of Pope Pius XII, and at that time there were no rules such as those commanded by him in our present day. Not only that and correct me if I’m wrong, but none of the Papal claimants were heretics much less were they apostates; the situations thus are not even comparable. The true Pope WAS among them, therefore there WAS jurisdiction to supply, the only question was from WHOM? Not so today. As such, of course Pius XII would not condemn the actions taken. NOW that he HAS set the law in stone it must be followed; we can’t take it upon ourselves to decide that what the Vicar of Christ commanded in “ordinary times(?)” doesn’t apply in our exceptional times: “He who hears you, hears Me.”
Now and lastly, it is a fact that Pius XII was quoted as stating, “After me, the deluge’, and I will later attach some more quotes below. It’s blasphemy enough that people assert that Jesus Christ – through His Vicar and VOICE on earth – could not possibly have anticipated these current and prophesied events, much less prepare His Church for them. God knew EXACTLY what was RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, a mere 103 DAYS AWAY, and still made NO distinction regarding the applicability of the law in extraordinary vs. “ordinary”circumstances.
I have more to add later.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
*Adding to the above where I state that there were “no such rules”, I believe that is likely incorrect per se, however and nevertheless, as I stated the situation during the Western Schism was such that an actual Pope WAS among them, supplying the necessary jurisdiction.
About supplied jurisdiction:
Would Holy Mother Church supply jurisdiction in order for bishops to be consecrated and priests to be ordained so that the priests could offer Holy Mass to Almighty God in union with a heretic?
What am I missing or not understanding?
These are members of the Sedevacantist sect, who believe that we have no Pope but that through some loophole(s) they still have valid and licit Sacraments. Does that help?
And yet again, ASM,
How convenient for you, that just as you now expose yourself as the heretic that you objectively are, as you affront the Magisterium in the objective realm of being, and this to be known as the very command of the Son of God, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”, while at once you subjectively stake claim to the contrary, demonstrating the internal contradiction which you hold, you are going to run and hide, take your marbles and go home, as you invert the Holy Writ and run from not the heresy which you hold as immanently but the Truth, as evidenced for you using the Holy Magisterium as testimony, as you just wrote this:
“As such, I shall follow the example of Luke 9:5, shake off the dust on my feet, and move on.”
You too now witness your own brand of foolishness ASM. Contemplate now very carefully as precisely what you, A Simple Man, a perfectly fallible man, claim about the divine and holy Ordinary and Universal Magisterial teaching of, for one, Pope Pius XII, not only in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, but also now, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. Just who the hell do you think you are?, other than an heretic, when you actually as literally claim to know the mind of Pope Pius XII, and as differently than he has objectively allowed his Supreme Apostolic mind to be known, and as per his teaching and governance, which binds each and every human being that yet breathes with the pain of Hell as consequence, for any change of his command or outright rejection of his commands, as you the pathetic ASM, erroneously read into his Authoritative as full Apostolic power in his commands, AND CHANGE THEM FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE TIME. He precisely as specifically CONDEMNED THIS VERY ACT of altering the Pontiffs governance as for any circumstance, time, or place in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, which you now proffer as your excuse, our current “circumstance”, exquisitely evil as it is, in his Supreme Apostolic teaching which you objectively affront in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, Amen. You, ASM, change the Supreme Apostolic command of Pope Pius XII, as though Jesus the Christ did not KNOW THE TIME WE ARE NOW IN FROM ALL ETERNITY and infinitely as perfectly prepare His true children for same, you now blasphemous fool. “He who hears you, hears Me”, such that he who does not hear you, denies Me. Understand what you do here ASM, as you now also demonstrate your certain path to your own personal eternity in Hell, deFide. This is, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. The Christ commanded that the evil tree will be cut down and placed into the everlasting fire. Amen. When one twists Truth, as you now do objectively and this is your fruit ASM, regardless of the reason, as the true Church has perennially taught that intrinsic evil finds no remedy within itself to become a good, as ever and under ANY circumstance, is called, “situational ethics”, and in praxis, which has been condemned as heresy, miscreant. That is one affront that you ASM, place against the Magisterium, and you don’t even know that, as you’ve objectively evidenced. You remain a miserable protestant although you claim the contrary, you miscreant. Again, ASM, the language now applies to you as well, as this thing itself speaks, as res ipsa loquitur. If you deny this, you deny the command of Jesus the Christ in, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. He did not command that we would have an idea about them, sentiments about them, opinions about them, some distorted understanding, etc., rather the God-Man commanded that we would, KNOW, the other by what he says, writes, and does, as his objective fruits. Amen. Alleluia.
You are patently wrong again when you suggest that there are, “precedents”, for this time, which again only demonstrates the heretic that you are. There is no specific precedent for divine prophesy as it is fulfilled. There is NO PRECEDENT FOR THE LOSS OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, you heretic. The hubris in what you suggest is writ large. There is NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY WHEN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IS GONE and for 61 years and counting. At some level ASM, you as the malevolent one Tom A, demonstrate your abysmal cowardice, as you cannot handle the reality as it is, of the time in which we live. And of course you cannot, as NO ONE CAN WHO IS NOT RECEIVING THE SPECIFIC GRACES, which Almighty God has prepared for his true children, known to Him alone, from all eternity and for this specific time, of the pinnacle of the Great Apostasy, as the time of desolation after Antichrist. Amen. Alleluia.
And lastly for now, you opined this as in your fiat, as you once again affront the Magisterium, and as such your words are utterly only your fiat as your opinion, as objectively understood, and whether you are blind to the reality as it is, truth thus or not, as your blindness cannot remedy your error in the your inability to see–only the reception of God’s grace can, as the Angelic Doctor taught, as you affront the plain teaching of the Magisterium in these words of yours’:
“Likewise, your interpretation of “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis” – that Apostolic Succession is now forever lost since the death of Pius XII – is **not** deFide or self-evident, in light of the fact that Christ promised he would be with us all days **unto the consummation of the world**. You may argue that said consummation has been ongoing since 1958, but one could just as easily argue **in good faith** that it has yet to happen.
Pope Pius XII, using his full Apostolic power and Authority as the Vicar of Christ in this world and as Supreme Pastor, simply taught and commanded what he taught and commanded. Period and end. I render NO INTERPRETATION. I have plainly written what he wrote and commanded. Day 18 was drop dead, period and end. As definitively taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, when no distinctions are made, THERE CAN BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. The Christ gives us these teachings with His Authority in His infinite mercy, you fool, so that we will know when prophesy has been fulfilled and we can save our souls. What is it that you SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND about the difference of, “interpretation” or spin, and plainly stating what was stated, you imbecile? You will be damned to Hell for your position as outside the Catholic Faith, as deFide, if you claim that Pope Pius XII taught something other than what he taught. Jesus Christ commanded only the faith of a child will get a soul to Heaven. Period and end. You as Tom A, etc, etc, demonstrate the faithlessness of arrogant, miscreant fools, not the faith of a child. You ASM, you as yourself, actually are the one spinning with your own personal interpretation of what he said as you attempt to read into that which patently is NOT THERE, you fool. You actually do what you accuse me of. It is the same m.o. of the malevolent idiot as Tom A. You project your own error onto the other who simply holds the Catholic Faith and not your error. “They will hate you for the name you choose to bear”, commands The Christ. Amen. You are no more Catholic than the heretic Tom A. Thus far you’ve not demonstrated utter malevolence and utter lies as does he. Stop reading into the Authoritative teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Read it, AS IT IS, BECAUSE IT IS TRUTH HIMSELF. Period, full stop, and end. The Magisterium is alive as it is Christ Jesus our Lord and our God, as with us unto the Consummation. Your reasoning is perfectly flawed as you read into the command of The Christ. The loss of Apostolic Succession IS deFIDE, as it is taught plainly in the Magisterium, which is deFide, period and end. Pope Pius XII in, “VAS”, taught that ANYTHING AS EVERYTHING done outside of his precisely as pristinely specific commands, was to be, “NULL AND VOID”. You seem to struggle with the meaning of context but what could your possible struggle be with the command, null and void. That means that we not only do not have a Vicar of Christ, but we can NEVER GET ANOTHER, as 18 days after his death passed a long, long, long time ago. And please do not blaspheme Christ again and accuse Pope Pius XII of somehow, “setting up the loss of Apostolic Succession”, you blasphemous miscreant, as though the, Law Giver, IS THE LAW BREAKER. You wonder why you are referred to as an imbecile. The truth cuts and divides ASM, because God commands so. Amen. Alleluia. The Vatican Council commanded THE SAME ASSENT OF FAITH, to matters of governance and discipline, as to matters of Faith and Morals, you miscreant fool. What do you not understand about that as you blaspheme with your profane vernacular of, “jot and tittle”, you idiot? Heresy is a worse crime than murder when obstinate. Are you now demonstrating your obstinate position as an heretic, ASM? I’m just askin’. I pray that you submit as a child as fully to the divine as Holy Magisterium and save your wretched soul. In caritas.
A Simple Beggar,
If we know the answer is, No, She would not, then that helps explain why the Novus Ordo is not Catholic and also its Trads like FSSP, and SSPX.
What is the loophole that the SSPV, CMRI, etc., have used to slip through? What,*exactly*, is this loophole?
(I’m still learning, please be patient with me)
And please Tom A,
You are the same imbecilic fool who thinks, “logic”, as properly understood from the immanent meaning of the word, “logic”, somehow surely leads to truth in this as your comment:
“ASM, I too tried to engage him in a logical debate….But you will find such logic useless in penetrating certain minds.”
It’s simply amazing that you can still breathe Tom A with all of your feet now placed in your putrid mouth. Logic is an intellective tool and like any tool it serves a specific purpose. Logic within itself, as immanent to itself, has NOTHING TO DO WITH MAGISTERIAL TRUTH, per se, you utter idiot. Pure logic, as logic, will and is taking Tom A to Hell all day and everyday, you miscreant imbecile. If this was a game as you treat it, some, “debate”, you haven’t even entered the game, Tom A. You are so ignorant of truth that you cannot begin to know just how ignorant you are and yet you are culpable. I shudder in terror for you as I pray for your salvation. In caritas.
Pure as utter idiocy. Amen. In caritas.
This from A Simple Man: “ Will the Papacy ever be restored? Perhaps, perhaps not.” This is where I see a wide gulf between Catholics and these sedevacantists attending CMRI or whatever else. How can you not care about the Pope? They’ll say-we’re the only one’s who honor the Papacy. Well, that’s pretty easy to do when there is no one occupying the chair, you can’t really cross the Pope when he isn’t there. I think that they like it that way and honestly I think that you people are nuts receiving Sacraments from men not in union with the Pope, valid or not. We need a Pope and we need one now, you all better get your priorities straight.
Of course I would be patient with you as I was once where you are,
The loopholes they state ad nauseum with no proof are:
1) Supplied Jurisdiction
2) The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church (as if God is constrained by HIS Sacraments, or, on the other hand, AS IF a soul CAN be saved by ignoring or breaking Church laws and thus committing sacrilege). Apoc 12:6
Have you read The True Church? It’s a great help the way it lays everything out.
What’s bizarre is your equivocation of the principle of epikeia with “situational ethics”, as though they were one and the same thing.
Our Lord is the Invisible Head of His Church. He will never forsake us. Our Lady is the dispenser of all graces. She is the Mother Who never abandons Her children. This is our faith and hope during these trying times.
And again ASM,
To address the opening statement of your response, which again is pure fiat, as your opinion, as you site no Magisterial teaching to support what you say, and in fact you cannot in truth, as that would place contradiction in the Church, as you fully misrepresent what the Holy Church teaches about Her divine Jurisdiction. To edify this reality as it is, you opened your last fiat as response with this:
You profess that the Church has somehow lost all jurisdiction without her visible head, as though the Church herself cannot supply jurisdiction in spite of historical evidence to the contrary. You profess that I have merely spoken by fiat, when I have provided evidence to the contrary. You profess that I am somehow profaning the Magisterium by recognizing the simple reality that equity and prudence have been taught and utilized before in matters of canonical interpretation during times where Ordinary Jurisdiction was otherwise not available.”
And find below the binding as Authoritative teaching of the Vatican Council on Jurisdiction, in the 4th and final Session of 18 July, 1870:
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep  .
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
if anyone says that
blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
For your further edification in admonishment ASM, contemplate this infallible, as binding with the pain of Hell in rejection of same, this statement as found above:
“The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.”
You see ASM, the Truth simply is. The Council condemns you in anathema for distorting Her infallible teaching. Blessed Peter, “ALONE”, and NOT THE CHURCH, received the primacy of Jurisdiction. The Church CANNOT PROVIDE JURISDICTION, AS SHE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, NOR HAS SHE EVER HAD JURISDICTION, AS TO PROVIDE. This was a Charism given as exclusively and as immanently to Blessed Peter alone and in his Successors as, “Episcopal and immediate”, Amen. You have rejected this with your statement: “as though the Church herself cannot supply jurisdiction in spite of historical evidence to the contrary.”, and now you stand as corrected in your own personal fiat as miss-characterization of what Holy Church ever has or can supply, as it relates Jurisdiction, which is SIMPLY NOTHING, as you cannot supply that which you do not have to supply. Utter absurdity to suggest the contrary, but it is as infinitely more importantly, utterly as minimally, material heresy to do so. Amen. If you continue to hold the error, then you are a reprobate as obstinate heretic, on his way to Hell. Amen. I pray that you are aided as by the reception of God’s grace. Amen. In caritas.
“How can you not care about the Pope?”
Who says sedevacantists don’t? It’s why they have nothing to do with the Vatican 2 sect, because their heads are obviously not popes.
It’s a mere acknowledgment on my part that however the current situation will be resolved – whether we are truly in the End Times, or perhaps that there will be a resurgence by a true Pope to rebuff the heretics and apostates of our days – is above my pay grade.
I can only work out my salvation “with fear and trembling”, as St. Paul said.
I hate to tell you but epikeia does not apply. I researched that back when I was trying to make 1000.01% DAMN SURE that I wouldn’t be committing sacrilege by receiving Communion at a CMRI chapel.
Oh – and CMRI by the way? God saved me from them, too. I now know on what foundation they were laid and the entire story is literally vile. Sin is the cause of blindness, namely impurity, for just one hint and issue.
“You see ASM, the Truth simply is. The Council condemns you in anathema for distorting Her infallible teaching.”
Where have I denied that the primacy of jurisdiction belongs to the Holy See? I have done no such thing.
“You see ASM, the Truth simply is. The Council condemns you in anathema for distorting Her infallible teaching. Blessed Peter, “ALONE”, and NOT THE CHURCH, received the primacy of Jurisdiction. The Church CANNOT PROVIDE JURISDICTION, AS SHE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, NOR HAS SHE EVER HAD JURISDICTION, AS TO PROVIDE.”
This is simply false in the face of the historical record regarding episcopal consecrations performed during a papal interregnum; in those times, the jurisdiction given to the Successor of Peter was exercised by the other members of the Church.
That Peter and his lawful successors received the primacy of jurisdiction (a true statement) and that bishops of the Church have exercised jurisdiction when there was no Pope to do so actively (also a true statement, historically speaking) are not mutually exclusive statements. It simply means that during those times when supplied jurisdiction was utilized, the Pope was not around to exercise their primacy ordinarily.
I don’t know why this is apparently so controversial for you.
What’s actually bizarre is your pointing to a matter of the proper application of the word, “ethic”, versus what the admonition is actually about, but as you insist: Ethic—-moral duty and obligation. Principle of conduct. And so ASM, you now suggest that there is no sense of ethic involved in the application of, “Epikeia”, and as ethics apply to the moral situations of human life in circumstance, yes. We have a moral duty as an obligation (an ethic) of submission of our will to the Authoritative as binding Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, yes. Epikeia is not just applied anywhere as willy nilly, now is it? Rather it is applied in, “situation”. I’m not going to spend any more time on this ASM. Proper logic should now follow.
The Magisterial teaching is that there simply IS NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY AS IN EPIKEIA. Period and end. No Pope, no Jurisdiction. Anyone who affronts that as all your false bishops of the church of Antichrist and they affront the divine Magisterium, each then on his own personal path to Hell and you claim to want to join them. God have mercy on you, ASM. In caritas.
“And whosoever shall say, Thou FOOL, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE.” (St Matt 5:22)
Your spiritual blindness is the controversy. You query this:
“Where have I denied that the primacy of jurisdiction belongs to the Holy See? I have done no such thing.”
And yes you have as you place an affront to the Vatican Council’s teaching, binding all at the pain of Hell, as the Council teaches and binds here:
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
You wrote this: “…as though the Church herself cannot supply jurisdiction.”
You wrote those words ASM. What is it that you now don’t understand about the words you wrote? You claim, “…as though THE CHURCH HERSELF cannot supply jurisdiction.”
We know with apodictic certitude, as a matter deFide, that the Church CANNOT SUPPLY JURISDICTION, as it does not have it to supply as per the Vatican Council. BLESSED PETER IN HIS SUCCESSORS DO AND THEY ARE NOW AND FOREVER GONE FROM THE EARTH as with the LOSS OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, and as Authoritatively taught in the Apostolic Constitution, as ELECTION LAW, no less, of Pope Pius XII, in “VAS”, you imbecilic fool. But you freely deny this in spite of correction and as thus you simply demonstrate, yes you, A SIMPLE MAN, that you SIMPLY CANNOT HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH BECAUSE YOU FREELY CHOOSE TO REJECT HER TEACHING. You cannot at once hold that which you freely reject you fool. You are on a sure path to Hell and you don’t even know it but your poisonous error as your fruits speak as, “You will know them by their fruits”. THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR THE LOSS OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION YOU MISCREANT. Loss of Apostolic Succession means loss of Jurisdiction, as this IS NOT AN INTERREGNUM and that is NOT MY OPINION but the Authoritative Apostolic as binding teaching of, “VAS”. Even in an interregnum, Pope Pius XII taught that NOTHING that can only lawfully be done by the Pontiff, can be done by anyone or any number of any other persons during an interregnum, and anything that is attempted is not just illicit, rather null and void, as invalid. That means no consecration of Bishops for one. Wake up ASM. Submit ASM while you still breathe. Amen. In caritas.
“I hate to tell you but epikeia does not apply. I researched that back when I was trying to make 1000.01% DAMN SURE that I wouldn’t be committing sacrilege by receiving Communion at a CMRI chapel.”
Given that you believe the Earth to be flat (your quote was “The spinning ball THEORY and LIE” per the other thread regarding Benedict XVI), forgive if me I don’t take only your word for it.
Only in calumny as the, reality as it is, is truth. So please save your key strokes. A true fool is a fool, as the Truth simply is. Just like the scandal of holding a beam in your own eye and then admonishing the other for the sliver. In caritas.
“You wrote those words ASM. What is it that you now don’t understand about the words you wrote? You claim, “…as though THE CHURCH HERSELF cannot supply jurisdiction.””
Very well, I confess to a sloppy use of language.
My point remains, that bishops of the Church have previously exercised jurisdiction without robbing Peter’s successor of their primacy, as there was no Pope at the time to **exercise** that primacy. History bears this out.
IC just gave you the definitive answer from the Vatican Council as to why Supplied Jurisdiction does not apply in the way that YOU will it to. There is MORE, but unless someone is sincerely seeking answers and certitude, why should I waste my time (other to assist those hidden viewers of good will which is why I ever do choose to participate, but I only have time for so much)? In fact, there’s an entire book published on the subject in 1948: The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, by Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, IMPRIMATUR 1948. Your position is refuted within, but you wouldn’t be interested in reading that, I assume (hopefully for your sake, wrongly).
On page 98 we can read that “St. Alphonsus believes…when the justice of the law is in doubt, to deviate from it is not permitted.”
“At most, Epikeia can excuse rhe individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor ca pun Epikeia restore the power which THE LAW HAS WITHDRAWN. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.”
Regarding the shape of the earth, I don’t know exactly what shape it might be. What I refuse to do is call God the Holy Ghost a liar when HE states over and over and over again that the earth is IMMOVABLE; that it is set upon a FOUNDATION and is His FOOTSTOOL, that there are WATERS ABOVE AND BELOW the FIRMAMENT.
I have also seen many videos from the horses’ mouths, including an astronaut, stating that we did not ever nor can we go to the moon. I’ve seen the NASA air bubbles evidencing water in “space” (underwater photo-op stunts), the wire tethers – oops – used on the so-called “space station”, the massive green screen foul-ups; and in the news,the “odd” landing places of planes in emergency situations, which make PERFECT sense on a map such as the UN uses to depict the world but not on a ball. It has been proven that there is no curve to the earth; AND THIS ALL DOES MATTER. Place mankind on a spinning ball, hurtling through space, revolving around the sun (THEY worship), as just one of billions of such spinning balls and you create doubt in God, belief in evolution and “aliens” (which are demonic entities), loss of Faith and eventually the end goal of atheism.
Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter… and you’re getting cowardly now as you try to discredit me simply because I refuse to call God a liar with respect to the earth, and thereby maliciously seek to mislead others by implying then that I must be wrong in following His instructions and commands as given to us through Holy Mother Church and Her authentic Magisterium. Touché.
May God have mercy on us both.
Where can you find this book “The True Church” which you speak of?
ASM: “It’s a mere acknowledgment on my part that however the current situation will be resolved – whether we are truly in the End Times, or perhaps that there will be a resurgence by a true Pope to rebuff the heretics and apostates of our days – is above my pay grade.”
Of course it was. I also believe that Melanie knows that.
It’s not a book but nonetheless it was written by a former CMRI “priest” who was enlightened and thereafter refused the lies:
Again, thank you.
ASM as you remain now in obstinate error,
You had this to say:
“Very well, I confess to a sloppy use of language.
My point remains, that bishops of the Church have previously exercised jurisdiction without robbing Peter’s successor of their primacy, as there was no Pope at the time to **exercise** that primacy. History bears this out.
You continue now to demonstrate your utter refusal to submit to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, where The Christ is teaching and governing His Church. Amen. Alleluia. It’s as if you have not read one word of the Magisterial proof which has been presented to you as gift, while at once not the miserable human creature’s to give but to bear witness to, Amen. You literally have no foundational as true understanding of what you write, as you write in the pure as utter fiat of supposition in contradiction to Truth, Amen. You suggest contradiction can actually be present in the infallible as divine Magisterium and you do not know that you do this, and yet in the objective realm for the few with eyes which see, it is evident and with the assent of apodictic certitude, which is allowed for by the reception of Christ’s grace alone. Analogically understood, 2+2=4 in base ten, not because I can prove this but because I KNOW THIS, because my intellect perfectly conforms to the, “reality as it is”, and not how I may connive or falsely contrive it to be, as in deception, Amen. In reality as it is, in truth thus, you are now indeed, and since Oct. 27, 1958 you would have been as you are now, suggesting that it is the Church which supplies the Jurisdiction, as Blessed Peter in his Successors are now and have been since then, gone from the face of this scorched and God forsaken earth, in the loss of Apostolic Succession. Amen. This is tantamount to your insisting as obstinately that in base ten, 2+2=5, and you insistently as obstinately hold your position as such in spite of repeated correction after correction. You are blind ASM, only this error is leading you directly to your own personal as certain path to an eternity in Hell. Lucifer toys with you in your imaginative power as if you are a puppet on a string with him as you master and you are powerless, as you are blind, with the absence of the reception of God’s grace, as this thing itself speaks as the fruit which you bear. Amen.
None, as absolutely NOT ONE, of any possible as historical exceptions apply to this time, as this is the one and only time in the history of the world, whereby Apostolic Succession is lost, deFide, and with it the unique as singular Gift of Jurisdiction from this world also lost, as Blessed Peter in his Successors are gone, and therefore, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY in Epikea, deFide, ASM. There are no distinctions given as, if, but, etc. which were appended to this deFide truth of the Early Church Fathers, which simply is their deFide interpretation of the prophesy of Daniel, and therefore there can be no exceptions, as definitively taught in, “Satis Cognitum”. Amen. You deny the Authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XII in, “VAS”, as though he did not command it, as such you deny it, as though it is not there, and this with the penalty of your own damnation, because he, as also the Vatican Council, Authoritatively warned as such and definitively without distinction, thus again no exception. You suggest Pope Pius XII wouldn’t mean what he commanded and in this blasphemy, you say that Christ Jesus our Lord deceived us, you imbecilic miscreant. Again, know what you do as the conclusion is drawn from your supposition, you fool. Pope Pius XII warned you, as you personally ASM, as us all, that you will lose your salvation as you’ve lost your faith, as you deny even one command, which means change any command, as heresy is both positive and negative, that you WILL GO TO HELL. Amen. The Angels and Saints with the Blessed Virgin as their Queen, will celebrate your eternity in Hell, as this then confirms God’s Will for you, as you deny Him in His holy Magisterium. Contemplate the consequences ASM, as they are ever so very as exquisitely real. Amen.
Lastly for now, look at the profane vulgarity with which you write about the, “Episcopal and Immediate”, power which only Blessed Peter received and in his Successors, as into his very ontology, his being thus, Amen, as it relates to this singular as unique Charism of the Jurisdiction of the entire world, ASM. You suggest this profane reality and to quote you, “… without robbing Peter’s successor of their primacy,…”. Really and truly ASM. You really mean what you write? The Bishops are going to, “rob”, a Charism given by the Holy Ghost to Blessed Peter and in his Successors, ALONE AS SINGULARLY, AS IN NO ONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER HAD THIS NOR EVER WILL, and the Bishops are going to somehow steal this gift from Blessed Peter’s soul? You are a fool and it would be laughable if not damnable for you. Repent ASM. Seek perfect contrition as there is NO ABSOLUTION to be found in the cosmos, you miscreant fool. I love you as with intellective love, ASM. I do yearn for your salvation. In caritas.
One can tell a true Christian by the charity shown to others. Is calling another a “fool” charitable? Is damning another to hell charitable? I thought those were God’s prerogatives.
Good Tuesday morning Cam,
Please get the book, “The True Story of the Vatican Council”, as written by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning”, in 1877, which CANNOT contain heresy as written by a true Bishop in union with his true Pope. You will understand why after reading this beautiful Gift from God above, and for this as our time on earth. Amen. It is available in the public domain on the internet. I have it hard bound for about $30.00. On the bottom of page 14 to top of 15, you will find this as from Cardinal Manning:
“The Primacy in Rome and the Episcopate throughout the world, by the assistance of the Spirit of Truth abiding with it for ever, can never err in guarding and declaring the divine tradition of revelation.”
The grand deception of Lucifer, that we are now living is that, “Rome”, as it is and has been since Oct. 27, 1958, is the, “Primacy of Blessed Peter as the Holy See”, which of course it cannot be as it teaches profound error. Amen. This a properly catechized 10 year old would see and know, as he must, to save his very soul. Amen. God bless you Cam. In caritas.
My father, who I adore, is in the New Order. I’ve explained to him in letters, in long monologues, in almost every conversation we’ve had for a couple yrs now that I do NOT believe that Jorge is the Pope. I don’t know if he has a mental block or if he’s getting demented but right now he is somewhere in sunny FL having absolutely no idea that I do not believe Jorge is even a Catholic man. He sent me a letter To his fake bishop complaining about the sodomites and about Jorge just the other day so that I’d proof it for him & asking if I thought it was good. I told him, it’s a good letter. I don’t know, he’s got a great Guardian Angel, God will sort us out. BUT this FAT FREAK Skojec, he knows EXACTLY what the New Order is and let me tell you people if you think that you are going to get away with worshipping MAN and tell St. Peter at the pearly gates that you did not know THAT was LUCIFERIANISM, GOOD LUCK TO YOU. Man oh man you people are in serious trouble with that BULL.
In caritas (12/3): thank you for the Manning reference. One objection that comes to mind, however, to the quote that’s given is that ‘Episcopate’ can be taken in two different senses — (1) collectively (signifying the bishops as a group) and (2) distributively (signifying the bishops as individuals) — yet the quote itself doesn’t indicate which of these two senses is the one in which Manning is speaking. Consequently, Manning’s words can’t be used to show that bishops are infallible even when teaching as individuals. Thoughts?
If you read the whole article at 1P5, you will find that “Luciferianism” is not what it sounds like. It has to do with a Bishop with the unfortunate name of Lucifer. Other than that, the article is just a rehash of Gallican errors that have been refuted ad nauseam. As is Skojec’s entire body of work, rehashed Gallicanism.
Thanks Tom. I do know that but it was a cowardice clickbait smear of Catholics who would never follow some anti-Catholic monster like Jorge. I no longer even consider Skojec a Catholic and he’s a real bad guy too.
And again, Cam,
“Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”. Everything you ever needed to know, to save your soul, about who Bishops actually are, and who they aren’t, as who they CANNOT possibly be, and as with the very pain of Hell for any as every soul in defiance. Amen. Who is actually a, “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, and who actually received the Consecration from the Holy Ghost Cam, as it is the Holy Ghost who actually as literally chooses His Shepherds, deFide. Deny this and you deny the entire Faith, Cam. Do you now want to stake the claim that the Holy Ghost errs in selecting men for the Episcopate, as in Consecrating them, who will later fall from the Faith, because if you do, you’re simply not Catholic, yes? So Cam, you may want to understand the, “sense”, as you referred to it, as the only sense which proves that you hold the divine and Catholic Faith, and that is through total as utter submission into that which the Church actually as definitively and Authoritatively teaches, as that which finds its wellspring as the divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as every iota of every element contained within it, as divine Truth itself, in the Unity of Faith and the Unity of Communion, as The Christ teaching and governing His Church. Amen. In caritas.
YES, Mothermostforgiving—That is exactly right.
The heat turns up in the kitchen and mmf turns, as to show your true colors? Interesting how the truth works, isn’t it? “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword.” Why did the God-Man command this mmf? As it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen, yes. Why does the word fool exist mmf? It is a word, yes, which is not vulgar as intrinsically evil. It has true meaning thus. Perhaps it means something like, “a person lacking in judgment or prudence”, as per Merriam-Webster’s. Do you know people by their fruits, mmf? Do they lack true Catholic judgment and prudence? The Christ commands you to, yes, and of course He does. Do you see rotten fruit here mmf or are you utterly blind?
Who is someone that after repeated corrections from the divine Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, refuses to even acknowledge that the Magisterium exists in their work, as time and time and time and again, as while placing affront after repeated affront to the Holy Magisterium, as objectively witnessed by those with eyes to see, and as commanded of us by The Christ we MUST, “KNOW them by their fruits.”??? Who are those persons mmf? True Justice, as that which is truly do the other, in charity and in truth, commands that we know who they are, and that they receive their do, that which is truly do them, as that simply IS TRUE JUSTICE, and we know them by the command of the God-Man— as by their fruits, you WILL KNOW them. What is so hard to see about that truth, mmf? In true justice they are reprobate fools, imbeciles, and miscreants, period and end. To suggest otherwise denies true Justice. Period and end. As it denies true Justice, it enables them on their sure as certain path to Hell mmf. Yes, their sure and certain path to Hell. The Church Judges them, not this miserable wretch deserving of my own eternity in Hell as immanently understood, but the Church in Her divine Magisterium. What don’t you see that a properly catechized 12 year old would here, to save his soul? Obstinate heresy is a worse crime than murder, mmf, as true Church perennial teaching. And you’re bothered by proper linguistic labels? You would rather brush over the blasphemous lies because that is your comfortable space, yes? What is the, “Church Militant”, mmf. What is militant? “Passive”, is that militant? Enabling error, is that militant? When you deny Truth, you deny The Christ mmf. Period and end, as He commanded Himself as to be Truth, yes. Deny the divine and Holy as Authoritative and Infallible Magisterium, as in, “one jot or tittle”, to use the profane language of use by A Simple Man, and you literally as actually deny The Christ. Who else would you be denying? WHO ELSE WOULD YOU BE DENYING MMF??? Affront the Holy Magisterium and you affront The Christ as who else would you be affronting? Do you get it now mmf? I pray that you do to save your soul. In caritas.
The miscreant again, “speaks”, as 2———-cents. Save your key strokes, you reprobate fool. Your fiat as, “That is exactly right.”, is first seen as a, “cheerleader”, but immanently it is known as worthless, as you were created, ex nihilo. Use Magisterial Truth to validate your fiat, 2 cents. Amen. I pray that you save your soul. In caritas.
IC–I’m sorry. Can you repeat that? I wasn’t listening.
There are those who deny the truth of the Catholic Church offered to them because they have been reared in Protestant homes where mother and father (and THEIR mothers and fathers before them) taught their children to hate Catholics and the Catholic Church. It is the work of the devil and his minions. And there are those who, knowing that the Catholic Church IS the very Church that Christ Himself brought into being and possessing all truth by way of the Paraclete, deny the truth of the Catholic Church pertinaciously because they hate that truth.
The former are steeped in invincible ignorance. If they are shown the way—by word and by example—of the sweetness and light that a TRUE knowledge of our Divine Master brings to us, then they can throw off the shackles that Protestantism binds its victims with. They see that Our Blessed Lord’s admonition ” 28 Come to me all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you. 29 Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: And you shall find rest to your souls. 30 For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.” (Mt 11:28-30) They see that Christ does not bring a sledge hammer with Him to pound His truth into us, but rather He brings His meekness and humbleness of heart.
The latter are a different case altogether. They are full of pride and insist on bludgeoning everyone else with THEIR version of the “truth,” whether it’s the version which denies and mocks the very Godhead, or it’s the version which distorts Christ’s message: the sort of distortion which the Protestant fire breather brings or even the so-called “Catholic” know-it-all who insists on lecturing everyone about “the faith.” He is full of himself and will not tolerate anyone who does not conform to his every word.
Which one are you, In caritas?
Are you aware of the penalty which God imposes for the sin of Rash Judgment? Because that is exactly the sin which you and many others here are committing by presuming to read the mind and heart behind the sharp words. God WITHDRAWS GRACE for that sin. Think about that for awhile.
These are extremely serious matters which will determine where we spend ETERNITY, and NOT ONE of us knows exactly WHEN God will take us. All IC has ever done is present, not his own lousy opinion, but the ANSWERS to MANY QUESTIONS which – SURPRISE – have been within the teachings of the Holy and Perpetual MAGISTERIUM of THE ACTUAL CHURCH THE ENTIRE TIME! These Church documents contain NOT ONE iota of AMBIGUITY, yet still, many here won’t even read them much less read small excerpts of them because, well, it might mean that YOU are WRONG. Worse yet, they do read them but reject them, saying they are irrelevant to our times. Good luck to you all who reject JESUS CHRIST who IN ALL REALITY is the one speaking to you, because you’re gonna need it.
It might mean that you can’t go for coffee and donuts after “Mass”, where you have sacriligiously received DOUBTFUL Sacraments, simply for the sake of your own comfort. It might mean that you lose friends and family – at minimum their respect – or in some cases even your income. If you are known as a “priest”, then you might lose everything including your “retirement”. You might be persecuted, hated, called “crazy”, “extreme”, “hateful” and lose ALL of the HUMAN RESPECT that feeds your hungry pride and ego.
What price for a soul? IC has explained himself over and over, and these attacks grow more vicious nonetheless. Why is that? It is simply because our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, WHO SEEK OUR DESTRUCTION.
There are at least two GOOD reasons for the approach taken by IC:
1) To convey to the obstinate the seriousness of their CRIME. Yes, the crime, and that so they might come to their senses one day and SAVE THEIR IMMORTAL SOUL.
2) To convey to others who are actually seeking the Truth that such OPINIONS are DEADLY and to be avoided, so that they, too, might not fall into the web of lies or that they might be pulled out from it.
THIS is true Caritas, NOT cheerleading for one another no matter whether the opinions held have any ounce of TRUTH to them or not. No….we just gloss over them all with niceties. Where is the love of and desire for TRUTH in that?! Nowhere!
The root of these attitudes is PRIDE and PRESUMPTION, not Charity. True Charity is not lukewarm but instead BURNS for the LOVE and salvation of souls FOR GOD’S SAKE, and thus speaks up and calls a spade a spade to HELP their brother. Most seem to think that if they’re a “nice” and “good person”, and go though the motions – any sort of “Catholic” will do – even if it means sacrilege, doing “the best they can” in these circumstances, that they’re on their way to the pearly Gates of Heaven. Scripture states that the JUST man is scarcely saved. If that is so and IT IS, then how on earth does anyone here think they’re going off to heaven with the attitude that one can sift and explain away MAGISTERIAL COMMANDS which address THE VERY SITUATION with which we are RIGHT NOW confronted? Commands which we MUST follow in STRICT JUSTICE if we truly wish to save our souls. Christ speaks through HIS Church and HIS Vicars and we think we can be unruly children because the Pope is away? Anyone who believes this is insane and deceived. Unless you become like a LITTLE CHILD YOU WILL NOT MAKE IT. Good little children obey the rules when their mother is away as well as when she is present. Good little children trust that their mother knows what’s best for them, and run TO her when they fall down – NOT AWAY FROM HER into the arms of the kidnapper! It’s not IC you reject as he merely copies and pastes the Truth; it’s JESUS CHRIST.
Many of you seem think that you are smarter than Satan and have it all figured out and could never be deceived by him into standing on the wrong side of the chasm. REALLY??? Well, if you think IC is “mean”, then get ready because you ain’t seen or heard nothin’ yet…
Intolerance and cruelty
The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only pronounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ (see INQUISITION).
– The Catholic Encyclopedia on Heresy
“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.” -Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
“If you wish to imitate the multitude, then you shall not be among the few who shall enter in by the narrow gate.” -Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church
“The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world!” -Saint Louis Marie de Montfort
I can’t believe this, tough Catholics who should aspire to “eating nails for breakfast”, that want to be handled with “kid gloves”? Enough flattery. Why are you referring to In caritas in quotes as “Catholic” and comparing him to a Protestant?
We should appreciate someone who tries to speak straight as possible; how many times have you come across this? We are all wretches, and fools, and in need of correction. So what? Why is it that this generation needs to have everything so freaking “nice”? I would think that we might be getting sick of that by now. I hope by the good Lord’s grace, I and all of us wretches receive a good and proper whipping before it’s too late.
If we think In caritas is “abusive”, we’re getting way too soft. Like, Skojek soft. Big turkey soft. Does it sound like In caritas is trying to please men, and become “popular”, or is he trying to make points of truth from the Magisterium of the Church ? C’mon, we take real abuse and scandal from those heretics and liars of the false “church” everyday, calling themselves “Catholic”, and who deprive us of any possible unity and fellowship, and spread us out so thin, we will never see each other face to face. Never mind the Sacraments. A wretched state indeed.
Please reconsider; if In caritas is teaching falsely, then correct and refute him properly, but if not, don’t be offended,
allow him his way of making his point and let it be, and consider the points he makes, and think about how we are all poor wretches in need of correction. I know upon closer inspection, on this long road, I’ve found myself too many times to be a heretic to my dismay, or have realized I’ve been taken and deceived by them.
Sweet talkers are a dime a dozen, and we are all fools. Let’s just make sure that we are fools for Christ.
Tell IC to weigh in.
Skojek’s income would become peanuts in a hurry if he started to seek and proclaim truth.
Yes, he’s a serious bad guy.
Good early Wednesday morning mmf,
Recall your words of me not long ago in this same space at aka. Something like, I don’t hear anything written by him that does not edify the Catholic Faith. So far, nothing he’s written strikes me as anything but Catholic. Does that ring a familiar bell in your imaginative memory now mmf??? You now are showing yourself to be simply another fool. You’ve been asked several times now mmf and you could not answer. Who was Roncalli and what is the church that he was elected pope of? Is it the Catholic Church mmf? If so, how can it be? If not, why not, and then what is it? What does divine prophesy and deFide teaching of the Early Fathers tell us that it must be? Where is the Catholic Church since Oct. 27, 1958? Is it to be found in the false sects of the false church, NONE of them in union with the other, as this speaks as res ipsa loquitur? Which false sect elects the next true Vicar of Christ, if such absurdity as blasphemy were possible? If the true Church is not to be found in the false sects, as if that were possible, then where? Are we in a so called, “extended interregnum”, and if so, how could that be Catholic, as interregnums of the Catholic Church were always expedient as always diligently persistent in selecting the next Pontiff, even when barriers were in the way? Can we ever have another Vicar of Christ in this world?, and if you answer yes, prove that using the divine Magisterium, as anyone who holds the Catholic Faith simply must be able to do to save his soul.
Are you Catholic or are you only faux, like all but all alive today who claim the Faith, as the miscreants which you write about above, as in platitudes? You really think mmf, that so called, “protestants”, who were raised in, “protestant”, homes have it tough? Do you really now? Firstly, they do not by and large have what you call, “inculpable ignorance”, as their escape, you fool. The Truth is readily available for them to seek, yet they freely choose to remain complacent in their sloth and other vice in lieu of virtue, perfectly void of fortitude, just as all those who are arguably worse off, as assenting to the false church of Antichrist, as though it is Catholic. They are all culpable mmf, as 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. Amen.
Look into your own home and since Oct. 27, 1958 mmf. Look very carefully there. If you are the example of those who claim to actually hold the Catholic Faith, then no one there actually does, as this thing itself speaks as res ipsa loquitur, and in full submission to the command of the God-Man, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. What are your fruits mmf? You don’t have to look to your, “protestant”, homes mmf. You are in the very heart of the Beast, as the Whore of Babylon, and you do not even know it. You think it should be nice here. You pervert the teaching of the divine Master as to suggest that those who obstinately oppose Him, time and time and time and again after repeated Magisterial correction, should be treated with meekness, as if they were those who openly sought the Truth as Jesus the Christ. You miscreant fool. The Christ commanded, “You are either with Me or you are against Me. Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the Devil.” Amen. What is it that you do not comprehend of The Christ’s command there mmf? You who would placate Christ’s enemies at best but you don’t even see who His enemies are you fool. What is a fool mmf? It is you, as a person lacking in judgment and prudence. You cannot even judge who the enemies of The Christ are, as right in your midst. Obstinate heretics are His most vile enemies, even as they falsely profess to hold the Catholic Faith, you miscreant. Do you think Tom A, my2cents, 2Vermont, A Simple Man, for starters actually hold the Catholic Faith?, as they demonstrate over and over and over and again in spite of correction, that they simply CANNOT as they hold obstinate heresy, and the miscreant fools actually think that they escape their heresy because they claim it is me that judges them and using my, “opinion”. That’s not what you claimed of what I write, now is it mmf? The facts speak. At least A Simple Man attempts to place proof and he has not been vile as the rest of the sycophant cadre of the most villainous and malevolent miscreant as Tom A. You cannot answer the questions which require holding the Catholic Faith to see, as this thing itself speaks. Amen. You think this is hard, mmf. It only continues to get much more tumultuous as in the tempest of tempests from here. Amen. I pray this Catholic admonishment helps you see the Truth by reception of His grace alone. Amen. In caritas.
Good early Wed morning james__o,
It is wonderful to hear a Catholic voice as yours, crying from the wilderness. God be with you and yours’. Amen. In caritas.
Good Wed morn’ ASB,
As you do and yet again, bear witness to the true, the beautiful, and the good. In humility I read your words. May the Blessed Virgin continue to hold you in her Immaculate Heart, carrying you then unto her Sacred Heart, our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
A degree of charity is certainly due to FormerSede, since he is clearly disturbed. It’s one thing to bait trolls and quite another to torment those with mental health issues.
Luke 12;20: “But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee…”
If I held heretical opinions, I would like to be admonished for it, even be called a fool and worse.
There should be no doubt IC is concerned about one thing: His own and our SALVATION.
If this statement is true, then Santa Claus is real. Why?
Since we haven’t been visited by people from the future, does that mean that time travel will never be possible? Why?
What would happen if Pinocchio were to say, “My nose will grow right now”? Why?
What is three thousand times 3? Why?
What do you think of Prince Andrew? Why?
Ur a gud little chatbot. Izn’t that kohrekt? Why?
I agree with you, James O.
In Caritas is a rare gem. He is trying to help us see what is right in front of us, and yes, we are damned fools if we dance all around it and desire to make it into anything other than what it *is*.
Good Wednesday morning to you dearest georgianne,
May Almighty God continue to shower you with His intellective lights of grace, as you receive His truth as Truth Himself. You affirm for me, in my intellect and will, the perfectly miserable wretch that I am and can only ever be, this side the veil, and I thank you dearly for such a gift that you bestow upon me. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
Good Wednesday morning to you dearest Ursula,
To once and again, “hear”, your voice, is symphonic music to my ears, at the scale of maestro, and as that of james__o, yours’ is the utter cry, the plea, from the wilderness of this wretched, now scorched and barren, anti-Catholic world, desolate now of all things Christ Jesus and since Oct. 9, 1958, as the death of the final Vicar of The Christ as the, “Angelic Pastor”, this hellish place will ever see; whose Prince all but all alive today are slaves of, and they do not even know it. Amen. May the Blessed Virgin Mother of God continue to give you counsel. Amen. In caritas.
Oh’ mmf, and you now objectively demonstrate your true colors, in your abysmal descent towards the abyss,
Please now find here, as from the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, “Satis Cognitum”, which dear Louie recently wrote about on these pages, the Truth of the matter, as you, in your anxious and vile screed above, objectively affront. Amen.
“Unity in Faith
6. But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body – “one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: “Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me…that they also may be one in Us…that they may be made perfect in one” (John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: “I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee” (Ibid. 21).
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.”
Simply ask yourself the simple and pure question now mmf: who are the few now writing on this page that evidence this, “Unity of Faith”, which is the sine qua non of actually being, “Catholic”, as infallibly taught here by Pope Leo XIII? One God, One Faith, One Communion, as One Church—–One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that you receive the Holy Faith as freely, into your intellect and will, before you draw your final breath. Amen. I rest. In caritas.
In response to A Simple Begger”:
“Kind words in the face of evil, contradiction, and lies, misguided compassion, popularity contests, stoking our egos via human respect – all rubbish which leads to hell! What about the Truth?
Dear nhmontg, …”
What on earth are you saying? To whom do you begin your reply by insulting? Then you take it upon yourself to preach to me? “Stroking our egos by human respect?” What kind of rubbish is this? What triggered your ego for such a tirade? James gave us good advice when he wrote:
“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”
I posted to thank Tom for sharing his experience, one Catholic to another. As good Catholics, we know we are all made in the image of God, not sheep. All Jesus teaches us through parables is good. Perhaps you assumed me ignorant to all you felt compelled to write. My simple answer is that I beg to differ.
Who is your Pope?
Dear In Caritas,
If Roncalli was the Antichrist, then where were the attendant signs that Cornelius a Lapide said would be present in his approved commentary?
It was commissioned by Bishops and theologians, and was praised and held as the favorite commentary by many saints. One can adhere to it without falling into error or deception.
In Caritas is a chatbot software program, not a human. There are several brands of this type of software available and each of them makes use of a database where words, phrases and ways of saying things exhibited by people who comment on blogs are stored. The program retrieves them and incorporates them into a general framework which is (somewhat) controlled by the human who owns the software and uses it to “comment” on blogs that are visited. That’s what’s been going on here at akacatholic.
Notice the verbiage employed consistently (and nauseatingly so) by IC on this blog, such things as:
“Period and end” — a million times since IC has been commenting on this blog
“your imaginative memory” What kind of memory could it be other than imaginative? This is evidence of non-human generation. People say “your memory” and leave it at that. IC does this sort of thing ALL the time.
“miscreant fool” — four times in this reply alone; a million times since IC has been commenting on this blog
And many other examples which, if one will take the time to check IC’s comment history (and NOBODY wants to do that!), will serve to further prove my point.
We’ve all been scratching our heads for a while now at the weird verbiage found in IC’s EXTREMELY LONG comments, most of it unrelated to the points we have made in our own comments, comments which incited the ire of In caritas. Human beings just don’t form sentences like IC does, and that’s because they’re humans and NOT computer software. A while back, someone referred to IC as a chatbot (I forget who, but thank you, whoever you are). That struck a chord with me and I began to read, in their entirety, IC’s comments and replies. That’s when it hit me: In caritas IS a chatbot.
Notice, as an example, his/its reply to me further up in this particular blog post:
“What does divine prophesy and deFide teaching of the Early Fathers tell us that it must be? Where is the Catholic Church since Oct. 27, 1958? Is it to be found in the false sects of the false church, NONE of them in union with the other, as this speaks as res ipsa loquitur?” Which false sect elects the next true Vicar of Christ, if such absurdity as blasphemy were possible? If the true Church is not to be found in the false sects, as if that were possible, then where? Are we in a so called, “extended interregnum”, and if so, how could that be Catholic, as interregnums of the Catholic Church were always expedient as always diligently persistent in selecting the next Pontiff, even when barriers were in the way? Can we ever have another Vicar of Christ in this world?, and if you answer yes, prove that using the divine Magisterium, as anyone who holds the Catholic Faith simply must be able to do to save his soul.”
No mention is made here of the salient points I made in my reply to him/it, only a reiteration of the data bits stored in IC’s database. This is because IC is a software program, not a human. There IS a human (more than one?) to clean up after the targets of the software, i.e. other commenters on the blog, begin to befuddle the software—A Simple Begger, call your office—and IC goes dark for a while until it’s safe to “comment” again.
Notice that IC did not mention anything regarding my chatbot bait: ” If this statement is true, then Santa Claus is real. Why?” etc. That’s because IC is not a human and the illogic of my bait comments rendered the program helpless in deciphering them. Ergo, nothing about them in IC’s reply. If IC were actually a human, then those illogical/irrational/ungrammatical statements of mine would have been addressed. They were not.
The game is up, IC (et al).
By the way, if someone were trying to sully the name of the Catholic Church and to persuade non-Catholics that the Catholic Church is filled with mean-spirited people (or is it miscreant fools?) and that they should look elsewhere for that which they seek, then they could not do a better job of it than IC and his/its cohorts have done. Calling people “fool” and damning them to hell?!!! Who would want to be a part of an organization with people like YOU in it?
I’ve done a few word counts in the comments on various articles. In Caritas contributes around ten thousand words each time.
I’d like to say, “I knew something was off” or “Told ya this one isn’t right”, but it’s not as good as a big
“HA, THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!”
But, but, how can you say that???? It’s clear he wants nothing but to save his soul and yours! 😛
Thank you, mmf. I don’t understand any of this computer software stuff, but it does make sense. I hope Louie is aware of this and finds a way of screening comments like this from his blog. It is almost comforting to know that IC isn’t human.
Librorium: “With regards to that quote regarding the “Bishop of Brizen”, there is no “Brizen” that was the seat of a bishop. There was a “Brixen”, but the bishop at the time of Pius IX, Vincent Gasser, was a supporter of papal infallibility. It makes no sense that Pius IX would write a letter to such a bishop who, being a defender of papal infallibility, would entertain the thought that a future pope could teach anything contrary to the Catholic Faith. So it’s very likely this quote is a bunch of fairy tales.”
Yeah, I see Memento has still not returned with his ace in a hole. I think we should just call a spade a spade: the Pius IX quote is a fake, not to mention, blasphemous.
What an absolutely pitiful display; I’m almost embarrassed for you infantile, effeminate, malignant, miscreant fools.
If you died RIGHT NOW where would you end up?
“But I say unto you, that EVERY idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.” JESUS CHRIST, Mt 12:36
If this were my blog, the likes of you would be deleted and blocked, regardless of whether or not I agreed with your worthless OPINIONS. Now, go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or your Lifetime movies and stop embarrassing yourselves, you fools.
From where do you get that Roncalli is the Antichrist?
The rug you’ve been standing upon, the bot you’ve been quoting from, and whose manner of speech you’ve even been assimilating, has been pulled out from under your feet.
And you retaliate with more of the same??
Don’t worry. The bot will surely be back soon with another very long comment. Your eyes, like everyone else’s will glaze over after a paragraph or two.
Even though you, like the rest, won’t read the other twelve paragraphs, you’ll take comfort in the multitude of words, and by that fact alone, you’ll be sure you’re still right.
Actually, I’m now thinking you might be just another of the same.
I actually don’t believe he’s a bot….but perhaps this is what happens to a person who is “home alone” for so long.
You ignorant fool (what can I say? It fits).
I stand on no such “rug”. I stand on the Rock of the Papacy and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, with Truth as my Breastplate.
I have said this before and now must repeat myself YET AGAIN as you people obviously can’t READ or it’s that you’re a LIAR: I came to the VERY SAME conclusion as IC – BEFORE HE DID – and HE had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT NOR DID THIS COMMENT SECTION or any participants herein have anything to do with it whatsoever. I petitioned GOD for the answers as of myself I had nothing but DOUBTS, and GOD showed me WHERE to look. How dare you blaspheme the Truth (Jesus Christ).
The fruits of your “spirits” are here on display for all to see, yet still you have no shame, much less any concern about the price you’ll pay for all of the idle words – which will be the least of your problems.
It’s evening now likely, wherever you all are, and as typical you’ll disappear and things will quiet down because you’ll be off to watch the IDIOT BOX you pay for from which flows all the filth into your darkened minds and hearts. I’m done playing with you “little darlings”. May God through some miracle have mercy on your souls.
You are t the only one who has prayed and lost sleep over this crisis and seeking the answer as best as they can. Don’t forget that!
Fair enough but I never claimed to be. It’s just interesting that there’s only ONE position which evokes such utter hatred and it’s not yours, but the one which simply seeks to leave behind the ambiguity and doubt by following Christ in His Holy Church Magisterium, through which He remains with us unto the consummation. EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else is tolerated, placated or praised. The reason for this is obvious to those who can see.
I do hope the best for you as I do for myself, TPS.
The satanic human pathology on full display right here and now is as unutterably stunning as it is breathtaking. Remain on the wide and comfortable road which you are as objectively on, my2cents, and you will indeed experience great, “comfort”, in the very bowels of Hell for all eternity, where you will only wish, that you were a, “bot”, you bumbling as babbling miscreant fool. Lucifer will then torment you in ways which you cannot even now glimpse in imagination and endlessly, as he now simply toys with your imaginative power, as you are his puppet and he is your master as your Prince, which is to be known now, for all those with eyes which can see, and you don’t even know it, you miserable fool. Amen. May Almighty God have mercy on your abysmally darkened soul. In caritas.
Ursula: “If I held heretical opinions, I would like to be admonished for it, even be called a fool and worse.”
I just said the very same thing to a friend recently. My pride might make me buck at first, but then as usual I’d end up looking into the why.
Yes, well, I’m hoping it’s at least given them something to go back and think about. Especially to think twice about relying on R&R propaganda without checking to see if it’s true, because there’s a lot of stuff that isn’t.
The utter problem for him ASB, is that his prayers are not heard by The Christ, as he is not a child of God, rather heathen as pagan, worshiping his god as man, outside the true Church thus, where no salvation can be found, deFide; as he wales and gnashes his teeth in the wasteland of this world in cacophony, while at once in preparation for the eternity which he now diligently works for, as is objectively witnessed by his fruits. “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” The evil tree CANNOT bear good fruit. “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. God save his wretched soul. In caritas.
You fully dehumanize in such ways that are so utterly hideous as despicable, that it is as though you are Lucifer himself writing these words. It is utterly unimaginable what must enter your mind, miscreant woman. The vitriolic malignity which you utter is literally mind bending and your sycophants who cheer you now, will curse you as forever and ever and ever and ever in Hell, should any of you remain on this satanic and wide road to Hell itself, as each of you draws his last breath and meets the Infinite Judge. Amen. Your words are as of Hell itself, you sick and twisted old woman. What is the reflection that you witness in the mirror, you imbecilic fool? The Prince of this world is the one who utterly detests the human person in ways that are not humanly knowable and yet in your words, you glimpse the likes of this most hideous as fallen creature from God. God created them in His likeness and image, man and woman, He created them. You are Lucifer’s emissary you miserable old woman. How much time might you think that you have left this side the veil? God have mercy on your putrid as rotting soul. In caritas.
“I pity the fool” – Mr T.
Behold In caritas now responding to his sockpuppet A Simple Beggar. Just plain pitiful.
Those known as Blunderbuss and/or Ganganelli are likely behind the In caritas/A Simple Beggar characters, which are obviously intended to make trads look insane.
Can you even read? IC had absolutely NO role to play whatsoever with respect to the position I now hold with MORAL CERTITUDE. I hate to thereby blow the whole “thesis” that you and your “friends” here hold so close to your darkened hearts.
I was ONCE a sock puppet just like YOU ARE RIGHT NOW – but NO MORE.
Louie–I think it’s time to close the Comments section. Thank you for your patience, but it’s getting insane.
Louie can see right through your types and it’s the embarrassing and shameful behavior of you and yours that is the problem; you obviously lack humility and therein lies one of the reasons for your blindness:
“If, on the other hand, you’re the type of person who finds it extremely difficult to admit errors in matters of faith, even when confronted with evidence that your long held views and opinions have been off the mark (something that has happened to every single one of us at some point or another), take a moment to pray for the humility to conform your intellect and will to the mind of Holy Mother Church, our only safe haven.”
If he were to decide to close the combox, may God’s Will be done, but it will only be due to shameful behavior such as your own which lends absolutely nothing of value to the conversation, and not because you ask him to or infer that he should; it’s not your blog.
“…the In caritas/A Simple Beggar characters, which are obviously intended to make trads look insane.”
Can I point out that “trads” don’t need anyone to help to “make them look insane”. They do a marvellous job of it all on their own.
Forget about those “camps”, they are just sects. You are seeking to be in the Catholic Church, and to just be Catholic, pure and simple. There’s only One Magisterium, One Church. No right/left paradigm in that Church.
And knock off this stupid “IC is a chatbot” stuff. It’s irrational and ridiculous.
IC, the theological “Terminator”.
Yeah, good idea, let’s close the combox, just when things are getting interesting. Let’s have a combox just like onepeterfive, where everything is nice and filtered and comfortably numb.
If this combox isn’t “fight club”, then it’s worthless.
What in the hell?
Are you all related or something? Talk about a dysfunctional family. It’s like the family holiday party gone bad…I can almost see the scene in the dining room.
Well, since we’re all condemned anyway and one of us is just a bot (wth?), I’ll be out on the patio with a stiff drink and a pack of smokes. Don’t break anything, and don’t spill my good wine on the carpet…on second thought, here, gimme that bottle, I’m taking it to the patio, I don’t trust you all with it.
Get this sh!t outta your systems and then stick around and help clean up.
I’ll be out back.
With the alcohol.
And the smokes.
No need for that.
IC and ASB have been (ridiculously and outrageously) attacked, but their argument has not been disproved. Theirs is the only position that does not allow for any doubt.
There can only be one Truth.
Oh’ and it’s 2……………cents again,
You are literally a caricature of yourself, you miserable imbecilic moron as fool. You are the literal cheerleader of one, who actually as literally, has now written and objectively demonstrated, that she holds within her very intellect, such as she has now made manifest in her words, diabolical insanity, and then you, 2……cents, wave the white flag, suggesting that it’s now time to, “shut it down”, because it is, “getting insane”. None of this can be made up. Know this and know it with apodictic certitude as deFide, that Hell exists, and there are people just like you there now, 2……….cents, and for all eternity they are there. Also know with apodictic certitude that you, “aint seen nothin’ yet”. This cacophony here, as parlayed by the diabolically insane, and cheered on by the likes of your filth, is but a mere foretaste, nothing but a glimpse, of the cacophony that you yourself, my……………2…………cents, will screech into eternity, you miserable, pathological fool, should you not seek, as perfect, contrition. Amen. God have mercy on your putrid soul. In caritas.
ASB, I’m sure you recall a few blog posts back that IC made that claim. Strange that you don’t seem to remember. You were backing him up, elusively saying words to the effect that “it’s obvious who the Antichrist was, but the rest of you are not ready to hear it. Only In Caritas and I are advanced enough to handle the truth”
Remember? I do.
So could you please ask IC to answer my question above? I didn’t have any luck after straightforward and repeated asking last time.
Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say, or which imply a certain disposition which I do not have.
No one said that Roncalli is the Antichrist. I do remember and that’s why I asked you the question. I said I’d leave it to IC to answer if he’d like to, and that if he didn’t then he has some good reason not to do so.
If it was to be so easy to identify the Antichrist then how could it be that, if possible, “even the Elect would be deceived”? It wouldn’t be such a stupendous deception then would it? Please think about that.
There has always been speculation on the person of Antichrist when in fact there are only a few clues within Scripture. It’s a mystery and something about which we could only be certain after the fact, and for most of the living only after all is said and done at the end of time.
I know that IC is not intending to make the answer something only some secret club can know. I can’t speak for him but to me it seems as though you want the answer only so that you can reject it. The answer is out there if you look for it, and it makes perfect sense once the blinders are off about what exactly has happened since October 9, 1958.
I hope that helps. Good night, TPS.
I think the same. Let whoever wants to get his own blog.
I’ll take you up on the pack of smokes. It’s been a long time since I’ve had one but they never really leave you.
As I have said before, I don’t think he is reading this combox. Although he never “modded” it, he used to interact once in awhile. It’s been weeks since he’s done that.
Dear A Simple Beggar,
Who is your pope?
Dear A Simple Beggar,
I am the one asking you the question. I’m attempting to objectively discern whether or not you are a member of the Catholic Church. I assume your Pope is Francis, or perhaps Benedict?
Louie has indeed said that he has neither the time nor inclination to police comments.
In Caritas declares that we have no Holy Mass we can go to. Speak for yourself pal.
I know why you leave these lies over and over with nothing to back them up. It’s also as if you’d like people to believe that IC is the source and first adherent to this singularly authentic Catholic position. Wrong yet again. IC has declared no such thing; Holy MOTHER Church and the Holy Scriptures has declared the reasons why this must be so; but as you have repeatedly demonstrated, YOU reject HER authority and instead choose to believe the LIE called “extended interregnum”, when it’s now 61 years PLUS past the 18-day deadline to elect a true Pope, a deadline imposed by none other than POPE Pius XII, after whom we got a Roncalli, a Montini. a John Paul II, a Benedict and now a Francis. How did Roncalli happen? Because yes, as IC said, many of those in the Conclave were never even true bishops. Remember Bella Dodd? She said the idea was for the 1100(!) infiltrators to become bishops. Real bishops? Think about that. What makes you think the likes of them couldn’t be among those you consider to be valid and licit bishops? Oh Tom, don’t be so naive…
Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)
Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. …This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. …And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church’s enemies are also my enemies.” (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology)
Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903):
“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: SHE ALONE, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, IS THE SOURCE OF TRUTH.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
Hahaha sorry, my weary eyes – it’s Tony, not Tom. I guess the message is meant for Tony and especially Tom.
That’s why IC says Roncalli was the Antichrist. If that is so, then where are the accompanying signs that Cornelius a Lapide said would be there in his approved commentary?
He said no such thing. You’re not interested in the Truth and if I’m wrong about that then keep praying and asking what you need to let go of in order for the blindness to be removed. I already addressed your query in another reply. If it’s not an interregnum PER THE POPE’S orders regarding a Conclave, then where else does that leave us, 61+ years later? I mean this is ridiculous. Given the FILTHY and FAITHLESS “hierarchy” coupled with Dodd’s testimony before Congress which explains it to perfection, that leaves every single person here with nothing but DOUBTFUL SACRAMENTS. Fake “Bishops” beget fake “Bishops” who then beget fake “priests”. Check-mate on your so-called Sacraments, because even the Sedes got and get their bishops and priests from out of the Novus Ordo. If there were any legitimate Bishops they’d be of one mind and would be screaming from the rooftops right now. But no, all we hear is crickets and no unity which is a Mark of the Church, as day-by-day the world and the Anti-church descends further into darkness and depravity. Some “fruits” we have of all these so-called “holy” Masses out there. Just look at all the graces flowing out into the world. Just kidding – those days are obviously over. I witnessed and experienced all the “holiness” (or lack thereof) in the various types of “chapels”. Now it all makes sense. Cornelius a Lapide was just doing the best he could at the time without stating anything heretical. His interpretation is not infallible. Many things aren’t known and are simply a mystery until AFTER the fact, amd with respect to the Antichrist we are talking about THE DECEPTION of all deceptions. “Wake up and smell the coffee.”
Poor, poor as obstinate miscreant fool, oh’ so called, TPS,
You are simply a belligerent fool now aren’t you, Satan’s subject? You are an instrument of Lucifer and you remain as perfectly blind to that very specific reality as it is, truth thus, as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits.”. So called TPS, says that because Lapide’s pious commentary on the, “End of Time”, was deemed to contain, no heresy, AS THAT IS ALL, “CHURCH APPROVED COMMENTARY”, MEANS, that somehow God deceived us, once and again, as according to Lucifer’s subject as TPS, God revealed His Mystery to Lapide before God ACTUALLY REVEALED HIS MYSTERY. You blasphemous as malicious and miscreant fool. You could care less about leading vulnerable souls astray in your profound as Luciferian error, now could you, Lucifer’s subject, as so called, TPS? As Lucifer’s subject, so called TPS, declares that Almighty God is a deceiver, while Almighty God has deemed and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, has received and taught as perennially, that Divine Prophecy, “REMAINS VEILED IN MYSTERY UNTO ITS SPECIFIC TIME OF REVELATION, AS WHEN IT IS NO LONGER VEILED”, you confounded fool. So that it is utterly clear from this horse’s mouth, I NEVER WROTE THAT RONCALLI WAS THE ANTICHRIST, as ASB has already made perfectly clear. Do you not see just how confounded you are, Lucifer’s subject, as so called, TPS? God have mercy on your abysmally darkened soul. Amen. In caritas.
THE DECEPTION of all deceptions. The deception is so widespread that it may even apply to yourself as well. Even the Elect. Without a Pope to anchor us in the Truth, we are ALL susceptible to deception AND that includes YOU! You are not immune from deception either so you should wake up and smell your own coffee. I realize I may be deceived, you think for a fact that you are not. Who is the bigger fool?
First of all, I’m sorry I was not tenacious with the reply. Yes, you are correct about Pius IX. I should have checked the source for that quote. That does not however negate the other correct quotes, including the doctors of the Church. It is absurd to claim that Saint Belarmine’s quote; “above all, who attempts to DESTROY THE CHURCH. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” is about “resisting evil *commands* of a morally bad pope, e.g., an order to blow up St Peter’s basilica, or let’s throw a wild drunken party”. How the heck would that destroy the Church?
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)….” (Summa de Ecclesia
, founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
I did not get an answer why the remaining sede bishops (allegedly the last few remaining of the episcopal hierarchy left) cannot get together and elect the pope. And let alone for 61 years? I also did not get the answers to other questions, but you were quick to jump on letter to Brizen. Fair enough. I know most sedes are indifferent or flat our reject Fatima, but why does Our Lady of Fatima speak of pope? How can we get one elected?
I believe I stated clearly that I am a Catholic. I believe the better question for Catholics in this hour is, Who is your King?
You used so many words and didn’t
answer a simple question. Please try again, and hold off on the pious insults next time.
I read the quotes you posted from Athanasius and Vincent of Lerins and almost ruined my monitor when I spit coffee all over it. The Roman portion of the Church long ago (1054 AD, to be exact) separated itself from the communion of the united Church by accepting and teaching dogmatically that which was condemned by two ecumenical councils – the Filioque addition to the Creed. From there, it all went downhill, so much so that none of the Early Fathers would recognize a great deal of what Rome teaches as truth today.
Of course, you will harrumph and say it is not true, so my challenge to you is simple. Show me anywhere that the Early Fathers taught the following:
The Immaculate Conception
Baptism by sprinkling
Treasury of Merit
Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist
The Necessity of Clerical Celibacy
and there’s more, but that suffices for now.
Dimond is a nutjob. I would let him tutor a parakeet.
Show me anywhere that the Early Fathers taught the following:
Divorce and remarriage is permitted
and there’s more that the Orthodox Church permits, but that suffices for now.
Francis is an antipope, the false prophet of Revelation 13:11. Ignore anything from him.
Nice dodge. Yes, the Orthodox Church is wrong in this, but that doesn’t at all address the NUMEROUS violations of doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church engages in. Now would you care to answer the objection, or will you just hide behind your smokescreen?
“…will you just hide behind your smokescreen?”
What smokescreen? Be specific in listing your reason(s) for accusing me of hiding behind a “smokescreen,” otherwise it’s just a gratuitous, unsubstantiated charge which will only weaken your position.
Memento Mori 2:
No worries about the Pius IX/Bishop of Brizen quote.
Re the Torquemada quote:
“were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.”
But how does this square with St Robert Bellarmine when he teaches the following:
“Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Torquemada says that he ought not to be obeyed, I suppose “resisted”. But St Robert Bellarmine says that he loses office automatically, and this is what the Church Fathers taught. Torquemada is not even canonised, let alone a Doctor of the Church. Bellarmine was declared a Doctor of the Church precisely due to his writings on the papacy, so he has the upper hand here. In any case, Bellarmine is writing about what *might* happen, as he didn’t believe the pope could fall into heresy at all. He’s saying *if* it could happen, he would be automatically deposed. What we see with Bergoglio etc is that they were no popes to begin with, and this would certainly be in line with Bellarmine’s view and that of the First Vatican Council, which taught “this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error”, and 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.” This teaching is more in line with Bellarmine than with Torquemada.
As for the sede bishops not banding together to elect a pope, why not ask them? There’s Bishops Sanborn, Dolan, Selway, Pivarunas, to name a few English-speaking ones, and their contact details are relatively easy to find in a google search. In any case, would you accept a “pope” elected by them? If not, why ask the question? And the claim that they don’t believe in Fatima is not true.
Wrong yet again, Tom A,
A true Catholic by the most immanent understanding of what it is to, “be Catholic”, as from the very essence of, “being Catholic”, is to hold the Truth. Jesus the Christ commands this as: He who KNOWS my commands and follows them, LOVES ME, and as I Am in the Father, you are IN ME AND I IN YOU. This is TRUTH Tom A. Amen. A Catholic MUST HOLD THE TRUTH OR HE SIMPLY IS NOT CATHOLIC, regardless of what he says or thinks. Amen. Truth, is the human intellect PERFECTLY CONFORMING TO THE REALITY AS IT IS, not how you may think it is, which only evidences your opinion, and that Tom A, IS LITERALLY DECEPTION. Amen. You couldn’t be farther from Truth when you stake the claim that a true Catholic can be deceived. That is a lie. If you are deceived in matters deFide, then you are NOT CATHOLIC, as you cannot both hold the faith and be in heresy at one and the same time. One who actually holds the Catholic Faith as freely in their will, knows this with apodictic certitude, as one simply CANNOT GET TO HEAVEN HOLDING DOUBT, as one must hold Truth to get to Heaven, by virtue of receiving the One True Faith, divine and Catholic, and be in the state of grace. Amen. To suggest anything else is to edify the reality that you DO NOT hold the Catholic Faith Tom A. A true Catholic knows the Master’s voice and he hears Him. This witness of His Voice is given from one true Catholic to another. It is the visible, “Unity of Faith”, as taught infallibly in, “Satis Cognitum”. A Simple Beggar holds the Catholic Faith as this thing itself speaks. Amen.
You continue to hold the profound anti-Catholic error that we need a true Pope to teach us, that which the true Magisterium is right now teaching us, as those who hold the true Faith, while at once the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is perpetual, thus It is unchanging and unending, teaching us unto the Last Day. Amen. Alleluia. Blessed Peter continues to teach through the perpetual Magisterium, as it is The Christ Who teaches and The Christ Who governs actually, as through His divine Magisterium. To suggest anything otherwise affronts, “Satis Cognitum”, as it affronts thus the divine Magisterium. Pope Leo XIII infallibly taught there, that for all those outside the Church, where no salvation is possible, the divine Magisterium would be as indiscernible noise. They simply would NOT understand it, as it would be foreign to them. Tom A, you evidence this, as time and time and time again. One good thing though, that you witness this time Tom A, when you wrote this,
” I realize I may be deceived, you think for a fact that you are not. Who is the bigger fool?” That statement of yours’, the part which follows your comma, has already been addressed above, but the first part as this: ” I realize I may be deceived,…”, if you are genuine in your words there Tom A, that brings a true Catholic joy to read, as you evidence then some hope in your salvation. I pray that you are sincere in your words there Tom A. Submit to the divine Magisterium Tom A as it simply IS THE CHRIST TEACHING AND GOVERNING HIS FLOCK UNTO THE LAST DAY, AS HIS SECOND COMING. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
You’ve earned each one of what you call, “insults”, oh’ TPS, you non-Catholic fool, who repeatedly, “insults”, as you blaspheme the Holy Faith, affronting the divine Magisterium, as you commit sacrilege each time you receive your faux sacraments, you miserable miscreant. What you call insults, bother you as objectively TPS, because you know they are true, as they truly apply to you. Just as the church of Antichrist poses as Catholic, as do you, you poor fool. Beg Almighty God for, “perfect contrition”, you heretic heathen. I pray that you do. In caritas.