On Friday, October 4, Voice of the Family hosted a roundtable discussion in Rome under the title “Our Church – Reformed or Deformed?” Even though it is being hailed by some persons of a more “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) bent, traditionalism (if you will allow) was far from being well-represented at the event.
This should come as little surprise given the conference’s title alone as the Holy Roman Catholic Church – presumably the society that conference organizers had in mind – is not Our Church, it is the Lord’s Church.
The discussion featured eight “lay Catholic leaders from around the world,” each of whom were invited to read aloud from a prepared statement expressing their concerns about the upcoming Synod, after which they fielded questions posed by a moderator.
LifeSite News has published links to the prepared remarks.
About the Synod, John Henry Weston said:
It is expected to be the most severe calamity for the faith the Church has ever known and let’s pray that it won’t turn out as dire as it threatens.
Professor Roberto de Mattei chose to speak of the Synod’s effect in the present, saying:
There are, at this moment, two religions within the Catholic Church. The first is the traditional Catholicism … The second, until a few months ago without a name, now has a name: it is the Amazonian religion…
Neither man’s alarmism, however, exceeded that of Michael Matt, whom one may have expected, in vain, to speak up on behalf of Catholic tradition. He declared:
This is a scary moment. If this synod goes as predicted by several cardinals, this is the biggest news story in the history of the world with the exception of the crucifixion of God. Nothing is bigger than the Bride of Christ raising, hoisting the flag of surrender. If this happens, this is a huge story.
The most severe calamity… There are now two religions operating under the Catholic name… The biggest news story ever!
It’s as if these men were cryogenically frozen in 1958 and brought back to room temperature just last week!
The Second Vatican Council, which absolutely hoisted the flag of surrender, received precious little attention throughout the entirety of the nearly three-hour event. This, in spite of the fact that the Bergoglian ecclesiology as presented in the Instrumentum Laboris for the upcoming Synod is nothing more than the Council’s ecclesiology made clearer.
At this, we’ll take a closer look at some of the more noteworthy statements made by the “lay leaders” on the panel, pontifications that end up revealing much more about the speakers than the crisis in the Church.
Taylor Marshall was perhaps the boldest of the lot, relatively anyway. He spoke of “a slow and patient plan” on the part of the Church’s enemies to “quietly place one of their own into the papal shoes … to establish a Satanic revolution with the pope as puppet.”
Wink. Nod. Get it?
Clearly, Bergoglio is just such a puppet. Ah, but one doesn’t just come right out and say such things plainly; not, in any case, if that person places a high priority on realizing an increase in personal popularity.
By contrast, Jorge Bergoglio was publicly identified in this space as a man “under the influence of the demonic who does the Evil One’s bidding” years ago. Today, even a well-catechized adolescent (not that there are many) can see as much.
Marshall went on to tiptoe his way right up to the very edge of tradition, saying:
Most [Catholics] agree that the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Mass and the pontificate of Paul VI brought monumental confusion to the Catholic Church.
He made it a point, however, to clarify that the Council isn’t exactly the problem, asking rhetorically:
But does the fall of the first domino begin in 1962 with the opening of the Second Vatican Council?
The right answer is of course it does. Look, if we wish to be technical about it, the first domino fell with Lucifer’s rebellion. Moving forward in time, however, the Devil’s minions among men have been plying their nefarious craft in seeking the destruction of the Church from the very day of her founding.
More recently, Freemasons and Communists set their sights on the Church’s undoing, while those properly known as “Modernists” began operating in her shadows. Indeed, it is true that these specific threats took shape well before the dawn of the second millennium.
What changed in 1962, however, is that these enemies of Christ were no longer held at bay by the one man upon whom that primary duty rests, the pope.
Rather, they were invited not only to come out of the shadows, but to take on leadership roles at the Second Vatican Council. This, my friends, is precisely where the first shots were fired, properly speaking, in the Satanic revolution that Marshall mentioned.
Everything preceding Vatican II was simply a matter of plotting and planning on the part of rebels who dreamed of a day when they would recreate the Church in their own image and likeness. But alas, being built as she is by Christ on the solid foundation of the papacy, this Church is one in which, as St. Cyprian said, “faithlessness cannot gain access.” As such, their diabolical revolutionary aspirations remained but a chimera.
And then came the Council…
Even so, it’s evidently rather important to Taylor Marshall to avoid placing too much blame on Vatican II (as if this is even possible). He’s apparently clever enough to know that demonizing the Council is one of the fastest ways to lose conservative support, perhaps even faster than declaring Bergoglio a tool of the Devil.
Taylor Marshall isn’t the only member of the panel who was ever so careful to refrain from delivering any categorical condemnations of the Council.
Enter Mr. Michael Matt.
Before commenting on the Council, the publisher of “America’s oldest traditional Catholic newspaper” offered this gem:
These days we hear much about the New Evangelization, and no doubt much good has come from that effort.
Really? I’d be very interested in hearing Michael Matt describe in some detail the “much good” that has come from the New Evangelization, a program designed to indoctrinate the unsuspecting with the conciliar faith, not the Catholic faith.
But you see, this is where things get a little fuzzy for Mr. Matt. Readers may recall the following announcement recently made in the Remnant:
Michael calls for yet another hashtag. This time it’s #ToHellWithVaticanII … Not necessarily to hell with all 16 documents, which nobody reads anyway.
As I wrote at the time, it is unclear which of the sixteen Council documents he considers to be authentic expressions of Catholic tradition, if indeed that’s the measuring stick he is proposing to use.
In any case, during last Friday’s event, Michael Matt made it perfectly plain that he doesn’t actually have a traditional view of the Second Vatican Council. He said:
The Church over the past fifty years has moved away from this idea [the Great Commission], citing as its authority the Second Vatican Council—the spirit of which more or less reneged on the Catholic Church’s own claim to be the sole means of salvation.
Folks, these are not off-the-cuff comments, hastily made without forethought; they come from Michael Matt’s prepared – evidently, carefully prepared – statement!
Here we have a man whom the gullible consider to be a traditionalist “leader,” and he will only go so far in his assessment of the Council as to criticize the spirit of Vatican II, one of the most common, and laughable, of neo-conservative shibboleths.
Yes, I know, I can expect to receive (again) emails and messages chastising me for being mean to poor Mike, but those who feel compelled to defend his Low-T approach to evangelism (if you will allow) evidently haven’t considered the grave harm that is being done to innocent seekers of truth who mistakenly consider him a reliable spokesman for Catholic tradition.
Be that as it may, this “spirit of Vatican II” rubbish is nothing new for Michael Matt. In his interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke in 2017, readers may recall that he asked concerning Amoris Laetitia:
I’m wondering, is there any concern in your mind that what we’re seeing now is in fact a following of some sort of continuum of that spirit of Vatican II that has less to do with Francis and more to do with a new orientation of the Catholic Church altogether.
At the time, I acknowledged, in fairness, that I had no idea how much time Michael had to prepare for the interview, or whether or not this question was asked spontaneously.
Today, no such questions exist.
Matt even went so far as to claim that “the spirit” of the Council “more or less reneged on the Catholic Church’s own claim to be the sole means of salvation.”
One wonders if he has even read the conciliar text. If so, he apparently missed this lie:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the schismatic and the heretical communities] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (NA 3)
Get that? The non-Catholic communities are being declared as efficacious means of salvation. There’s no “more or less” about it, and this according not to some vaguely defined “spirit” as Michael Matt claims, but rather the conciliar text itself.
Matt went on to say:
And if there are many other roads to salvation, the Catholic missionary mandate of old is not only pointless but offensive to the Church’s dialogue partners.
Indeed, and the Council plainly stated that there are many roads to salvation; at least as many as there are Protestant communities!
Later in his prepared statement he asked rhetorically:
At the Pan-Amazon Synod will we see the Church [sic] abandon that Divine Commission to convert and baptize all nations? … We shall have to wait and see.
Wait and see? Seriously? Vatican II already abandoned that Commission, on behalf of the conciliar church that was born via its “New Pentecost,” that is.
So why is Michael Matt so reluctant to say so? Why did he make it a point to say that “much good has come” from the indoctrination program launched by the conciliar “saint” John Paul the Great Ecumenist, the so-called New Evangelization?
There are but two possibilities: Either Michael Matt genuinely does not believe that the New Evangelization and its progenitor, the Second Vatican Council, is dangerous and therefore condemnable, in toto, for what it actually teaches, or he is unwilling to speak the truth plainly, deliberately taking steps to avoid paying the price for doing so.
Based on comments offered during Friday’s Q&A, apparently, it’s the latter. He said:
There are several things to consider when it comes to resistance. Number one is your audience. Make sure when we resist that we understand who our audience is, because if they’re unprepared for our harsh language, or our accurate language about what’s happening to Mother Church, we run the risk of running them right out of the Church. So, we need to be very careful in the language that we use.
In this, Michael Matt sounds an awful lot like LGBT warriors Cardinal Joseph Tobin and Bishop Robert McElroy, each of whom criticized the Church’s language in addressing homosexual activity as being overly harsh and disenfranchising.
So, Michael Matt’s number one concern is his audience, but exactly who is that audience?
Surely, he realizes that “www” stands for World Wide Web. He must know that the conference he just took part in and, in fact, everything he has ever posted online, whether it be for the Remnant or some other endeavor, is such that it’s readily available to pretty much everyone and anyone who might bother to watch, listen, or read.
In other words, Michael Matt understands very well who his audience is; he knows that it’s global, and he isn’t about to use harsh or even accurate language that just might invite the risk of seeing his audience diminish.
Run people out of the Church? Who is he kidding?
The dyed-in-the-wool liberal – setting aside the fact that many are already out of the Church – couldn’t possibly care less what Michael Matt has to say. Likewise, the highly committed Santo Subito neo-con, who even if he does occasionally tune-in is more apt to dig in his heels and argue than run away from the conciliar church he calls home.
But you know what, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Romans 10:17), and there’s a chance that by hearing the unadulterated truth, spoken from the lips of intrepid defenders of the Faith who, unlike Michael Matt, are willing to shoulder the cost of doing so, with the aid of God’s grace, men like these just might be brought to tradition. I know. I was one of them.
Telling these poor souls that the New Evangelization has done “much good,” and the “spirit” of the Council is the real bogyman, will do absolutely nothing but confirm them in their error. I know this too.
All of that said, true soldiers for Christ and defenders of Catholic tradition must occasionally use harsh language. Why? Because Our Lord, His Church and His Blessed Mother and ours are being denigrated. If we love them, we owe it to them!
We must also use accurate language, always and everywhere, even if that means creating for ourselves an obligation to explain it in some detail, that it might be well understood.
Why? Because the truth matters, and it’s far more than just a bit of information to be spun and peddled for profit; it’s Our Blessed Lord who laid down His life for all and desires that all should know Him, that He may to draw all men to Himself.
Of the eight people on the “Our Church” panel, one in particular stands out for portraying himself not only as a “lay leader” but as a leading voice for Catholic tradition.
Now, you know better.
“Nothing is bigger than the Bride of Christ raising, hoisting the flag of surrender. If this happens, this is a huge story.”
What kind of “bride” does Mr. Matt have in mind? Does he actually think the real “bride of Christ” could do that? Or is being currently represented by the Vatican? Make a huge story? That’s utterly blasphemous. And faithless. Every time they refer to the fraudulent post-Vatican II mess as the “Catholic Church” they stack insult upon injury. Stop it. Use accurate language.
Try “whore of babylon”, justice demands it.
“There are, at this moment, two religions within the Catholic Church. The first is the traditional Catholicism … The second, until a few months ago without a name, now has a name: it is the Amazonian religion…”
Wrong. There is only ONE religion in the Catholic Church: pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Professor de Mattei apparently does not get it that if there were “another gospel” (“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” [Gal 1: 6-8]) then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church founded by Christ.
“Nothing is bigger than the Bride of Christ raising, hoisting the flag of surrender.”
And here, once again, it is Mr. Matt saying that it is possible for the gates of hell to prevail against Christ’s Holy Church. From everything I see in this man, he is first and foremost a celebrity. Rather than exhibiting the humility and doctrinal steadfastness which a Catholic would expect from those who are defending the Faith, Mr. Matt has obviously (in my opinion) packaged himself (and his commercial enterprise) in such a way as to reap monetary and adulatory returns to the maximum.
“…quietly place one of their own into the papal shoes … to establish a Satanic revolution with the pope as puppet.”
That would be “John XXIII,” the first one installed—five more have followed, so far.
If you have to question whether the church is Catholic, then it isn’t.
Good Tuesday morning mothermostforgiving,
You ended with this:
” ‘ “…quietly place one of their own into the papal shoes … to establish a Satanic revolution with the pope as puppet.” ‘
That would be ‘ “John XXIII,” ‘ the first one installed—five more have followed, so far.”
Please consider what you have written here. So called, “John XIII”, was as you write, “…the first one installed—-five more have followed so far.” Yes, mothermostforgiving, your intellect is conforming to the reality, as it is, which is truth, as the Angelic Doctor taught us. As he also taught us the most important of the metaphysical laws, that of “non-contradiction”, and when one applies this law to the creature beast thing from Hell itself, which calls itself the “Catholic Church”, dresses like the Church, controls all of its material wealth and properties, since October of 1958, and it has apostates who call themselves, “pope” (sm. case intended), how can that thing at once be the Mystical Body of Christ, His inviolable Bride the Church, and not be that Supernatural Society of Heaven on earth, at once and the same time??? Of course it can only be one or the other, as to claim it is both, as all of the so called, “traditionalists” do, with poor, poor, Michael Matt and Mattei as existential exemplars as individuals and the “SSPX” as an institutional one if you will, you then defy the law of non-contradiction, as then to defy the very infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church, Amen. As Holy Church simply cannot be in contradiction, period and end. That which a properly catechized 10 year old must know to save his very soul. Amen.
Lastly for now then, what is this creature beast thing from Hell itself, at once masquerading as the, “Catholic Church”, which has objectively deceived all those, as in all but all who have lived and breathed in this time, who have objectively received the, “operation of error to believe lying”, which was established by Roncalli in October, 1958? God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
In caritas, are you trying to say here that the New Order is the Anti Christ. How are we supposed to figure out what the heck is going on here? I was expecting to have a Church and Priests and Pope until I died and if the Antichrist came while I lived I still expected to have all this and I expected that if the Sacrifice failed and some abomination was set up in the temple it would be for a few years. I mean doesn’t it say that in the Bible? Why does it say that if it was going to be more than 60 years? Why is there confusion about SSPX, +Lefebvre said he didn’t sign the documents while JD Flynn says he did in this article here, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_lefebvre_signed_every_one_of_vatican_iis_documents
We should establish who is lying. Did +Lefebvre lie? If you understand what is going on here you should be more clear instead of trying to get everyone thinking for themselves. We’re thinking. I don’t know. Is there going to be an actual guy who is the Antichrist, was it supposed to be symbolic? Am I supposed to be expecting WWIII or SMOD or just some bad guy? If you know you should just spill it because I don’t think that you’re being very clear.
The point you make, In caritas, is well taken. To truly be a Catholic, one must have contempt for this world—harsh words for those like “conservative Catholics” who are wedded, whether they will admit it or not, to the things of this world. They subscribe to the lies of the conciliar church in which there are no “musts” other than smiling a lot and caring a lot. There are, in that church, no admonitions to avoid mortal sin. It is, therefore, of the devil. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has always taught that our life on earth is a battle zone, a test, and that Satan is the Prince of this world, i.e. he has been allowed by Almighty God to tempt us so that , in spite of his deceit, we might show our devotion to God and so win the prize, as St. Paul says. It’s really as simple as that. But the world cannot give what it does not have, and what it does not have is the wherewithal to grant to us the deep abiding love and assurance of eternal bliss which only God can grant to those who forsake the pomp and comfort of the world in favor of a humble and devout life dedicated to Our Blessed Lord.
In caritas, reading your comments over these last few months have been edifying. I thank you from one Catholic to another. Do you believe that Paul VI could have been the man of sin?
His position is not as certain or clear as he makes out, despite the several thousand words it takes to explain it. I’m pretty sure that Paul VI to Francis were not popes, and I don’t see a moral need to retreat any further than to the SSPX.
If this situation was all so clear … then it would all be so clear. I don’t condemn In Caritas for his position, because everyone is trying to make sense of this. For some reason, God has not given us all the information yet.
I am waiting for a response by IC to show me where I’m wrong, but neither of us has all the information to be absolutely certain. The questions you raised are excellent, and prove that fact very well!
I don’t know how you retreat to SSPX. As far as I can see they are real seriously huge liars. To begin with, I had a Priest look me in the face and tell me that Jorge was the Pope of the Catholic Church. And I’m sorry but if you believe that you have left the Church, it’s completely insane. Then you have this interview posted here in the combox recently with +Lefebvre flat out denying signing some of the VII documents and I just posted an article in which it is claimed the archives showed that he signed every last one. Now does being a big huge liar make you invalid? Not that I know of but it sure indicates a problem and that is besides the heresy that they promote which amounts to the Pope is a meaningless figurehead. THAT is not traditional and I don’t see how it isn’t heresy. I feel like I’m taking the Apocalypse in stride here but is my entire life going to be the Apocalypse? I hate to whine about it but that is going to kill me, it’s kind of killing me.
Melanie wrote: “… is my entire life going to be the Apocalypse? I hate to whine about it but that is going to kill me, it’s kind of killing me.”
I used to feel that way at times. I had no Latin Mass to attend and was haunted by a gnawing fear that I was completely alone. Once I seized on the practice of saying 15 decades a day, things settled down and I have God right here with me all the time (if I don’t let the world distract me, that is). He is true to His Word and I can personally vouch for that. I understand what life is, now. It’s a constant battle that we’re called to wage against the forces of hell. Yes, the Church has been driven down into the catacombs, but we are called to have confidence in Our Blessed Lord and to trust that He will restore everything in His own good time and in His own way. Deo Gratias.
Hello again, The Papal Subject,
You are simply wrong when you opine, “For some reason, God has not given us all the information yet. ” However, this profound error of yours’ is true blasphemy, as to suggest that Almighty God, Who simply IS, as Being Himself, whereby His Essence as Being is His Existence, as pure metaphysical Act thus, with no potency, could somehow not prepare His true disciples for this as any time, that which He alone gives being to, in a vertical, as opposed to an horizontal, understanding, is simply absurd. Otherwise said, as God IS the First Cause, un-caused, and the Primover, unmoved, He brings all motion always, to all being which He alone has created. Amen. As you are referring to the prophetic Mystery of God, He has prepared His human creatures perfectly as infinitely well, for this time we live now, as for all time, as The Christ commanded His disciples to know the prophetic season in which they live. Amen. Prophecy is only revealed, thus the Mystery clarified for all those whom God has allowed to see, in its singular as prophesied time. Once fulfilled and thus revealed, it cannot be somehow fulfilled again. Amen. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that Jesus the Christ could have Incarnated twice in time. Blasphemy itself.
And when you write this:
” I’m pretty sure that Paul VI to Francis were not popes, and I don’t see a moral need to retreat any further than to the SSPX. ”
In reality, as it is, dear The Papal Subject, it simply doesn’t matter what you or I, or any other perfectly miserable human creature believes themselves to be, “pretty sure of”, or that you or anyone else may not, “…see a moral need to retreat any further than to the SSPX.” Almighty God as Deus Caritas Est, has given us His holy Magisterium to guide us in time for all time. Amen. This, while knowing with metaphysical certitude thus, that the Holy Roman Pontiff has NOT BEEN on the face of the earth since the death of Pope Pius XII, October 9, 1958. Amen. We know this as the only Vatican Council definitively taught that Blessed Peter as in his true Successors, can NEVER LOSE THEIR PERSONAL FAITH. Amen. Alleluia. To deny this, is to deny what the Holy Church infallibly teaches, which is to place oneself outside the Church, where no salvation is possible, deFide. Amen. Where there is NO DISTINCTION, there can be NO EXCEPTION. Period and end. Read what the Council commanded in its 4th Session, 18 July, 1870, chapter 4, para 7, as follows:
“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 see, there is no distinction in this command, as the gift of truth and never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS. No distinction, therefore there simply cannot be exception to what was commanded. Amen. Alleluia. Lefebvre was an apostate to the Faith, not because I think so, because True Popes infallibly prepared Christ’s Church in time vis a vis the holy Magisterium to know this for all time, which would come to follow their commands. Amen. Forget about the reality that he signed all the false council documents, he left the holy Faith, latae sententiae, the moment he assented to an apostate, as though he could be Blessed Peter’s Successor, in Angelo Roncalli, as the false pope, “John XXIII”, who opened the false as heretical council of the church of Antichrist. Pope Paul IV definitively as infallibly taught in, “Cum Ex…”, that anyone who would hold, subscribe to, teach, or in any way give support or credence to the teaching of a Bishop who, “deviated from the Faith”, was an heretic, or schismatic (as Roncalli was apostate), or assisted in any of that, would lose the Faith, ipso facto, in the act of that assent itself. Period and end. Lefebvre, in the objective realm, died outside the Catholic Church and he may have died as a non-Catholic priest, if he was validly Ordained by a purported Freemason, Leinart, but he did not die as a Bishop, with metaphysical certitude, as infallibly commanded by Pope Paul IV. Amen. Save your soul with a true as filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mother of God and her most powerful prayer now in the cosmos, as the most Holy Rosary. Amen. In caritas.
Dear SEDEVCT,
It is most humbling for a miserable wretch as me, perfectly deserving of Hell, to enjoy such a consolation as from you. Amen. I will return your question with another. Did Giovanni Batista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, as the false pope, “Paul VI”, fulfill the prophetic scripture, at once warning all who would hear of the, “man of sin”, as the, “son of perdition”, of whom the Apostle Paul warned in 2 Thess 2? Did he fulfill the prophetic warning of the prophet Daniel, as in 9:27? Lastly, did he fulfill the very specific warning of Blessed John the Apostle, who prophesied of Antichrist in his First Epistle to the Universal Church?, as now quoted from chapter 2, verses 21-23, Douay-Rheims copy:
21 ” I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”
As to the very specific point of reflection for this denial, find it in the false council document, “Solemnly Promulgated”, by false pope, “Paul VI”, on 21 November, 1964, as so called, “Lumen Gentium”, paragraph 16. Amen. May Almighty God richly bless you and yours’, SEDEVCT, from one Catholic to another. Amen. In caritas.
Melanie, there is no public and universal mandate that says everyone is bound to figure this out. People have drawn all sorts of conclusions to explain this crisis from the same dataset.
In Caritas, you’re simply wrong about some things, and don’t know what you’re talking about on the Cardinal Lienart issue. The Church has already dealt with that question before Cardinal Lienart was even born. I don’t want to cause another two thousand word reply please, so I don’t want to say any more than I have here.
Dear The Papal Subject,
Why are you so fixated on length of writing? Is it not truth that you seek? Do you not hold the virtues of temperance, fortitude, and perseverance? What difference could it make, the length, if it is true, and the length required to move through the ontological realities as they indeed are, TPS?
If you are alluding to proper matter, proper form, and proper intent of the Sacraments, you simply misunderstand what, “proper intent”, means ontologically as theologically. The, “proper intent”, is in the objective forum, as it is not the, “intent”, of the person performing the Sacrament that matters, rather the, “proper intent”, which is the, “intent of the Church”, which is evidenced and again objectively, in the, “proper form”, of the proper language of the Rite used. Amen. That simple. That’s why an atheist can authentically Baptize.
That understood TPS, it doesn’t matter whether Leinert used proper matter, form, and intent for the Sacrament of Order that he purportedly bestowed upon Lefebvre. Why, because if he was a Freemason, Leinert had left the Church in the very act of freely assenting to Freemasonry, and latae sententiae, ipso facto that is. When he left the Church, as infallibly taught in, “Cum Ex…” and in, “Satis Cognitum”, he lost his Juridical Office as Bishop, loosing thus the Juridical powers he once may have held, and then he had no power to confer Orders or consecration. Period and end. You may not understand this but your not comprehending this reality as it is, doesn’t somehow change the reality, TPS.
Lastly for now, if all that is not enough to indict Lefebvre for the deception that he was, he himself left the Catholic Church, lost his Bishopric and his Juridical powers to Ordain and consecrate, latae sententiae as ipso facto, when he assented to the apostate, Roncalli, as Pope. It is that simple. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear Melanie,
TPS wrote this to you:
“Melanie, there is no public and universal mandate that says everyone is bound to figure this out. People have drawn all sorts of conclusions to explain this crisis from the same dataset.”
What TPS is bearing witness to there, and of course he doesn’t know that he is, as he is objectively receiving it, is what the Apostle prophetically warned us of in 2 Thess 2: “the operation of error to believe lying”. Amen.
We have a, “universal mandate”, to use the language of TPS, by the Son of God made Man, to KNOW this Melanie, as The Christ admonished the disciples for knowing the signs of the weather, while at once not knowing the infinitely more important signs of the prophetic times. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
“His position is not as certain or clear as he makes out, despite the several thousand words it takes to explain it.”
So far, I’ve found nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine/dogma in In caritas’ comments. In fact, what I have found is rock-solid exposition of Catholic truths presented in a way that anyone can understand (if they will read and think about what’s posted) backed up by razor-sharp logic. Problem is, we in the 21st century have been conditioned to condemn anything written which doesn’t smack of the instantaneous soundbite, the quickie communication that won’t provoke our impatience. One of the virtues part-and-parcel of being a Catholic is patience. It’s an inextricable component of humility.
Presenting the Faith via the written word (which is what In caritas is doing) quite often requires more explication than the soundbite generation can handle. Nevertheless, it HAS to be done this way so as to clear the decks and provide an impregnable defense against those enemies of the Faith who would destroy the Church if they could. I’m grateful for “IC” and find his/her comments edifying and in agreement with what I know to be the Catholic faith.
[I somehow inadvertently replied to In caritas rather than The Papal Subject. Hope I land in the right spot this time.]
“His position is not as certain or clear as he makes out, despite the several thousand words it takes to explain it.”
So far, I’ve found nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine/dogma in In caritas’ comments. In fact, what I have found is rock-solid exposition of Catholic truths presented in a way that anyone can understand (if they will read and think about what’s posted) backed up by razor-sharp logic. Problem is, we in the 21st century have been conditioned to condemn anything written which doesn’t smack of the instantaneous soundbite, the quickie communication that won’t provoke our impatience. One of the virtues part-and-parcel of being a Catholic is patience. It’s an inextricable component of humility.
Presenting the Faith via the written word (which is what In caritas is doing) quite often requires more explication than the soundbite generation can handle. Nevertheless, it HAS to be done this way so as to clear the decks and provide an impregnable defense against those enemies of the Faith who would destroy the Church if they could. I’m grateful for “IC” and find his/her comments edifying and in agreement with what I know to be the Catholic faith.
That is not how the Church judged that matter.
Vatican I taught that Christ willed there be pastors and teachers until the end of time.
Our Lord said that during the great apostasy, the Blessed Sacrament would still be with the Faithful. “Where the Body is, there the eagles will gather”.
Just wondering, were your parents, grandparents and great grand parents Catholic?
When you paint yourself too tightly into one corner, you leave no room for humility.
Were the Catholics during the time of the great schism blasphemers and apostates because they weren’t sure how to make sense of the situation? Did God allow a time when even saints were mistaken?
You are right The Papal Subject, it says plain as day in the Decrees of the First Vatican Council Session 4, “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.” This means there absolutely has to be a way to elect a Pope and a Catholic Pope not some New Order heretic.
In Caritas and SEDEVCT:
Do you believe that any person who receives sacraments from the traditional clergy is Catholic? And please respond to that with as little words as possible, preferably yes or no.
No; because outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
In Caritas?
Dear Melanie,
Please be very careful when you come to conclusions quickly as here, as you conclude that because Christ Jesus our Lord and God, “willed”, something, that it must occur in accordance with His active Will. Of course you know that’s not true. God can only will the good as He is Goodness Himself. Amen. This is a diabolical trap which the Prince and his human minions have used well over time. Look at the specific language that the true Council Fathers used, dear Melanie, and again posted here:
“So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”
Here is the language of import as it is, with emphasis as mine: “…it was his [Jesus the Christ] will that in his church there SHOULD BE shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”
Melanie, how many times did your parents tell you as a little girl that you, “should”, do something? The word should, as used in this context, speaks not to your will Melanie, but to your parents’ will, yes. The Holy as infallible Council is letting the Church know the Will of God, in the Person of Christ here. Yes, of course, according to the Will of The Christ, there “should be” a visible Church unto the Last Day. It was also God’s active Will that the Jews be the Chosen People and that He enter the world in His human nature as a Jew, yes. It was His Will that the Jews obey the Old Covenant and instead they murdered The Christ on the Cross. Amen.
In like kind, it is of course God’s Will that the Church would have remained visible in the unity of the Holy Pontiff, until the end of time. We know objectively now that His Will has once again been denied, as He has been betrayed again in this time, as first by the Iscariot, as we have no Pope in the world since October, 1958. Period and end. No one is coerced by Almighty God ever and thus everyone is free to believe whatever their will freely assents to, and not what The Christ Wills for them. Saint Paul warned us of this and further that, “those who will perish”, will, “receive the operation of error to believe lying”. Amen. The Christ warned us that when He comes again, it will be as the time of Noe, when 8 were spared in the world. Further, He warned us that the Faith would all be but gone in the world when He comes again in glory and that men’s hearts would grow cold. Amen.
Notice in Saint Paul’s warning, he uses the word, “will”, and not the word, “should”, when he warns, “those who will perish”, that is go to Hell for all eternity, are the ones who hold the, “operation of error to believe lying”, as they draw their last breath. Amen. If the Holy Council Fathers would have used the words, “will be”, instead of the language they did in fact use, “should be”, then we would know with metaphysical certitude that the true Pope would be here unto the Last Day. Amen. That is not what the Council Fathers taught, nor could they have, as then they would have contradicted the Early Church Fathers. The Popes have infallibly taught that whenever the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of prophetic Scripture, they could not err, thus requiring the assent of faith to their teaching and that at the pain of Hell, dear Melanie. Amen. The Early Church Fathers taught unanimously about the prophetic Scripture of the prophet Daniel, as in 9:27. They definitively taught that Daniel foretold of the prophetic time when Antichrist would be in the world, and at that time, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would fail, as in it would be gone from the face of the earth. The only as singular way to remove the Holy Sacrifice from the face of the earth, is not to have a true Pope present. There is no other way and on the contrary, there is no way then to have the true Mass present in the world, without the Holy Roman Pontiff here. Period and end. That is the teaching of the Early Church Fathers. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning gave four wonderful lectures in, I believe 1861, all about this utter as most bitter and sorrowful reality which we now live. Amen. You can purchase those lectures as a book, for about $10.00, “The Pope and the Antichrist”.
After finally asking God to assist me in solving this quandary about where to go or not to go instead of trying to figure it out mySELF (and never feeling as though I had the answer but instead still many unanswered questions and contradictions lingered), much research, tears, sheer agony and begging, I received the light of Faith and settled in complete peace upon the decision to abstain. The Faith always must come before Sacraments. God will never fault anyone for that. A doubtful Sacrament is no Sacrament and this USED to be taught and was common knowledge but no longer as the entity in question has not taught the Catholic Faith as it is not the Catholic Church but something else. Our Lady of LaSalette stated that one day all that we could have would be Faith and Hope. Our Lady of Fatima told the real Sr. Lucy that the Rosary would be all that is left. We have to wed our intellect to reality, as painful as it is, as In Caritas mentioned. We are all hanging by
I am so grateful to God for leading me to this blog. It has helped me immensely in my efforts to fight the good fight. My thanks to all who participate here for your insightful comments.
Michael Matt unfriended me on Facebook quite some time ago, for speaking the truth to him with harsh words. Being older than him, I was immersed in the pre-Vatican II real Catholic Church, an altar server for the 7:30 am daily morning Mass. I must have then received a latent special grace of 20-20 spiritual clarity to recognise so clearly at this time frauds who pretend to put God above all things. Sedevacante since 1958.
Hello A Simple Beggar,
The thought of you had just entered my mind this late evening. Wonderful to read your words again. May Almighty God continue to bless and keep you and the Blessed Virgin hold you in her Immaculate Heart. Amen. In caritas.
Good late night Tony,
On this the anniversary of the death of the last, as final Holy Roman Pontiff this world will ever know, please pray for us dear Holy Roman Pontiff, the “Angelic Pastor”, Pope Pius XII. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
In caritas, why are you ignoring my question? Do you, like SEDEVCT, believe that anyone who goes to the traditional clergy for sacraments is not Catholic and outside the Catholic Church?
I don’t get what these men don’t get!
There has been a church of Satan operating and destroying under the name of Catholic for DECADES. Yeah, it’s ugly to think about, and super unpopular to utter in actual words, but it’s the ONLY thing that makes sense!
These folks will sometimes come so close to stating it, whether they realize it or not, and then back off. Cuz it’s not the cool thing to do and they won’t get invited to speak as “Lay Catholic Leaders” and stay popular and stuff.
Leave the cliques for high schoolers. God’s not impressed.
Louie, could you be any more obvious that you want to be the top Traditional Catholic News/Newspaper reporting agency in the world by writing this article? It is obvious you are highly envious to the Nth degree by your rash judging and detractive words, (violating the 8th commandment) implying logical and rational jealous feelings towards these panel men but especially Michael Matt. Wake up! It is obvious you are blind by the diabolically disorientated spirit. The devil is very clever. He works to divide Catholics into 2 extremes and he is blinding you and many here of the reality of your violations of the 8th commandment and the sin of Envy. Envy is a sin that is highly invisible to the one committing it. Everyone of those men on that panel discussion are doing everything they can in their own human power, faculty, and position to defend the Faith without being cast of as a sede vacantist, therefore; losing their position and left to venting on blogs like this one which is highly unproductive but very self satisfying. They aren’t the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, or even Priests and neither are you. So stop holding them accountable as if they are. To do so only reveals the Envy and jealousy you have towards them for being there and making a stand.
BB, your own judging and detractive words are unfortunate and ugly. I hope you’ve saved some of that for the REAL enemies of Christ.
Mr. V understands what’s a stake here, souls over popularity. As he exposes error without ad hominem, he further backs up his points with Church teaching, i.e. real councils, real CCL, Scripture.
He’s not playing pattycake with Modernists, and he’s made it clear he’s willing to risk all by breaking away from the others who won’t call a spade a spade. He would be right there at the table with them if he’d have followed THEIR rules.
“Unite the Clans” my ass.
Dear 2Vermont,
If I may, I’m suspecting that IC may not want to be the one to lead anyone to or “convince” anyone of any particular conclusion (as this is the delicate and timely work of the Holy Ghost in each soul of good will), but rather he attempts to lay some groundwork so that a soul may begin to see the truth of the matter through the eyes of the intellect by Grace. The answer lies just above in a reply to Melanie.
This comment above containing the accusation of “envy”, is a perfect example of rash judgment, something very displeasing to God.
Nope, there’s no slander or detraction here. All that has been pointed out above were actually spoke and/or written by Mr. Matt publicly, and before all in the external forum. There are no fabrications, no personal attacks, and most of all, he’s in the very unenviable position (and “lay leaders” of that “panel discussion”) of actually working against and contradicting truth and revelation. Moreover, they are very accountable for what they say and do publicly.
If you are saying that it’s about coveting money or success, think again. Firstly, very few people will pay any attention to what’s being written/said here on this site, it’s rather unpopular, and secondly, pointing out contradictions will garner you very little support or money, but rather require more sacrifice and suffering. And also you get attacked constantly by people calling you “judgmental”, and “extreme”, and “cast off as a sedvacantist”.
All the top “Traditional Catholic News/Newspaper reporting agencies” in the world aren’t Catholic, you have no “pope” or “bishops” or “priests” or ordination of any kind to speak of, except a pseudo/fraud “pope”, and “bishops” and “priests” of the current church of the NWO. You have 2 “popes”, 2 “lucys”, numerous clans, and many, many “pathways to heaven”. There’s no point venting about it because reality is what it is, and must be accepted. But it is definitely not “satisfying” to anyone having to face it.
So…what’s to envy again?
A Simple Beggar, do you believe that all those who receive sacraments from traditional clergy are not Catholic and are therefore outside the Catholic Church?
In caritas, you’re absolutely right. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been taken away from us (despite what so-called “traditionalists” think). I ready my Mass prayers, recite the Rosary and read the Goffines on Sundays and Holy Days. We have the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Matrimony; and the desire for the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion We are in the midst of the Great Apostasy as foretold by St. Paul. May the Holy Trinity bless you.
Good evening, SEDEVCT.
I, too, am with you. In utter fear and trembling, but with Faith and Hope in God’s mercy while tightly grasping the Virgin’s hand, in the peace of moral certitude I stand firm in my determination and desire to be truly Catholic in these end times. There’s little time and far too much at stake. I suffer all for the Truth because it’s all that matters, all I ever wanted, and His name is Jesus Christ.
Good evening to you, In Caritas. It is so good to read your words again as well, always so edifying. You’ve been on my mind often and I will be back in touch soon. Until then May God bless and keep you and yours.
ASB
Dear 2Vermont,
I cannot speak to that and much less am I able to judge even myself. Only God knows. I do know that the Angelic Doctor teaches that if a person is of good will, and is thereby prepared to follow the Truth wherever that may lead and at whatever cost once the Truth is presented to them, that such a person is only in error and not heresy. Such a person can even be sitting in a pew at a Novus Ordo “mass”.
Now objectively speaking, yes, they are outside the Catholic Church.
Good early Friday morning james_o
Refreshing to read your commentary. Your last paragraph pretty much sums up our current state of affairs, if you will. In so many words, you bear witness to the pinnacle and terminus of the Great Apostasy, in this as our time. That time prophesied by the prophet Daniel as the desolation of Antichrist (9:27), which will remain unto the end, unto the consummation of the world. Amen. The Holy Sacrifice does not return thus and the singular prophecy that we await is the Second Coming of the Christ. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
A Simple Beggar, I am edified by your words. My goal in life is to live and die a REAL Catholic If I can achieve that in today’s day, then it is something to behold. But, I stand on the shoulders of those who are —in many cases–much older than I am, and who spoke out: against Vatican II; against the New Mass; against unlawful responses (i.e. Thuc, Lefebvre, illicit Masses, etc.); and against the world whose prince is the Devil (St. John 16:11).
I consider it an honor to profess my faith openly nor am I ashamed of my pearl of great price, my holy Catholic faith.
All of this having been said, it is nice to meet others like you, who may have very well paved the way for someone like me without even knowing it.
Exactly!
Deo Gratias.
May the Good Lord bless and keep you and yours and all those who have fled to the desert, and deliver us from the madness of antichrist, as He enlightens many more souls of good will who will hear Him. Amen.
I encourage all to daily meditate on the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary. Fifteen decades said every day will protect us and save us. It is a certainty. Trust your Mother.
Is there some kind of the taking away of all common sense and reality today?
About the Synod, John Henry Weston said:
“It is expected to be the most severe calamity for the faith the Church has ever known and let’s pray that it won’t turn out as dire as it threatens.”
Every bishop’s synod, an invention of anti-pope Paul VI, part of the process of the anti-monarchical/hierarchical governance structure of the Church introduced in Vatican II as “collegiality”has been a severe calamity for the faith in one way or another. It was the perfect vehicle for the heretics/apostates to incorporate their heresies into actual practice with the assistance of the anti- popes. These two inventions-collegiality and the bishop’s synod- were the way the heretics/apostates could “democratize” the governance of the Church instead of its Christ-instituted monarhical governance structure. But this “democracy” is really the heretics/apostates majority control.
See this link to learn how these synods have been calamitous for the true faith: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_20050309_documentation-profile_en.html#V._SUMMARY_OF_THE_SYNOD_ASSEMBLIES
Professor Roberto de Mattei chose to speak of the Synod’s effect in the present, saying:
“There are, at this moment, two religions within the Catholic Church. The first is the traditional Catholicism … The second, until a few months ago without a name, now has a name: it is the Amazonian religion.”
There cannot be “two religions within the Catholic Church.” Is this guy for real?
Michael Matt: “This is a scary moment. If this synod goes as predicted by several cardinals, this is the biggest news story in the history of the world with the exception of the crucifixion of God. Nothing is bigger than the Bride of Christ raising, hoisting the flag of surrender. If this happens, this is a huge story.”
This is blaspheme. The Catholic Church will never “hoist the flag of surrender”. And this isn’t “the biggest news story in the history of the world with the exception of the crucifixion of God”. That was the abandonment of the true Catholic faith by the the majority whose consequences were the creation of another false religion pretending to be the Catholic religion, with false popes serving Satan and leading millions of souls to perdition. Mr. Matt has let his emotions override any common sense or ability to reason.
These people desperately need the prayers of faithful Catholics.
Dear SEDEVCT,
I, too, like you, stand on those very same shoulders. It’s very comforting to know that you are out there as well. I am not so full of pride, as some like to imagine, as to believe that I am one of the only few Catholics remaining on the face of the earth. On the contrary, I can only HOPE that God sees me as a true Catholic and that is my one and only goal and desire, as to be such is the only certain path to heaven. If someone is truly of good will and possesses the supernatural virtue of Faith (St. Thomas Aquinas has explained “Who has Faith?”), who am I to judge and exclude anyone from any potentiality or possibility? I can look back on my own path and what an interesting one it has been.
I do know this: our position is absolutely the most ridiculed, hated, denigrated, despised, and persecuted of them all. It engenders such vitriol and such anger that one must recognize by that fact that it infuriates the devil to no end. Why? There can be no other explanation than it IS the correct path. The next step down would be Sedevacantism as in the “traditionalist” sect, since it is the closest to the Truth, and for some a steppingstone toward it. I have lost, given up, and sacrificed much for this Truth. It’s an extremely painful path, a martyrdom of sorts and far less traveled, but I was not created to follow the crowd and my own comfort and “needs” but to follow Jesus Christ on the Way of the Cross.
You will find that I disappear from here but may return now and again. I’m not really a frequent “commenter” but I do feel it can be a good exercise at times, and perhaps it’s because I do see more truth seekers here than I have come across anywhere else (in my fairly limited web “travels”). I also know that of myself I cannot convince anyone else of the Truth. May God continue to bless and keep you.
In Caritas, you warn others not to come too quickly to conclusions, yet you do just that.
We don’t know if this is just a very long interregnum, or the end times. There have been several equally thorough explanations of what has happened since John XXIII. The one you have adopted is one of them. It might turn out to be the right one, or it may not. If it were so clear, there would not be this debate.
The Catholic approach is one of meekness, moderation, careful treading and humility of heart. The reaction to such a time is to make the most minimal retreat to safety as necessary.
The Papal Subject wrote: “We don’t know if this is just a very long interregnum, or the end times. There have been several equally thorough explanations of what has happened since John XXIII.” Did you mean “PIUS XII”?
Simple Beggar: “Now objectively speaking, yes, they are outside the Catholic Church.”
Your own words make it plain that you believe that those that do not take your position are outside of the Church.
As for the anger? I’m not sure how one can tell whether someone is “angry” in these posts. It is interesting that the home-aloners here like to ascribe this emotion to those that strongly disagree with them and their tactics and refuse to listen to their anathemas. Seems to me this is just another way to discredit all others, to play victim, and “prove” that their position is the only Catholic and true position.
I think you are all wrong to take it to the level of saying all other trads are outside of the Church…even if “objectively speaking”. Every Catholic should be wary of such a position.
Good Saturday morning The Papal Subject,
The utter and actual reality, as it is TPS, is that our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, commanded His disciples to know the signs of the prophetic time in which they live. Amen. He did this by admonishing them for knowing the signs of the weather and for not knowing the signs of the prophetic time. That same prophetic time as it was being fulfilled, when He was actually as literally living among them, and they were blind to just Who He was. You stake the claim over now and again, that, “we simply cannot know for sure”, and I’m paraphrasing you here. Almighty God however, demands that we indeed know and as He does that, by virtue of His infinite power, he provides all the grace necessary to achieve His commands. Amen. Alleluia.
Allow a few questions for your consideration. Who knew when The Christ had come into this world, lived for His first 30 human years quietly in Nazareth, and then was murdered by those, whom He chose to be one of, in His very human nature. They were commanded to know the prophetic Scripture of the Old Testament and yet they were, all but all, perfectly blind to the God Man in their very midst, living and working among them, first quietly and then profoundly, yet they remained blind. Amen. So blind that He, from all eternity, chose not to work any of His miracles among those people in Nazareth that He spent His first 30 years with. To them, He was simply a carpenter’s son, yet at one and the same time, as the very Son of God, made true Man, by the infinite power of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Alleluia.
It remains objectively clear that the Almighty Triune Godhead works analogically in His work of unfolding prophetic Scripture, Amen. Abraham and Jacob prophetically foretelling the Almighty Father’s offering of His Beloved Son, for instance. That understood, Satan can only invert the Truth, Who the Christ Is. He can only mock and blaspheme, as he is infinitely incapable of creating any reality as it is, of his own. Amen. Lastly for now, do you think TPS, that Satan would make it obvious who his Antichrist was or would he use all the power that God has allowed him, to mask it in deception, that is to create a grandiose facade, as the summa and summit of deception, the likes of which this world had never before known nor would ever know again? Does Satan want us to know who he is? Or does Satan want us to believe that he doesn’t even exist? Do you think that as Jesus the Christ established His Church on His rock as Blessed Peter, that Satan would not perfectly mimic that again? Blessed Peter, the Vicar of Christ in this world, once gone from this earth, then replaced by Satan through his vicar as Antichrist and the vicars of Antichrist who would follow him? 2 Thess 2 and Daniel 9:27. The Early Church Fathers in unanimity, thus a matter deFide, definitively as Authoritatively taught the Church this. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Again TPS,
A point of clarity, so there is no misunderstanding.
As I wrote:
“The Early Church Fathers in unanimity, thus a matter deFide, definitively as Authoritatively taught the Church this.”
What I mean regarding the definitive teaching of the Early Church Fathers, is that they interpreted the prophet words of the prophet Daniel, as in 9:27, to mean that the prophetic time would come, when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be gone from the earth and that this would be the time of the person of the Antichrist. In caritas.
Mothermostforgiving, that is correct. We do not know. Our Lady of Good Success (private revelation) says there will be a Restoration and scripture prophecies that the Sacrifice will cease. Which time are we in right now? Only God knows and don’t let anyone tell you they know for sure, they don’t even though they go on and on thinking they do. Live the Faith and beg Christ for Mercy.
It seems to me that perhaps Our Lady of Fatima’s requests for the (timely) consecration of Russia and for the revelation of the 3rd Secret by 1960 were meant to avert the catastrophe through which we have been living since 1958. Sr. Lucia did state in her 1957 interview that the chastisement was “imminent” and had to do with the fall of the clergy, and thereby the loss of many souls. I’ve been thinking that IF her requests had been fulfilled THEN we would have experienced that prophesied and CONTINGENT restoration with more time being granted to us, but the window of opportunity passed us by, and instead we went headlong into the great spiritual chastisement, hurtling toward the 2nd Coming and Last Judgment.
It’s a bit like the use of the phrase “SHOULD BE” at the Vatican Council which has been discussed, God’s will and desire being one thing, but man instead choosing his own will (to his own destruction). There’s nothing new under the sun as it all began with Adam and Eve.
There are some very interesting prophecies of Sr. Jeanne Le Royer – notably the ones describing the setting of the sun and the timing point to right about now.
OLOGS also stated that the Sanctuary light would be extinguished, and she of course was speaking of the 2nd half of the 20th century, which has passed.
Dear 2Vermont,
I have not displayed nor have I felt any anger while posting. As for what you assert, I said “objectively speaking” as it is the teaching of the Church that if we are in heresy, apostasy, schism or break Church Law we are outside of the Church. If in conscience I were to refuse assent to a LEGITIMATE Pope, then I, too, would be in schism. As I do recognize that per the teachings of the true Church as well as St. Paul the holy Apostle, that the men in question do and did NOT hold the Catholic Faith but are instead wolves in sheep’s clothing (OBVIOUSLY), then I am justified and vindicated in my position. Even should I be mistaken, God cannot possibly hold against a soul their good will in their ultimate desire to AVOID IDOLATRY and to BE TRULY CATHOLIC in the face of this absolute HORROR.
That being said, if you don’t agree nor wish to explore the unexplored and are so certain that your position is safe, then why work yourself up over it? Why not simply pass by such comments by? I for one don’t have the time to read every comment, especially if I don’t agree, and I don’t get upset over them either. I’m just trying to save my precious soul.
“Is there some kind of the taking away of all common sense and reality today?”
Yes for sure, it’s the anti-philosophy of Modernism. Modernism denies absolute truth of any kind (excepting those times it may be practically convenient/expedient for them), separates God and faith, from truth and science(knowledge). Because God is all truth, mentally separating God from truth makes one a practical atheist. They end up denying God Himself, and don’t even realize it happened. It corrupts the very basis of the intellectual process grievously.
The intellect cannot function without God and truth/divine revelation, because it has no other solid basis to reason from. “Lord, To whom shall we go?”
A Simple Beggar, as I have told Louie, I have chosen to ignore all of the home-aloners in this combox. Others will have to come to a decision on whether to continue to engage with them.
The reign of the Antichrist will last seven years. Where are the Two Witnesses? The math doesn’t quite add up. There are several gaps in your position.
2Vermont: If I may, I think I can somewhat adequately explain what it is my Catholic brother A Simple Beggar (I assume brother; forgive me if it is not), means by ‘objectively being outside the Church’:
We can only judge by externals; Our Lord alone judges the heart. So when we see someone commit an act that is “objectively” — in and of itself, isolated from any internal disposition, education, prejudices, knowledge, lack of knowledge, culture do something (i.e. going to the religious ceremonies of the Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Dolan/Cekada, etc.), then we conclude that since those religious functions are not under the jurisdicitonal authority of the Catholic Church — then neither are the attendees.)
Perhaps this would serve as a better example: Suppose you know of someone who commits Mortal Sin and gives no evidence of wanting to change. They are proud of their sin; they even brag about it. You and I might say ‘That person is going to Hell.’ But do we mean definitively that they are damned? No; we mean that judging by what we see — and what they brag about — they are on the way to Hell. But at the end of their life, with the help of God, they might make a Perfect Act of Contrition — and then end up in Heaven before you and me, after a stint in Purgatory! But judging from the externals—and only God knows of the internal dispositions — the heart, we might say —we make conclusions. We have to. Everyone does it even in the secular realm. You couldn’t run a society without doing so.
So, objectively yes, these traditionalist groups (who, by the way anathematize each other!) are outside the Catholic Church. What’s in the heart of anyone including you and me? Who knows? Are these attendees willing to make the sacrifices for the True Faith, or are they just nostalgic for the way things were in the 1950’s? Will they put the faith before the Sacraments; or do they insist that they cannot “survive” without Confession—even if such Confession is invalid owing to lack of jurisdiction (remember, for the Sacrament of Penance Orders AND jurisdiction are required; not just Orders!)?
Tom A answered my thoughts exactly. Thanks Tom. There are other people here who claim to know exactly what going on in every minute detail, but they don’t. By trying to prove everything, they prove nothing.
The Papal Subject:
Does the SSPX presently confess that Francis is the Pope, and that the present hierarchy represents the Catholic Church?
And more importantly, do you confess that Francis is the Pope, and that the present hierarchy represents the Catholic Church?
Most of them do. Some don’t. I don’t, because that’s the best explanation of what went wrong.
The problem with this crisis is that it is impossible to have a universal position that all Catholics are bound to follow and will follow. You’d need a pope to declare the pope is not the Pope in order for everyone to be on the same page. Until then, there are those of good will who are simply mistaken. I don’t know the way out of this. The stay at home sedes need to identify who the antichrist is, but can’t. Where’s the seven year reign? Where are the two witnesses whom oppose him and are martyred? There’re not here. It can’t be the time of the Antichrist. Just an interregnum. The Church continues in a state of unusual suspension.
Sorry, not “until then”, because “then” can never happen. I should have said, “until this situation is somehow resolved.”
TPS: I think the very fact that there is no pope is the reason why there is so much division. So, yes, we Catholics need a true pope.
The Catholic Church actually has taught us everything we need to know, there is no need for confusion. To say otherwise is to infer that the Lord left His Church wanting. The teachings of the Church have covered the present “crisis” in a very simple way.
Pope Pius XII- Mystici Corporis Christi, 20:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such
as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or
apostasy”.
Have you ever read Pope Paul IV’s Bull- Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? A manifest heretic first of all, cannot become “pope” in the first place, because he’s not a Catholic. That simple. And, if it should ever be possible that a valid Pope becomes a manifest heretic after election, he would lose his office ipso facto, with no declaration necessary. He would lose his office by his own “authority” so to speak, in other words, if he taught against the divine faith, God deposes him. It is manifest before all who have the faith and recognize it. These are doctrines that we simply must believe to be Catholic.
No one would be “judging” him by their own “personal authority” for recognizing a manifest heretic, it is a normal application of a a formal teaching of the Church. If we try to argue against that fact, then we must deny our own eyes and ears, and then also deny that any Catholic, no matter lowly his estate cannot truly know the doctrines of the faith and practically apply it in reality. Which would also imply that we are personally incapable of true belief at all. We would just shrug and say “I don’t know” when the going gets tough, and leave it to somebody else to sort out.
One of the many problems with the SSPX and other groups is that they will confess before God, right in the canon of the Mass of the Faithful, that Francis is the “pope”. And you report above that some confess he is, and some don’t. That’s not unity, and it’s not honest, it’s a contradiction at the least. A lie in the Mass? That is an open public confession before all and God that you believe what he believes, and you are in full communion with him and under his authority. Either he’s the “pope” or he isn’t, you can’t have it both ways.
Would you consider that a problem?
james_o:
“If we try to argue against that fact, then we must deny our own eyes and ears, and then also deny that any Catholic, no matter lowly his estate cannot truly know the doctrines of the faith and practically apply it in reality.”
That’s it. Problem is, those who keep attending Novus Ordo services DO NOT KNOW the “doctrines of the faith,” and that’s because the Catholic faith is not numero uno to them. They’re too lazy to find out what it actually is. They are more caught up in the doings of Satan’s paradise, i.e. The World, than their eternal salvation. Everything they need to know to effect that salvation is freely available on the internet. But they would rather occupy themselves with pro football, Dancing With The Stars, Oprah, or whatever the latest Marxist media-machine offering is. And the NO “presiders” are only too willing to pat them on the head and tell them that everything’s okay. We can pray for them, but that’s about all we can do.
TPS,
We do not have to have all of the answers but we are responsible for knowing the essentials, one being that the Faith comes before Sacraments. We do have a suspect for the Antichrist but it seems to go over the head of some. As for the rest, did or did not the Church decipher and decode the entire Book of the Apocalypse? No. Many things remain a mystery and to be seen, and/or won’t be known until we see God face-to-face. I do believe, as with King Louie and France, that any possible restoration was contingent upon whether or not the wishes of the Blessed Mother at Fatima were fulfilled. Obviously they were not or not in a timely fashion. We have been living through the result of that disobedience in that the See was usurped by the FMs, hence the Pastor was struck and the sheep were scattered (Pope Leo XII, St Michael Prayer).
What I do need to know is that I cannot receive Sacraments from thieves and robbers. Thuc and Lefbvre were apostates, heretics and schismatics. Even if they were not any of those things, there was no valid Pope alive from whom they could receive a Papal mandate allowing them to consecrate other bishops, which IS still necessary. In that sense we are in suspension. Period. End of story. Knowing what I now know, should I approach and receive “Sacraments” from these people I will damn my soul, because Holy Mother Church says so. That is the teaching of the Church. Period and end. It’s as simple as that. Call me whatever you will, spit on me, curse me, ban me from your property and friendship with your family, but it simply is what it is and quitr frankly, Sir, I couldn’t possibly care LESS what you or anyone else thinks of me in this regard. God first served!
TPS, you are welcome. In this time of great apostasy we are only sure of what was taught prior to 1958. Vatican I and Pope St Pius X, and Pius XII tell us that the conciliar modernists in Rome cannot be Catholics and therefore cannot be Popes. We also know, because it has always been taught, to avoid doubtful sacraments and never participate in non Catholic false worship with heretics or schismatics. Now we are left to navigate the post V2 wasteland trying to adhere to those principals.
Yes mothermostforgiving, but it also helps to confess publicly whenever possible what we know to be solid Church teaching, from the Popes and Councils. Even if some ignore it.
Little things can mean much with God’s grace. We can always use more confessors!
Period and end? Are you and In Caritas the same person? The cognitive judgement that Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre were heretics, schismatics and apostates should not be in the same category. That is my cognitive judgement on the matter. Yours is different. How are we going to resolve this? Do I go along with you or do you go along with me? Do you see how, once we agree that Paul VI was not the pope, it opens up much that cannot be resolved?
I’m confused. I said “Thuc and Lefebvre”, although that doesn’t mean Paul VI wasn’t as well.
IC and I am not the same person, but I do like his “period and end”. 🙂
But it CAN be resolved. It’s just as James_o states so plainly above.
There is much that is edifying, consoling, encouraging, etc., in communicating in this way (on Mr Verrechio’s website – thank you, Mr Verrechio, and God bless you) with fellow Catholics who love God and the Holy Faith and are suffering terribly because of the Great Apostasy and the unprecedented evil that abounds, and the lack of holy or faithful bishops, priests, teachers, parents. But as many of us have been saying for many many years, we need to be able to make real contact with true Catholics in real life, get to know and support each other in reality, in real life, with real names, etc. We need fellow Catholics in our real lives, that we can know as real persons. One can’t even tell from the aliases most people use on fora such as this whether it’s a woman or man who speaks.
It’s a sad reflection of the current state of the world that many of most of us cannot get to actually relate on a daily or regular basis with fellow Catholics, so many lacking true physical Catholic community, as the person each of us is.
As I think I’ve said several times in some Catholic websites, though not recently, my name is Lynda Finneran and I live in Ireland. (I should probably add my surname to my internet name, it might help me be more conscientious about what I say or whether I say anything, and encourage others to use their real names. Of course, some do that are just commenters use their full real names and some have always done so – thanks to them.)
God bless and protect you, dear brothers in Christ. I wish I had some more people with such dedication to the Holy Faith in my face-to-face life.
And thanks to Mr Verrechio for his love for God and His One Holy Catholic Church (so hard to find in its traditional visible form now) for his sincere efforts and also giving people an opportunity to communicate with others on the matters of Faith and salvation that he addresses here, for the glory of God and salvation of souls.
[Please forgive the certain lack of clarity in this short message – I have a chronic illness that impairs me cognitively as well as physically, and find it hard to think properly, express what I (think) I want to say correctly, recall the words I need, etc.]
“If we try to argue against that fact, then we must deny our own eyes and ears, and then also deny that any Catholic, no matter lowly his estate cannot truly know the doctrines of the faith and practically apply it in reality.”
Yes, and deny natural reason given to us by Our Creator.
Denial of Faith and reason is the hallmark of our time. It is ubiquitous and institutional, nay mandated by our evil temporal leadership, and many who appear to be leaders of the Church.
From Melanie’s comment above:
from “the Decrees of the First Vatican Council Session 4, “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”
Just a comment on the meaning of “should” in the referenced English (translational) text on Jesus’s plan for His Church – that there should be priests and shepherds to the end of time. From the ordinary, literal reading of the text (and what makes sense generally in the context of the Faith) it does not appear to be that meaning of “should” that denotes the normative, but rather simply the meaning that is the auxiliary verb used to denote the future from a point in the past. It speaks of what Jesus did or purposed at a point in the past, with respect to the Church into the future. I’m sure it’s clear enough in the original and definitive language, and probably clearer in most other languages. The word “should” has several different meanings.
Good Sunday evening TPS,
Demonstrate an authentic, as authoritative Catholic Church teaching that speaks of a, “seven year reign of Antichrist” and the “two witnesses”. It doesn’t exist. In caritas.
Good Sunday evening Tom A,
Now you invoke Pope Pius XII by name and you write this:
“TPS, you are welcome. In this time of great apostasy we are only sure of what was taught prior to 1958.”
Tom A, you can’t make this stuff up. You now declare that, “…we are only sure of what was taught prior to 1958.”, as you just 2 days ago, denied that Pope Pius XII Authoritatively commanded that any Bishop who illicitly consecrates another, loses his membership in the Catholic Church ipso facto, as he is, “excommunicated”, by virtue of that illicit act of consecration and as commanded by the Supreme Apostolic Authority of Pope Pius XII, as is the one he consecrates, by virtue of receiving the illicit consecration. PERIOD AND END. What are you now even talking about Tom A? Do you assent to the teaching of Pope Pius XII or do you deny it as you did 2 days ago?
You see Tom A, there are no valid nor licit Sacraments in the cosmos, which require a priest, because there is NO JURISDICTION without Blessed Peter in his Successors, now present on the earth, nor has one been present for 61 years and 4 days. Amen. These arguments have been presented for you from the Authoritative as binding Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, and you continue to deny this. You are outside the Church, where there is no salvation, deFide, as you deny the Magisterium, as that is true Catholic teaching. Very serious stuff Tom A. You deny that God has prepared His Church for this time, which is blasphemy. Amen. You behave as though you are the Pope, telling people that no one can decide this or that. It has all been decided within the Mind of God, Tom A. He prepared His Holy Catholic Church for this time of desolation after Antichrist. Amen. The Holy as infallible Magisterium has prepared us perfectly and you deny this because you are objectively blind to it. Wake up man.
Once the true Bishop illicitly consecrates, he and the receiver are excommunicated, ipso facto, and thus they are incapable of Ordaining or consecrating anyone else, as they lose all power of Jurisdiction, as they are then non-Catholics, outside the Church. It is not possible that any purported “Bishop” today could have been licitly consecrated, because NONE of them received a true Papal Mandate, thus even if they were true Bishops, all of their Sacraments would lead each and every soul receiving them to Hell, as they would ALL BE SACRELIGIOUS without any possibility of exception. You see Tom A, Pope Pius XII made no distinctions in his Authoritative proclamation in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, therefore there CANNOT BE any exceptions. No distinctions, no exceptions. Period and end. He declared this plainly as to apply to the Universal Church and not just the Catholic Church in China, just so it would be clear in the minds of the faithful. Amen.
Pope Leo XIII also taught this definitively in, “Satis Cognitum”, as was already demonstrated for you. If a Bishop denies the Authoritative governing power of Blessed Peter in the Holy See, he is in schism, as Pope Leo XIII definitively taught then, he loses all power of Jurisdiction and he is rendered, “separated from the fold”, “exiled from the Kingdom”, no longer Catholic thus.
For your edification, below find the pertinent parts of Pope Pius XII”s encyclical, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”:
44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]
I do pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear Lynda,
This reality of the meaning of the word, “should”, has already been developed here in the response to Melanie. Please see that. The word, “should”, is not in the definitive context, as are the words, “will” and “shall”. In the context of the use at the only Vatican Council, as in its 4th Session, 18 July, 1870, the word, “should”, demonstrates the Will of God, and yet He allows us our free will, and to oppose His Will, and of course. Amen. As this thing itself speaks. In reality as it is, truth thus, the Vatican Council simply as definitively could not have used the definitive words, “will or shall”, there, because then, and as was also pointed out to Melanie in that response, the Council would have placed contradiction into the Magisterium, which is infinitely impossible. Amen. Alleluia.
The early Church Fathers taught in unanimity, thus requiring the assent of Faith, that the prophet Daniel prophesied, as in 9:27, that the prophetic time would come when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would fail, as it would be gone from the face of the earth totally, and that would be the time of Antichrist. Amen. This interpretation requires the assent of Faith. No Mass— no Pope. No Pope—-No Mass. The Vicar of Christ is linked to the Holy Sacrifice indelibly. Without him present on the earth, there can be no Holy Sacrifice offered, as Apostolic Succession is lost to the world. Amen. The Encyclicals and Apostolic Constitutions of Popes Paul IV, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, already sited here, definitively as Authoritatively, prepared us for the time of the desolation of Antichrist, as Daniel warned of in 9:27, as he prophesied that, “…the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” Saint Paul warned in 2 Thess 2, that when the Vicar of Christ, was, “taken out of the way”, Satan would then bring forth the very person of Antichrist, as the, “man of sin” and the, “son of perdition”. It was the true Vicar of Christ who held Satan at bay over the centuries from bringing forth Antichrist until his prophesied time. Amen. When prophecy is fulfilled, our Blessed Christ Jesus commands that His disciples, as true Catholics, know it and therefore He has provided, in His infinite plenitude, all of the grace for the intellective lights to see. Amen. Alleluia.
As Daniel prophesied, once Antichrist, the “abomination of desolation”, invoked his, “desolation”, the grand facade as Satan’s summa and summit of deception–the false church of Antichrist all dressed up as Catholic–but devoid as “desolate”, of all things Christ Jesus, as desolate of the true Sacraments and desolate of the true external symbol of unity, as the Vicar of Christ, now gone from the face of the earth unto the end. There is no Catholic prophecy of the loss of Apostolic Succession, save the time of the very person of Antichrist, as this is what the early Church Fathers taught in unanimity. When the Mass was gone, Antichrist is/was here. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
“Yes, and deny natural reason given to us by Our Creator.”
Exactly, and deny supernatural/divine knowledge as well. Revelation. That’s Modernism in it’s definition; the separation of God and faith from truth and science(knowledge). It not only denies absolute truth, but also that we can “know” it. It becomes only relative. Truly diabolical. An anti-philosophy.
The Lord, in the great commission, commanded His Apostles and successors to baptize and teach. Teach. What’s the use of teaching, if we cannot grasp absolute truth, and know and apply it? From Pope to pauper? But, in this age, if a Christian does that in practice he risks being called “harsh” or “judgmental”. Very unpopular. Even if you are careful to quote Church teaching, it still may be relegated to your opinion, if it’s not convenient. But do it anyway.
We have the grace for divine truth through baptism, because it’s His Will that we know Him, who is all truth. That’s what being enlightened means, to “know Him the only true God, and the one you have sent, Jesus Christ”.
So call out on heretics and heresy, according to the judgement of the Church. You can absolutely know it.
Amen. Alleluia.
“He prepared His Holy Catholic Church for this time of desolation after Antichrist.”
Please explain how it is that we are in a period “after” Antichrist. Is it that he has come to pave the way for his eventual reign, or is it that he has already been seated on his throne?
Has the Antichrist been and gone? Who were the Two Witnesses? When were they martyred and came back to life? If you cannot answer these simple questions in simple, concise language, one might conclude that you have painted yourself into a corner, and have bitten off more than you can chew. Period and end.
In Caritas’ personal interpretation of the Council, while accusing others of acting as if they were Pope!
Dear mothermostforgiving,
You seem genuinely sincere in your pursuit of Truth, as He has a name, as the Son of God made true Man, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God as God. Amen. Alleluia. Where does the Church teach that the prophetic time will be fulfilled, whereby the Church will no longer be existentially visible?, as She will lose one of Her 2 visible signs of unity, which are #1– the unity of the faithful in the One True Faith (this sign of unity not generally or broadly visible) and #2– the unity of the faithful under the Vicar of Jesus the Christ as Holy Roman Pontiff. Amen. Our Blessed Christ warned us that when the Shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered. Why did He warn us of that? Because it wasn’t going to happen? To suggest that is blasphemy as that is to suggest that the Christ would deceive us or mislead us in some way. Amen. The unity of the faithful who hold the One, True Faith remains but our Blessed Lord warned us also that when He comes again, not much faith will He find in the world. Amen. The true Catholic faithful who now remain in the world, are the lone wolves crying from the wilderness of the Church, now in eclipse. Amen. The Magisterium has infallibly taught that aspects of the Church can fall under the assail of Satan and his useful human slaves, most of whom don’t know that he is their Prince, but the Church remains. Amen. Pope Leo XIII did this in, “Satis Cognitum”, if memory serves.
Saint Paul prophetically warns us in 2 Thess 2, that the time of Antichrist, as the, “son of perdition”, “the man of sin”, immediately follows the loss of Apostolic Succession. There is only one time, as there can only be one time, when Apostolic Succession is lost. It is humanly impossible to restore it and there is no Catholic teaching or prophecy that says it will be restored once lost. In fact the prophet Daniel warns us otherwise in 9:27, whereby he proclaims that the, “desolation”, of Antichrist (whom he calls, “the abomination of desolation”, as per the Early Church Fathers interpretation) will remain unto the consummation and unto the end of the world. Amen. The Early Church Fathers unanimously declared, requiring the assent of Faith thus by anyone who is truly Catholic, that Daniel warned us that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would leave the earth and this would be the time of Antichrist. Amen. Alleluia. So, when did this happen, mothermostforgiving? It is the same time Apostolic Succession is lost, as the Magisterium infallibly teaches and commands that without the Pope, there can be NO JURISDICTION. Without Jurisdiction, there can be no visible signs of Sacraments which require a sacerdotal priest. This is the “desolation”, the absence of the Sacraments in their visible signs and the loss of Apostolic Succession, as without the Vicar of Christ in this world. Amen. To have a priest, you must have a valid and licit Bishop. If the Bishop is valid but illicit, then anyone who receives Sacraments from, not only him, but anyone as everyone that he consecrates or Ordains, is committing mortal sin, thus damning their soul each and every time they participate. Amen. Thus, the so called, “Sedevacante” sect, would all be damned anyway because of the pain of Sacrilege. This is the Church teaching. That is, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, infallibly teaches that anything done by anyone and everyone, reserved for the Pontiff alone in his lifetime, like the consecration of Bishops, is not illicit, but, “null and void”, invalid thus, never happened.
So the questions are, when did this happen and who perpetrated it? You know it’s happened, yes? If it hasn’t happened, then where is the true Pope and his Apostolic Succession? We have definitive Catholic teaching through the prophet Daniel and Saint Paul for example, with unanimous interpretation by the Fathers with Daniel. Amen. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.
And again TPS,
Demonstrate the Authoritative Catholic Church teaching which tells us what you, as is your opinion and which is consistent with “protestant teaching”, your following claim:
“Who were the Two Witnesses? When were they martyred and came back to life?”
I pray this admonition helps. In caritas.
Make your claim TPS, that is the, “personal interpretation of the Council”, that you are the accuser of. What’s the claim of personal interpretation that your making? Remember TPS, where NO DISTINCTION is made, there CANNOT BE EXCEPTION. That is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, in, “Satis Cognitum”. Amen. In caritas.
Cornelius a Lapide’s approved commentary commissioned by the pope. Hope this helps.
Protestants don’t have teaching. Each is his own teacher. Period and end. It’s spoken of in the Apocalypse. Cornelius a Lapide said that these two witnesses were Enoch and Elias, and they would openly challenge the Antichrist. This is an approved commentary. One can hold to it and not be led into error or heresy. But it doesn’t line up with your take on things.
Where are Enoch and Elias? Who was the Antichrist? Yes, I say “was” because you have stated that the time of the Antichrist is a past event, period and end. Who was he then? Name, date, place.
Demonstrate the Church teaching that says that the chap who posts as In Caritas on Louie Verrechio’s blog is correct and his view, which he naturally believes to be true, must be adopted as necessary for salvation.
I do appreciate the shorter and more concise posts, In Caritas, and I’m sure I’m not alone. People would more often than not tend to just scroll past extremely long posts, and your words would be wasted. If you could trim them down like you have here, more people would read them. I read them all anyway, but it’s a bit laborious for the very long ones.
Thank you, TPS. I have commented to IC the same request. I think Louie appreciates it when the commenters abide by his instructions to be brief and on topic. Remember – it is Louie’s blog. Let us all respect his guidelines.
Good Monday morning TPS,
Once again TPS, you demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding of the Universal as Ordinary Magisterium of the Bride of Christ. And by the way, your faux concern for me, as demonstrated by your petulant comment speaks about you, as res ipsa loquitur. Amen. An, “approved commentary”, just so you clearly understand TPS, has no demand for an assent of Faith. Poor, poor TPS. Your self effacement, as to one who holds the One as true Catholic Faith, simply becomes more evident as you write. Prickly in your prose. An, “approved commentary”, is just that, a commentary. When the Early Church Fathers concur in unanimity, regarding their interpretation of the prophetic as Holy Writ, now that TPS indeed does require the assent of Faith, as the Magisterium has infallibly taught, that the Fathers, “could not err”, in unanimity. I do pray this helps. In caritas
And again TPS,
An, “approved commentary”, does not require the assent of Faith, as do the Early Church Fathers, when in unanimity, as they interpreted and taught Biblical prophecy, and that is Magisterial teaching about the Fathers. The Church approved commentary is a pious understanding, that in itself, did not contradict anything that had been defined and taught, and thus it does not contain heresy. That’s all TPS. It doesn’t contain heresy. It does not mean that it is correct, as God does not reveal the Mystery of His prophecy until the proper time, which He alone has known, into all eternity. Amen. Alleluia. When He does reveal it though, a true as faithful Catholic simply must come to know it, through the reception of the intellective lights of grace alone. I am as I can only remain, a perfectly miserable wretch, deserving of Hell. It is only by receiving God’s grace that we can see, that which is right before our eyes and all but all alive since Oct, 1958, have been and do remain blinded to it, as was I. Amen. Things have occurred since Oct 9, 1958, which demonstrate the revelation of the prophecy of the epoch of the, “end of time”. No one can be, “told”, the answer per se. One must freely receive it in their will, which as the Angelic Doctor taught, requires the reception of God’s grace. Amen. You can simply reject anything that you are told, as we must come to know it. To use a vernacular term, the, “clues”, if you will, have been written. Pray the Holy Rosary daily with a filial love of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, the destroyer of all heresy. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In caritas,
Thank you for inserting the “…the absence of the Sacraments in their visible signs …” (key word: VISIBLE) into your commentary. I believe that when I make a Spiritual Communion I am receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Yes mothermostforgiving,
And as Holy Church teaches. It is The Christ Who commanded the Sacraments into being with their visible signs as Rites. It is The Christ Who may bestow upon anyone whom He chooses, the Sacramental grace without the visible signs. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Christ rules His Church and His Sacraments. The visible Church must be in conformity with Christ, the Invisible Head. There is no authority in the visible church on earth if it is not in conformity with Christ. In Caritas is correct. Thank you for your very clear response.
I agree. An approved commentary cannot cause one to fall into error, heresy or apostasy. It is safe to adopt then. In doing so, I am at odds with your understanding of things, and as far as you’re concerned, I have fallen. Your understanding of things excludes someone who holds to a safe and approved commentary on the Apocalypse, the Antichrist and the end times. That is one reason for my reluctance to go adopt your view.
Prisca ann, I wouldn’t be here at this site if I didn’t agree with what Louie says. I just think his practical approach isn’t productive at restoring all things in Christ and all of us need correction in true charity when we fall to far toward sin but correction must be decided very prudently under circumstances. I would argue that Michael and Louie agree theologically 100% and both Louie and Michael know this also. Where they disagree is the practical approach to address the Crisis in the Church and restore all things in Christ. Most everyone here agrees with Louie’s practical approach, and most at the Remnant agree with Michael’s practical approach. Each have very little power to restore all things in Christ and both know it. That can only be ultimately done by Almighty God but both Michael and Louie can be of assistance to that ends if they stop trashing each others practical approach. People here are judged and labeled as sede vacantist because of their practical approach (and that’s unfortunate). And people over at the Remnant and Michael Matt are judged and labeled as modernists or (t)raditionalists by people here because of their practical approach (and that’s unfortunate).
Louie’s Practical approach is what the SSPX (the trad camp I was raised under but never became a member as an adult) did from 1970-approx. 10 years after Archbishop Lefebvre’s (ABL) death. This approach although 100% theologically correct and effective never gained them turf practically speaking at invading Rome and taking the Papacy back. The small amount of pioneer Traditionalists (the Remnant as their leader) before ABL started the SSPX in 1970 used the practical approach and remained in the diocese Churches and stood their ground and have been growing since. A small number of priests in 1988 saw and knew the practical approach of the pioneers and started the FSSP- in oppostition to ABL’s. approach? -YES. The FSSP also theologically agrees 100% with ABL, Louie and Michael Matt but disagree with ABL’s and Louie’s practical approach. Even the SSPX (what people here call the neo-sspx) has seen that it is possible to achieve ground within the diocesan churches and now the SSPX want positions in this takeover. The SSPX leadership wants to join the Practical approach fight that definitely is a gamble but has proven to gain ground. slowly? yes. But all battles are a gamble of who is going to conquer. Who will? What approach will win in the end? Only God knows. Most likely both will but only when all can see past their own Pride and work together practically without compromising theologically which the SSPX, the Remnant, and the FSSP have not. None say the nervous disorder mass. If you think St. Athanasius didn’t have spies within the Church buildings you don’t know war tactics. Dearest Mother of God open all our eyes and help us all have more self criticism instead of criticism of others.
This is simply English language grammar. Neither “will” nor “shall” are correct when referring to the future from a point in the past. It would have been grammatically incorrect to say that “It WAS His will that in His Church there [will/shall] be shepherds and teachers . . .” etc. Straightforward. The correct auxiliary used in the English text. No need to complicate the plain ordinary meaning of the words here.
God bless and protect us all in the One Holy Faith.
Well Lynda, for a person with cognitive impairment you do very well with grammar. I feel like I’ve impaired my cognition just looking this up. I’m providing an example here: “Fred Ballard, a local playwright friend of my mother, told her that I should go to his alma mater, Harvard and that he would make inquiries on my behalf, which he did without success.” That’s from this site which seems to confirm In carita’s take, as far as I can see: https://www.google.com/search?q=would+be+vs.+should+be&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari. I know he did write “will” but I should assume he meant “would,” lol jk, but maybe he meant would. Also, I’m suspect of people who discourage anonymous commenting and encourage self-doxing.
I included the wrong link. That example was actually from this site, https://www.thoughtco.com/future-in-the-past-grammar-1690811
Dear Lynda,
A point of clarity. The words, “will or shall”, can certainly be used to denote future commands, as can the word, “should”. If I give a command to a subordinate and declare, “you shall/will do this”, it speaks to something in the future. If I command, “you should do this”, it speaks to something in the future. It is the tone and tenor of the command that is altered, one use as, “will/shall”, and the other use as, “should”. Lets use a military command as example.
The Admiral commands that 2 weeks, 1 day, and 13.5 hrs from now, at 1750 hours, on ….date, the jets SHALL/WILL fly off the runway of the air craft carrier. If the timing is other than precisely that, the Admiral warns, “heads will roll”.
This command allows for not one iota of movement from the timing of his command for the future. He is exquisitely definitive, allowing no room for any movement from his command as it is specifically given. This command demonstrates objectively, the will of the Admiral.
He could have given the same command and supplanted the words, “will/shall”, with the word, “should”, and it changes the understanding of the will of the command giver, the Admiral.
Here’s the same command using the word, “should”.
The Admiral commands that 2 weeks, 1 day, and 13.5 hrs from now, at 1750 hours, on ….date, the jets SHOULD fly off the runway of the air craft carrier. The admiral has said that he will be disappointed if the timing is not close to his command.`
Whether something, “will”, happen or, “should”, happen, while both contexts speak to an event in the future, reflect not the future context per se, rather the will of the command giver as definitive/authoritative versus desirous, for example.
As it relates to past tense usage, of course, “will”, cannot apply but, “should”, can. In caritas
Faced with that with which we are presently confronted and considering all that is at stake, I would think that almost nothing would be too laborious, especially for those serious enough to thoroughly and honestly explore ALL existing possibilities/positions. As for me I went through each and every one prior to making my decision and finally resting in peace, by God’s Grace. I had no further inclination or desire to follow popular “opinion”. Such Magisterial documents as have been quoted and referenced by IC contained the answers to all of my questions.
As it’s been stated before, patience is a virtue. The comments in the
slender space provided are in reality not exceptionally long.
Hello TPS,
Please know that in truth, this has nothing to do with perfectly miserable me, as in “my take”, on things. You wrote this:
“I agree. An approved commentary cannot cause one to fall into error, heresy or apostasy. It is safe to adopt then.”
Remember, what we’re writing about now is objective reality, that is, “reality as it is”, now in time, not a pious understanding of things as they may unfold sometime in the prophetic future. The approved book that you site was written prior to any of these things having occurred, as they actually have already occurred, in real time and in reality, as it is, and now.
For instance, the author that you site, did not foretell of the prophetic time when there would be no Vicar of Christ present on the earth for 61 years and counting. Amen. That’s quite an oversight on his part, yes? That said, he simply could not have known how God’s prophetic Mystery was, “going to unfold”, but we are commanded now to know how it actually has unfolded. Amen.
The Early Church Fathers prepared Holy Mother, the Church for this time. Requiring our assent of Faith, they in unanimity, declared that the prophet Daniel foretold of the prophetic time when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be absent on earth and when that occurred, it would also be the time of Antichrist. Amen. You mentioned that it is, “safe”, to hold the approved commentary, well this teaching of the Fathers is deFide, as the Magisterium has declared they cannot err in unanimity of teaching and this requires thus an assent of Faith. If rejected by anyone, it places them outside the Church, ipso facto. The Almighty Triune Godhead has given this inerrant prophetic interpretation of the Fathers to Christ’s Church, such that we can know with divine certitude where we are and when we’re there. Amen. God in His divine Providence and Mercy.
You then wrote this:
“In doing so, I am at odds with your understanding of things, and as far as you’re concerned, I have fallen. Your understanding of things excludes someone who holds to a safe and approved commentary on the Apocalypse, the Antichrist and the end times.”
Please know TPS, this is not, “my understanding of things”, per se, rather it is my intellect conforming to these, “things”, as they actually are, as in reality as it is and now. Amen. That is what the Angelic Doctor taught the, “truth”, to be, that is, the conformation of the human person’s intellect to the reality, as it actually is, and not how that same person may, “believe it to be”, which is called, “deception”.
Please know also TPS, that my poor as miserable understanding of things, if that’s all this was that I write, would lead me to Hell. What’s been written is not my personal understanding, again as per se, rather it is the pronouncement of what the Magisterium has taught and how it has rendered its binding Authority on the Faithful. Amen. If you know that you have fallen, it has nothing to do with poor as miserable me, as in to quote you, “as far as you’re concerned, I have fallen.” I’m not writing my opinions here TPS, rather siting the Magisterial teachings, which prepared us for this time, as the Apocalyptic time. Amen.
You then wrote this:
“Your understanding of things excludes someone who holds to a safe and approved commentary on the Apocalypse, the Antichrist and the end times. That is one reason for my reluctance to go adopt your view.”
Remember TPS, when someone as the approved author you sited, is writing a pious reflection on what he believes to be a likely prophetic scenario for something as the Apocalypse to come in its prophetic time and as in the future, that is an immanently different understanding than that of a Catholic, as anyone who truly holds the Faith as truly being Catholic is—holding the Faith—who knows that he is actually living in the time that was prophesied to be by Holy Mother Church, the epoch of the, “end of time”, as the desolation of Antichrist. Amen. Daniel inerrantly foretold that once the desolation of Antichrist was accomplished, the desolation would remain unto the Second Coming of the Christ. Amen. Remember, this, “view”, as you write, is not, “my view”, and again as per se, rather it is the infallible teaching of the Church for this time.
Lastly, for now, it is clear that the past 61 years cannot be what the Church calls, “interregnum”, because in an, “interregnum”, Apostolic Succession has NOT BEEN LOST as immanently understood, as the Church awaits Her Successor of Peter to be accepted canonically, thus denoting intact Apostolic Succession. Amen. “Interregnum”, is the canonically defined time that the Church awaits Her Pontiff’s election. To elect a Pontiff, as canonically valid, you must have Bishops who hold the Catholic Faith, as per, “Cum Ex…”, which is binding, as part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. “Cum Ex…”, definitively teaches and binds thus, that any Bishop who either, “deviates from the Faith”, or commits heresy or schism, is FOREVER then unable, as long as he lives, to ever hold ANY Ecclesial Office, yet alone the Bishopric. He loses all power to vote, as to elect a Pontiff, thus. “Cum Ex…” spells this out to the letter. Amen. Apostolic Succession is now canonically lost without any valid Bishops, because Apostates, heretics, schismatics, and those Bishops who, “deviate from the Faith”, again as per, “Cum Ex…”, loose all power of Jurisdiction and are removed from the Church, ipso facto, as latae sentenciae.
I will attempt to answer, to the best of my ability, utilizing Magisterial teaching as the singular Authority, any honest questions that you may posit. Sometimes the answers may be in the form of questions of you. I pray this helps TPS. May God bless and keep you. In caritas.
In Caritas: my sibling in the Faith.
I noticed that some people are taking you to task, stating that your replies are “too long”. May I please give you my input? It’s this: Don’t change a thing. That’s your style. But more importantly, these religious questions don’t have glib, short answers; they are long and involved. You are giving the subject matter the attention that it deserves by being so thoughtful and thorough.
Personally, I like your style of writing: It’s who YOU are, and it’s a reflection of your personality and love for Holy Mother Church.
Some — not all — but some here are asking you questions because it’s obvious that their consciences are troubling them. You know, when someone is in Traditionalist groups — if you have an inclination to reflection — there’s always this doubt, this “what if?” in their minds. As if, ‘what if this is wrong’. That’s why people like you — and me — get unnerve them as much as we do.
But my point here, is to say don’t feel pressured to be like “everyone else” in your writing style. Be who you are. (There’s a non-liberal sense in which this is perfectly OK!— You’re that person!) Personally, I love your style! God bless you and thank you for defending the real Faith and the thoughtfulness that goes into your responses. I learn from you.
To me, you are very Catholic. And from someone whose goal is to be truly Catholic and a successful businessman, if you were a billionaire I wouldn’t have any more admiration for you then I already do. God bless you, my dear friend!
Good Monday evening SEDEVCT,
It is tedious and the calumny can only be expected when the truth as Truth is written or spoken, yes? What is profoundly evident, to eyes as yours’, which have received the grace of the intellective lights to see in this darkest of times, is the degree of internal contradiction that is objectively evidenced here in the writings of people who profess to hold the Faith, but their objective reality as witnessed speaks as res ipsa loquitur, as utterly to the contrary. It is sorrowful and deeply. By the grace of God alone I write what is written. Our Blessed Christ Jesus commanded: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. People are perfectly blinded to the denial of self as is evident. Incessant complaint about length of prose versus content of truth, as if, “if it’s short it’s gotta be good, if it’s long, I hate that, therefore it can’t be good.” It is utterly stunning to bear witness in this time. It is as though people think it to somehow be enjoyable to write such tedious explanations and yet an affront remains on their part, even as words are defined and meaning edified. This can only be an obstinate rejection of truth. Amen. The Angelic Doctor wrote thousands of pages because it cannot be done, as you say, with glib as with little forethought or understanding, rather only truth. Truth is hard in all respects. Amen. The Christ commanded, they will hate you for the name you choose to bear. Amen. Alleluia. Think about this for a moment SEDEVCT. Would you really want to be accepted in this time, as we know those who hold the true Faith, as commanded by the Son of God, would be paltry few? It is a cross as it is an infinite blessing. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’, SEDEVCT. In caritas.
BB, your words were not charitable.
Michael Matt and Louie do NOT agree theologically at all. Only one is Catholic.
According to IC, the antichrist has already been and gone. What was his name? When did he reign? Where was he headquartered? What happened to The two witnesses, Enoch and Elias? According to Scripture, the whole world will know when they appear on the scene to challenge the antichrist. Such simple questions, asked more than once, and skillfully evaded in spite of several thousand posted words. Can you perhaps tell me instead? IC’s viewpoint hinges upon it.
Dear TPS,
You know that anyone can be told anything, yes. Whatever one is told, he must firstly intellectively contemplate, then make an assent of his will to judgment, and by virtue of his free reception of God’s grace, can he only then assent to the good, versus the privation of the good which is do as the evil, in the moral or faithful assent of the will. Amen. This is the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. With that understanding now in place, you are given names, you hear them, and you simply reject them as folly. You conclude that it just cannot be them, simply because, “I don’t believe it”, and your conclusion is based not on the objective reality, with your intellect conforming to that same reality then, as it actually is, which is that those 2 men fulfilled the Biblical prophecy, in its proper time, and as it is understood Authoritatively. This time then is the time that the Early Church Fathers prepared Holy Church for as a matter deFide, as the time of the desolation of the Antichrist, when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be gone from the face of the earth, while that time is also the time of Antichrist. Amen. I’m not aware of this matter of the Fathers being talked about in pious understandings, of what the time of Antichrist would actually be, as the time of desolation in the world, and again this is the unanimous understanding of the Fathers, as a matter deFide.
When the Catholic Faith is understood, as it actually is, and this only by virtue of knowing the authentic as Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the faithful Catholic cannot be deceived. But to know the Magisterium as it actually is, requires the reception of God’s grace, as the Angelic Doctor taught, because it is a matter of faith and proper philosophy, faith and proper reason thus, which is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X declared his metaphysics as the only philosophical reality for the Church. Period and end. Amen.
To leave you with one question now. What is Blessed John the Apostle inerrantly warning us of as prophetically in: 1,John, 2: 21-23? Linked here: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69002.htm
God bless and keep you. In caritas.
Thanks for your reply, but please don’t try to guess what will happen if I hear a name. You do not know. So try me. You claim the Antichrist, or the Man of Sin has been and gone. What was his name? Where did he operate from? What span of years was it? Where were Elias and Enoch during this time?
Or would you like to retract that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist has already made his appearance and has been thrown into the lake of fire? You say your position is based upon objective facts that everyone has access to. Please make them known here in case anyone missed them. Re-reading my post before I hit the button could make me sound smarmy and sarcastic, and as you say, prickly. I don’t intend that. I’m simply being blunt and to the point.
Hello again TPS,
Restating the objective realities, as they indeed are, begins with the question posed of you. Your impatience and desire to, cut to the chase, if you will, itself speaks about your receptiveness to the reality as it is. This most certainly is not a game. I think you know that, at least of me, and it is not my impression of you. The question? God bless you, TPS.
Could you please cut to the chase for me, so I can asses reality as it is? The question is: Who was the antichrist?
Good Wednesday morning TPS,
All things in their proper time. Truth is hard in all its respects, as it relates to the intellect conforming to it. Firstly, in the very opposition to one’s self, as accepting that which is repugnant to the flesh, secondly in the strict opposition to the allure, as to the temptations of this world, and finally in the perfect opposition to the tempests of the wily One, as the Prince of this world, who uses the first two against us. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, commands His disciples then and now: “If any man is to come after Me, he must first DENY himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” Amen.
Its objectively clear TPS, that the names wouldn’t assist you at this point, because in order for the names to have meaning, as in the reality as it is, the first foundational as Authoritative premise must be accepted into one’s will freely. The prophetic warning of the Early Church Fathers is now in our midst. Their deFide interpretation of divine Revelation, as it speaks to the prophecy of the prophet Daniel, has already happened. Amen. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is gone from the face of the earth, with all of the actors in the masquerade of Truth understood and then put aside. Amen. The Fathers taught, as again deFide, that when this occurred, that is the failing of the Holy Sacrifice, it would be the time of Antichrist. Amen. You now see why the names will not be received into your intellect as truth. The Church has always taught that our salvation personally, rests on our assent to the Faith and our proper reasoning to the truth; Faith and reason thus. Amen. The assent of faith required here is the free as willful acceptance of the deFide teaching of the Fathers as given. The proper reasoning to the truth is in the understanding of the proper application of the Authoritative teaching and discipline in the Magisterium that as it always applies, it applies specifically in this as our time. That’s why my previous writing of the utter import of the knowing and assenting to, “Cum Ex…”, “Satis Cognitum”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, such that one then knows with metaphysical certitude that we are there. Amen. Without the perfectly miserable human creature’s (with me as the first) reception of the intellective lights of the grace as given by the divine Paraclete through His spouse as the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, the names and all the rest is perfectly useless as it becomes a quagmire, a conundrum, as it once was for perfectly miserable me. Period and end. The sorrow to be known in this time would be unquenchable, was it not for the assent to the One True Faith, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you TPS. In caritas.
TPS, these people seem fishy to me because they do not answer direct questions.
I knew you were not going to get a straight answer, and I bet you knew it, also.
It is a form of gnosticism mixed with modernist gibberish. TPS, he is never going to give you a clear answer.
CindieTremaine wrote: “…these people seem fishy to me…”
Is that a broad brush you grabbed for the painting, CindieTremaine?
Good morning Dear Tom A,
The objective reality that none of this is clear to you, at the same time that you deny the same Magisterial teachings mentioned above, and as your denial has been precisely pointed out for you and you remain perfectly blind, itself speaks to the reality that you are the, “gnostic and modernist”, whose ad hominem attack you hurl toward the other. Amen. You advise people in your writing to do that which is in perfect opposition to the Magisterial teaching and you suppose that you are on the path to the Beatific Vision. Poor Tom A. Beg God for His mercy. Save your soul. I pray this admonition helps. In caritas.
I was optimistic for a little while that I might get a straight answer, but now realize this knowledge is not for the common man. I kept asking the same question more and more simply, in case it wasn’t clear.
But now I know. We can’t handle it. It’s only for the inner circle. I get it now. One of the other adherents of this idea also said somewhere here that he knows who the antichrist was, but ordinary people here aren’t ready to hear it. Again, certain knowledge is only for the inner circle, and can’t be made public. Gnosticism.
Mind you, it’s still de fide that everyone adopt this point of view (and that is what it is in reality as it is in reality, just a point of view, period and end) even though most are incapable of understanding it. Sounds like a cult. Expect ten thousand words in reply, and not a straight answer among them. I’m out.
“These people” being referred to won’t give a straight answer to a very, very simple question, even though a dozen barrels of ink has been spilled on their part. Yes, there is something up with that.
So, you’re CindieTremaine?
“These people” refers to IC and his wife, the Simple Beggar.
They seem like charlatans because they claim to have special knowledge that lower life forms cannot handle, which means they do not have to answer simple questions.
TPS, they’re like charlatans.
IC and Simple Beggar-> You two ought to go start your own Blog where you can write forever and not bog down Louie’s combox.
I absolutely refuse to believe that you intelligent people cannot put 2+2 together and have NO idea whatsoever WHO is being referenced, whether you choose to believe it or not. Who are the ones playing games here?
Anyway and aside from that, at times to withhold certain information is actually a charitable action.
You’d better believe it. Now go ahead and name him.
The lowest life form I am, but anyone’s wife I am not lol. Beware of rash judging the intentions of others. God withdraws Grace for that sin.
Name. Please.
Above should say “mind and intentions”.
Can you please just give the name of who the Antichrist was?
The prolixity concerns here (BTW, I hope no one expostualates remonstrances regarding MY polysyllabic phraseology) have evolved into…, well, uncharitableness, if I may say so. (On second thought, they haven’t evolved—they were rancorous from the get go. But I digress.)
If one finds it necessary to write in such a style that they feel is the only way in which to get their point across (I hope I’m not putting words into anyone’s mouth here), then that’s the way it is. If it causes some of those who read that writing to consider jumping from the 40th floor of a high rise, then those folks should consider passing over that which is causing them so much pain. Just sayin’.
Of course you are not anyone’s wife.
You are IC’s wife.
Ain’t never gonna happen, TPS. You know it. We all are on the outside, the dirty un-graced, undeserving of the special knowledge of those in the inner sanctum.
Just the name please. No wonder Louie banned the comments previously.
To whom are you addressing your venom?
Sorry, I’m losing track of the people here. It’s not venom. It’s frustration in getting a simple answer. There are a number of stay at homers who say the antichrist has already been and gone. In Caritas is the principle one. None of them will say who the antichrist was, because its knowledge not everyone can handle. Are you among them? If so, please tell me the name of the antichrist.
“Who are the ones playing games here?” >>> You and your husband, In Caritas, are the ones playing games here.
You claim to know the name of Antichrist, but you do not have the guts to tell it when asked multiple times. It is childish.
“I know something you dont know, and I’m not gonna tell you. Nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,nah”
You did not comprehend: I am not married and you merely assume that I am female. You are rash judging, full of anger, and your attitude and behavior is extremely childish. It seems you appeared out of nowhere and are perhaps the alter-ego of someone else in this comment section. Nevertheless and whoever you are, may you have a pleasant evening.
Louie suspended comments due to increasing and uncontrolled uncharitable behavior by some which he does not have time to “police”. No one is obliged to answer any question posed to them in this little comment section. IC is the one who laid it all out, and he has his good reason for not answering (which I believe I understand and is the complete opposite of what you insinuate) and I am simply respecting that. Furthermore and again, you are much smarter than this, TPS. Although I do understand the frustration, you and “Cindie” are upset simply for not having your own way and will in the matter.
How do you know he has good reason? Perhaps you can tell me.
He tells people that its the end times, that the Antichrist has been and gone, that all sacraments are invalid, that anyone who receives them is an apostate, and that its heresy to not believe what he believes, because his position is de fide.
He says all that and more, but won’t answer a simple question that will prove his case for all to see.
You’ve aligned yourself with this position. Why don’t you tell me? Is it because it’s got a lot of holes in it? That it will make the theory look ridiculous? That you might be shown to be wrong about something?
You and he want people to take up this view, obviously. I’m not doubting you mean well and aren’t malicious. So lay it out for us. I’ll decide if it’s preposterous or not. If its for the good of souls, then why not?
I’m not upset nor angry about anything, and I do not care who you think Antichrist is. Your opinions on that are worthless.
I’m just calling you out on your nonsense and immaturity:
“I know something you dont know, and I’m not going to tell you.”
You and IC are like Brown-headed cowbirds laying your eggs in another’s nest. You should have the decency to start your own blog for your Super-Secret Knowledge Sect rather than waste space here. You have a couple of apostles that would follow. It would be the mannerly thing to do.
TPS>>> Look at what you wrote! It sounds like this guy is the leader of his own made-up religion!
…it’s the end times
…he knows what sacraments are valid and which ones are not
…he knows who is an apostate
…it is heresy to not believe what he believes
…his position is de fide
…he will not answer a simple question because he has deemed you not worthy of it
This IC fellow sounds like a cult leader of his own making, and people like that are dangerous.
Well summarized CindieTremaine! You’re right, it’s a complete waste of time pursuing this any further. When you isolate the points like that, it is a cult. I have thought of IC as a fanatic for some time, but not to this extent. I’ve been wondering how this blog’s comments section suddenly became a hangout for extreme stay at home sedes. They must have brought each other here, because Louie doesn’t police the comm box.
I didn’t think they might be on to something. I did want to press the simple question, because that was their fatal mistake, saying the antichrist had already been and gone. I did hope one would cave in and just tell me who he was. Anyhow, that’s that! Case closed.
The Papal Subject wrote: “The Catholic approach is one of meekness, moderation, careful treading and humility of heart.”
Yes, it is, though I would qualify “moderation.” If we’re talking about eating, drinking, and the multitude of other activities which can lend themselves to excess, then yes. If we’re talking about such things as the truths of the Catholic faith, then NO.
As far as “meekness” goes, one has to be careful—i.e., “tread carefully”—that one’s meekness does not spiral into obsequiousness.
Dear mothermostforgiving,
The question: Does TPS himself bear witness to this proclamation of his which you edify? Just askin’. In caritas.
And thus my “intuition” was correct, TPS. Thank you and may God help us all.
Hello, In caritas,
I’ll let TPS answer for himself, if he will.
Certainly mothermostforgiving,
As in asking the wolf to guard the chicken coop? I’m just sayin’.
None of you will answer the simple question I’ve been pulling teeth over.
Wait. Hahaha!
You two show off your holiness and virtue by picking on and taunting TPS??
Wow. Hahaha!
You are brutal hypocrites, and I find it hilarious
Amen, alleluia, period and end, right All-Wise Leader?!?
You are a joke and so is your cult.
Because they cannot.
A cult leader has to have an air of mystery around himself…like a guru.
He has to give the impression of an all-wise being with special grace and knowledge that the average person is incapable of possessing.
He has to use a truck-load of words to say nothing while fooling people into thinking he has said profoundly holy things.
That’s how they maintain their disciple worshippers.
Who would “You two” be, dear?
Dear mothermostforgiving,
It is interesting to bear witness to the, “love”, that flows from the lips, by virtue of the words, of “Cindie” T, is it not? No caritas to be found there, certainly not a Catholic thus, as Jesus the Christ commanded: “You will know them by their fruits.” That to be understood in the command: An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, just as a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. “You will know them by their fruits.” The vitriolic ad hominem of a spoiled child but utterly angry, unlike the child. This anger only evidences the fear this non-Catholic person holds, as he knows deep from his interiority, that he is, extra ecclesium nulla salus and on his way to perdition thus, as he objectively evidences a particular apostasy. He hates The Christ for that, not you nor I, as we hold no power over him. One who holds the divine and Catholic Faith cannot evidence the evil tree as this one does, as that would deny the command of Jesus the Christ. Amen. As it relates to her (actually his, and he should be referred to as, “J. Peters”, not “Cindie Tremaine”, as he hides this time behind a woman’s name, as I digress), ad hominem and the specific as maligned attack, we’ll exam the following two aspects of his statement, as written by, “Cindie Tremaine”, above:
” …he knows what sacraments are valid and which ones are not
…he knows who is an apostate”
Writing in reference to this one as the spoiled child, while riddled with self destructive as vitriolic anger, he now objectively bears witness to the reality once and again, that he cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as he actually as literally accuses a Catholic of knowing, yes knowing, “…what sacraments are valid and which ones are not”. Can you imagine the popish audacity of a properly catechized as true 12 year old Catholic, who must know, “which Sacraments are valid and those which are not.” That would be definitive as Authoritative Catholic teaching which that 12 year old must know to save his soul from the mortal sin of committing sacrilege. You see mmf, why this one cannot hold the Catholic Faith. Or perhaps I’m wrong in my estimate of his age, this “Cindie”, maybe he’s only 7 and hasn’t quite reached the age of reason?
In the next statement of his, “he knows who is an apostate”, “Cindie” (J. Peters, et al), he literally as is pristinely evident, places a very contradiction into the meaning of the word, “apostate”. Posing this as a question then: isn’t it part and parcel with actually being a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, that you would know precisely and with certitude, when someone is an apostate, as in they are not truly a member of the Catholic Church, although they may claim membership, and you would know this based upon the command that our Blessed Dominus Deus gave us, such that we could know objectively whether someone was a liar or a wolf? Jesus the Christ: “You will know them by their fruits.” So, as the ad hominem always comes back to cut the one who hurls the knife at the other: who is the, “cult leader”, of a false religion in truth? God bless you mothermostforgiving. In caritas.
Haha!
The guru is aroused and he speaks.
Listen to his hypocrisy, his ad hominem attacks, the very things he despises he also does.
Hahahaha!
Look at the all-wise, In Caritas lacking caritas…the very term he uses to names himself with he also does not possess.
I did a word count on IC’s posts in this one article alone. 9155 words. Like JPII’s professor said, “writes much, says little.”
The Papal Subject & CindieTremaine:
If In Caritas is “uncharitable”, why do you mock and show him no charity? If he is “in error”, why do you you not show him where he is wrong and correct him? If he has “started his own sect” why do you not try to convert him?
If he is what you claim he is, because of your higher intellect, why do you persecute the lesser?
If he’s hellbound, then why do you laugh at him? Have you no mercy? Why would you laugh at hellbound people?
And you two want to know the identity of the Antichrist? Why?
Good Thursday evening again, Dear james__o,
The joy that is witnessed in the truth of your words, james__o, is that of the Unity of Faith, as infallibly taught by the holy Pope Leo XIII, in, “Satis Cognitum”. Amen. The Church indeed remains visible in this time in the Unity of Faith, those few souls remaining on earth who indeed hold the divine and Catholic Faith. Amen. Alleluia.
What is clearly evidenced in this time, is the vitriolic malignity that poses as “Catholic”. You can rest assured that the one who calls himself (masculine, 3rd person pronoun intended), “Cindie Tremaine”, is of the so called, “R&R” cadre of jackals, founded by their apostate in chief, the one who objectively died outside the Catholic Church, having given his assent to the church of Antichrist, one now infamous as Marcel Lefebvre. Amen. As our Blessed Christ Jesus commanded: “You will know them by their fruits.”, and further an evil tree cannot bear good fruit. The tree of the so called, “SSPX”, is sulfur at its root, evidenced in the sulfur which flows from their hands on the computer keys. Amen. Lefebvre is the root of that evil tree. Amen. Their intellects are so darkened that they simply reject the meaning of words, as ad hominem, for instance. This one that calls himself, “Cindie”, implies that when the argument is done and the truth is revealed and the result of the truth causes the one who not only lost the argument but then hurls the ad hominem assault, to feel shame, if that is even possible for this one called, “Cindie”, then somehow because they feel the pain of their evil, it must have been ad hominem, as directed at their person. You simply cannot make this stuff up, james__o, it must be witnessed in truth.
“Cindie Tremaine” (aka. J. Peters, et. al.) is on his way to eternal perdition and he knows it, thus the rancorous as contemptuous attack of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in truth he hates Christ, as this thing itself speaks. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ commanded that, they will hate you for the name which you chose to bear. You are witnessing that flavor of implacable hatred here james__o. Let them bring it, as it only causes their wounds to deepen and when this short sojourn, this side the veil has ended for them, and they then face the Infinite Judge in all His Majestic brilliance, they will walk away. Forever and ever and ever from His face as they hate Him, as they deny His true Vicars, simply because they are now gone. That denial is both schism and heresy but much more in this time, as Great Apostasy. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you and yours’ james__o. In caritas.
He says the Antichrist has been and gone and it is the end times. Anyone who disagrees with him is an apostate. If he wants to help people he should tell them who the Antichrist was. Are you not at all curious? Or are you defending your leader from those who ask him hard questions, in case he’s shown up? This is all very bizarre.
You are getting weirder by the hour. I bet Louie is going to shut the comments back down before too long. You have nothing but polysyllabic ad hominems and accuse everyone who asks simple questions which you refuse to answer of that very thing. You lavish lovely words of ego boosting praise on your disciples, that is, those who side with you, and they lap it up. Again, this is getting very weird.
IC squats in Louie’s combox and uses it as his own platform to bloviate like a guru. Rather than saturate it with his truckloads of words, it is time he opens up his own blog where he can ramble, preach, teach, and bless his student disciples.
Nobody said he is hellbound. Those judgements are his specialty.
I have no interest in who he thinks is the Antichrist. I am calling out
1. the pompous “I-know-something-you-don’t-know-and-I’m-not-going-to-tell-you” act and
2. the grandiose guru/cult leader act.
TPS, that is a crazy amount of words.
Wow!
Truth brings joy to the soul. No one here is following any “guru”. As for me, I am a truth seeker and follow Jesus Christ and his true Church and Vicars. The opinions of others mean nothing to me, nevermind my own. To say that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost cannot possibly lead us to the Truth of these matters is a lie and a blasphemy. Our Lord even admonished us that we should be able to read “the signs of the times”.
In this age of an almost absolute lack of refinement and decorum (demonstrated even by the one most call Pope of the Catholic Church), the writing style which IC utilizes in speaking of Divine subjects seems foreign and makes some uncomfortable. In reality, however, God deserves nothing less.
“I bet Louie is going to shut the comments back down before too long. ”
If he does, I wouldn’t blame him. However, I don’t know if he is even paying attention to the combox lately. These posters are not only disagreeing with him, the owner of this blog, but is also judging *him* outside of the Catholic Church (objectively, of course).
Good Friday morning ASB,
The power that these men suggest that I possess, as a perfectly miserable creature, at once deserving of Hell, yet saved by the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who Himself commands each to our own submission unto His holy Magisterium, is absurd. Using the vernacular of the one who calls himself, TPS, who at first I thought had genuine interest in his salvation, “it’s weird”. I have no power over them and yet they behave as though I do. While at once simply edifying the teaching of the true Vicars of Christ and the holy Magisterium, which they themselves, along with the true Bishops in union with them, protected from error, unto the death of the Angelic Pastor, Pope Pius XII. Amen. As Pope Leo XIII proclaimed with his full Apostolic Authority in, “Satis Cognitum”, the Magisterium is divinely protected and with us unto the Last Day. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
Good Friday morning TPS,
Just for your edification, find now copied and pasted the, “weirdness”, as you opine of my writing:
In caritas
October 17, 2019
Thanks and praise be to God, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in His perfect as infinite Majesty. The First Cause uncaused, the Primemover, unmoved, the uncreated Creator of all else to which He alone has given being, and as thus the Reason, the Logos for it all. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Beg God for His mercy and forgiveness TPS. Save your soul. In caritas.
2Vermont
Correct. Louie’s combox has become IC’s personal platform to bloviate his brains out…not cool…while disagreeing with Louie…not cool.
I hope Louie shuts it down so this guy and his wife will return to their sweat lodge.
If you disagree with IC, they’ll accuse you of sin, apostasy, heresy, damnation, and/or ineligible to receive God’s grace…that is cultish mind/behavior control.
Wow!
You are so full of yourself!
Other than you, nobody here thinks you have any power over anyone.
Very weird and very bizarre, indeed!
Good Friday morning “Cindie” (aka. J.Peters, et al),
Your distorted perception of reality as it is, always precedes you. You objectively demonstrate vitriolic anger. Anger is a manifestation of fear. Sorry, “Cindie”, you nor any other miserable human creature, in truth, gets to redefine the authentic meaning of words. Fear begets anger, period and end. You evidence utter anger, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur, to your underlying fear. Fear of what? Your damnation. The authentic Magisterium of the Church is presented to you. You reject it, while you suggest that this is my cultish teaching. Your conflation of realities cannot change what those realities are. You manifest malevolent anger because the authentic as Authoritative teaching of the Magisterium judges you, as it does us all. That is God’s Providence. You reject the judgment as it is repugnant to your flesh. You then assail me, as though I am the judge, while at once you now posit the claim that you do not believe that I have any power. While the truth is that I don’t, you attack me as though I do. The contradictions you hold within your intellect and will should cause you great cognitive dissonance but you are so far from Truth, that your darkened intellect is not humanly touchable.
So in closing now “Cindie” (aka J. Peters and the R&R non-Catholic sect cult members). Ignore me. Simply pretend that I’m not here. You have no obligation to read what I write, so why do you, as it provokes such fear in you, as manifested by your anger. Spend your energy begging Almighty God for His forgiveness and mercy. Don’t waste your time reading what I write, rather spend it in the now abysmal attempt to save your eternal soul. Amen. I pray this ordered admonition does help you. In caritas.
Finally something we can all agree on, “Don’t waste time reading what IC writes.”
1. Go to work. Go find a job. Find two jobs. Keep a busy, productive schedule so that you do not have time to sit inside your head.
If you have excuses to justify your unemployment or underemployment then,
2. Stop using Louie’s combox as your own platform, and open up your very own blog. You can do all the preaching, teaching, admonishing, counseling, guiding, influencing, and blessing that you desire without overrunning this combox. You can attach a “Donate” button for your followers to give you money. You can be in charge and in control of your own pulpit.
“Cindie” (aka J. Peters & R&R non-Catholic sect, “elite”, as pseudo-intellectuals),
Are you Louie’s surrogate, his mouthpiece? I’m just askin’. If not, simply shut your mouth, as you have no special, “voice”, here. I’m just suggestin’. If so, as if you are his surrogate, stop hiding in the shadows, as now under a woman’s name, no less. You really cannot make this stuff up. I’m just sayin’. Amen. God help you and your godless cadre of jackals. In caritas.
Hilarious…the man who cannot control his word-spewage tells another to shut up. Hahaha!
You need to go to work.
Today.
Get up, shower, shave that scraggly face, put on some clean clothes and go pound the pavement. C’mon, Big Guy, you can do it!
Or
Go open up your own blog.
Dear Cinderella,
Just ignore me girly-man. God have mercy on your soul. In caritas
Awww, don’t call yourself a girly-man like that. Everything will work out for you.
Just go get a job or start your own blog, and you’ll see it’s all gonna be OK.
It’s been roughly 24 hrs since you gave the haters a chance to show that they’re Catholics (after all). I wanted to wait until now to say anything, hoping that they would show some charity toward IC and, by association (I presume) the rest of us who do not rail at him. Of course, there’s still time for them to take advantage a wonderful opportunity to show that charity—always time, until it runs out, that is…
May Almighty God guide, bless and keep you always, Mothermostforgiving.
It is very generous of Louie to allow commentators on his blog. In return, he only asks three things: 1. Stay on top 2. Be Brief 3. Be charitable. I don’t think that is asking too much. Is it?
May the good Lord bless and keep you, In caritas, and grant you peace.