POLL: The shameful legacy of John Paul II
POLL: The shameful legacy of John Paul II
Difficult though it was to narrow the list of offenses leveled against Christ, His Holy Catholic Church and Our Blessed Lady by John Paul II, choose one of those listed in the poll below. Feel free to nominate others in the comment section below.
You might add the impertinence of “improving” the Rosary.
JP2 lost his Catholic Faith at Assisi in 1986.
Ratzinger lost his Faith too as well as anyone connected with it. Apostolic succession doesn’t last very long under such circumstances.
The SSPX is the only Latin Rite Order with apostolic succession!
You can add Alteration of Lateran Treaty as well as free usage of hundreds non-Catholic Bible (Vulgate) translations in all languages.
I would like to see a minute by minute tally if possible without voting twice. Kinda like Father Zuhlsdorf has when he is taking a poll.
Yes, that would be good. I wonder if it’s a problem with wordpress though; if so, Louie may not be able to change it.
Did they lost it…..or did they ever have it to begin with?
“Louie is a whackjob” should also be an option
No, clearly it resides with Pope Michael!
Gee Vermeullarmine, if you feel that way, why must you visit the blog?
I find it quite interesting that Sedevacantists are so eager to vote here :-P.
For me personally, the biggest damage is that false pretense of defeating Communism by JP2, a smart lie peddled by his followers to the death. Also, JP2 cult, especially in Poland is hard to watch too, which is very related.
Also changes in the law regarding fast tracked process of beatification and canonization, specifically applied to a case of Josemaría Escrivá. What a pitty.
Correct Andy !
Lech Walesa was stricken from the “Book of Remembrances” because he was a Communist informant. JP2 was groomed by Opus Dei to become Pope making one of his first acts as Pope, to kiss Escriva’s grave.
That generation of priests and bishops took the oath against modernism which means they swore to God to uphold the precepts of Pacendi and if they fail in their oath they ask God to curse themselves, that is what an oath is. Vatican II was the failure to uphold the precepts of Pacendi!
The 1983 code of canon law amounted to a committee changing Church law and the legislator signing off on the change. The legislator or the pope should have discerned the pros and cons of changing any and all laws, and each of the laws of the Church with prayer and penance and begging the Holy Ghost for the will of God if any change at all should be made.
“I find it quite interesting that Sedevacantists are so eager to vote here :-P.”
And why is that, Andy?
The 1983 Code of Canon Law is a better choice than the others because it codified Vatican II. It made it manifest that JPII professed and taught its religion (not the Catholic religion) to the Universal Church.
Because it provides Vermy with a place to pound his chest.
Why? It forces them to use JP2 name.
If you want to know how a Communist regime treats a true Catholic prelate, look to Cdl Mindszenty’s ordeal. Compare that to the velvet glove treatment that Wojtyla received from his communist masters and its clear that Wojtyla was no threat to the communists. He wasn’t a threat because he did not profess the Catholic Faith.
It is baffling why the SSPX would ruin the reputation (and mission) of it organization and put into question the holiness of its priests just to protect a supposed handful of priests and associates. If the leadership can’t be trusted, how is it possible to trust anyone or anything associated with the SSPX? Are they using the TLM as its shield? I hope not.
It’s as simple as adding “antipope” as a prefix, just as was the case for other false claimants in the past.
Antipope John Paul II.
There, simple as that. 🙂
Meh. Sedevacantists often use “papal” names and given names interchangeably. Besides, Woytola is tough to spell, so I think I always use “JPII”.
Tom A–I have often wondered why Wojtyla enjoyed total freedom to come and go as he pleased, while Cdl. Mindszenty was persecuted for many years and then held as a prisoner in the embassy. What did Mindszenty know that made him an enemy of the communists? Who did the future pope know that made him the golden boy of Poland?
I’m rather shocked the Fatima scandal is only at 13.5% of the vote here, 3rd place.
That is THE blunder that launched us into the the madness that is the conciliar church, having started with “john23” and the charade continued with jp2. He had the power to right the wrong, yet he kept wronging the wrong. Hell, he dug in deep and consecrated “the world”!
Russia has indeed spread her errors. Communism has dealt a blow to the world this year, has it not?
“For me personally, the biggest damage is that false pretense of defeating Communism by JP2”
Out of all the things Louie mentioned, and the many that didn’t make the list, this is the one that rankles me the most and gets my vote: refusal to consecrate Russia. He had the solitary means, promised by the Blessed Mother herself, to defeat this global scourge, convert an entire nation, and usher in mass devotion to Our Lady’s immaculate heart, as well as an era of peace guaranteed by none other than the Queen of Heaven, and thereby her Son. He refused.
Why? More concerned about temporal global politics? Didn’t quite think the consecration would work as promised?
How could you believe in the message (and thereby the instruction) of Fatima, and then refuse to comply? You can’t. He didn’t.
Totus tuus my eye.
After reading your post and being undecided before, I put my vote on the “The Third Secret of Fatima coverup” today as it indeed directly correlated with Communism disaster (vide my post above) and V2 scandal. So it moved a needle a tiny bit.
From my brief research (I came across the topic Hungarian Catholic Church after 1945 recently too), cdl Mindszenty’s and in fact entire church in Hungary was heavily persecuted, harassed and haunted from the day one. The result was a total devastation and many who survived already collaborated with Moscow. That was a different era than Karol Wojtyla though who emerged way later in the history.
Church in Poland was also persecuted and there are many heros as well as martyrs. However, polish people got something the blood to make them immediately go underground and conspire when oppression starts, especially after being wiped out from the maps for over a century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1795–1918) . It is hard to erase it from the memory. This is probably why Catholic church in Poland, while suffering a lot, was harder to root out.
Finally V2 got its toll there too, however until today, there are many who deep in their soul are very Trad in spite of forced NO on them.
Indeed. Catholics were drunk with all V2 poison in 70s and 80s at the eve of a “charismatic” “renewal” and other revelations. at that time. Who would even think and read about three shepherd children. And then modern Medjugorje hijacked what Our Lady was trying to tell us.
It’s amazing what $250 million can do !!!!
They had probably been infiltrated long ago and it’s just now coming to the surface. The leadership is the problem, clearly. I’m having difficulty trusting anything they say at this point.
Boy, you can butcher a relatively simple Polish name. W-o-j-t-y-l-a
There is no Fatima coverup! La Salette told us about the clergy sex scandal and Rome becoming anti-Christ HQ. Fatima told us the Novus Ordo was the anti-Curch.
We’ve lived through it all. It’s time for action! Stop looking for reasons not to join the SSPX.
Apparently not so “easy peasy” for me Akita. Therefore, I’ll just use JPII. Is that okay with you?
As we know, they never had it in the first place. If they had, Assisi could never have happened in the first place and Ratzinger would not have been involved in formulating V2.
Wojtyla wasn’t a real pope, so he coudn’t consecrate Russia.
The SSPX recognises “the anti-Church” as the real Church. In your own post you provided the best reason for not joining the SSPX.
2Vt, try using “the Polish Apostate.” That should adequately identify who you are talking about.
Exactly! How do you trash, diminish, and/or disrespect the Mother of God and her direct messages/warnings? Then have the hubris to peddle nonsense i/n/o being a Faithful Catholic Prelate while actually being a Modernist Freemason. Msgr Luigi Villa has the best information on John 23, Paul6, JP2, B16
You must be careful about providing clearly reasoned answers to illogical questions. No one wants to address the fact that
Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained both priest and bishop by Cdl Lienart….reported and admitted Freemason. Would that not invalidate the ordinations etc performed by Lienart who would have been ipso facto excommunicated?
For answers to that question (and more), you might want to reference this article:
It always amazes me how little so many “trads” know about the Faith. Sacramental Theology is not that difficult to understand or grasp. It simply takes a little bit of effort and one can educate themselves on the basics of matter, form, and intent. Cdl Lienart could be a total apostate, but if he used the proper form, matter, and intent, he could validly ordain thousands and of ordinands.
“It always amazes me how little so many “trads” know about the Faith”
How can either a Freemason or a pervert have the Proper Intention to do what the Church does?
Please Tom, tell us how an excommunicated Rosecrucian like Lienart Ordain priests?
Hiding and employing Perverts for one Rushey.
Sacramental Theology 101. You obviously don’t understand this subject. There are plenty of Eastern Schismatics who are no longer in the Catholic Church, yet they continue to validly and illicitly ordain bishops, priests, and deacons.
A link was provided above by A Simple Man. Those who wish to learn will take a gander.
“No longer in the Catholic Church” ?
The opposite ca be said about the Western Church after they began to change Doctrine and Dogma without the input of the entire Church as was previously done. Go back historically !
The joke is that sedes and V2 opposition do not realize this all happened before which is why the Eastern Church took a stand BUT they did not excommunicate the West first .No it was the prideful hothead Humbert the Legate and Cardinal from the Vatican court whom St Peter Damian referred to as “a dangerous man”.
More recently both sides lifted the mutual excommunications that resulted. A Catholic who cannot find a Church may fulfill their obligation in an Orthodox Liturgy as their priests are both licit and valid with Apostolic Succession. Licit only means ‘legal” and nobody here seems to recognize the Novus Ordo and or the current Pope.
But for many of you , the den of nazi pervs in the SSPX is just great……….
Our Tradition and Liturgy just goes back a tad farther….like to the Apostolic times…..hint….no one was saying the Latin Mass in the Early Church…………..
So basically it is MAGIC right 2V?
An EXCOMMUNICATED Freemason cardinal can still Ordain a man into the priesthood……BUT an excommunicated Cardinal or Bishop cannot consecrate another priest a bishop and to safe guard against this problem the RC Church has 2 consecrate priests as Bishops.
Explain the magic works ,Tom and 2V…………
One thing we were looking for of utmost import was to attend a church with true Apostolic Succession having a policy of no sodomites at the altar.
Decades and decades of experience proved true.
#1 Sodomites at the altar distorted the Word of God
#2 Sodomites at the altar were dangerous for children and the faith of the pew sitters.
The Orthodox policy clearly states. “No homosexuals may serve at the altar.”
Where is that clearly stated in the RC Church?
One of our dear friends is employed by the Orthodox Church and he assures us the policy in our Diocese is to quickly remove any priest who shows any inclination to the latter.
Another point I wonder about.
Do RC seminarians sign a document stating they never was or will be a Freemason?
The Orthodox cannot be Ordained if they do not testify to this fact.
All churches need priests but why is it the RC Church takes anyone?
Answer……….Money. Their God is and has been MONEY
Tom, I think it’s high time to ignore the schismatics in this combox. Clearly they are not looking to learn about the Catholic Faith, but to scoff at it.
Yes 2 Verm,
You sedes and fake Modern Trads always rely on “let’s ignore” when you have no really educated answer.
Your Apostolic? Then why don’t you ever hear about the Didachi in the Catholic ( Universal ) parishes? Why is it that the Fasts and prayers discovered in multiple copies of the Didachi in Early Christian settlements that are being unearthed, correspond to what is still being taught in the Eastern Church?
“Most traditional Roman Catholics point to the Second Vatican Council as the source of the apostasy that has taken over the Roman Catholic Church, with many going so far as to describe Vatican II as “the French Revolution in the Church.” But objective students of Church history know that the seeds of catastrophe that germinated at Vatican II and produced such bitter fruit were sown much earlier. ”
i laugh when I see a “Traditional” minded Catholic using St Athanasius as their hero against more recent heresies by RC Churchmen.He was an Eastern (Orthodox) Bishop.
Nope..just trying to sweepoutthefilth.
2 Verm, neither you or your sede wannabe fake trad Crusader friends have either the guts or brains to get rid of the child and seminary abusers in your own professed church ( whatever that may be) .
You just bluster with your keyboard on blogs. Have you ever come up against any of them personally? Well I have , several times and after thirty years out of the church one cross dressing boy loving cleric is now a Bishop’s secretary but he makes real sure his face isn’t in any pictures on the Internet because he knows he’ll be outed again.
Not only are you ignorant of the real history of Christ’s church on earth , you are a bunch of cowards missing both brains and brawn.
A bunch of religious frauds and all you do is call names.
What’s really weird is that it takes a “reformed” homosexual like Voris to call out the Nazi perverts hiding in the SSPX.
I don’t know why you keep bringing up the SSPX when you’re criticizing Tom A and 2Vermont.
The SSPX is not a sedevacantist apostolate, since they profess that Francis is Pope (even while constantly refusing obedience).
2Vermont and Tom A are sedevacantists.
To accuse them of excusing the SSPX’s failings is simply false.
The problems in the SSPX go much deeper than a few pervert clergy. Ever since Abp Lefebrve sought official recognition from JP2, he set the SSPX on a course toward corruption. It is the soft line approach towards Rome and the pursuit of accommodation with the modernists that produced the same soft approach with deviant priests. Mr Voris has not proved that the SSPX is a haven of sodomites and other deviants (such as the Novus Ordo sect is) but he has shown the incompetency of the leadership of Bp Fellay and Fr Wegner. Lets hope the new leadership learns this painful lesson from the mistakes of the soft-liners and adopts tough uncompromising measures to deal with predators and more importantly with the modernists. Have nothing to do with either. A Simple Man is correct, I’m a sede. I have nothing to do with the SSPX nor modernist Rome. Also, I agree with 2VT, any further serious discussion with Sweepintheschism is pointless. Her whole argument is one big anecdotal recollection of her encounters with perverts. From these encounters she draws whatever conclusion she wishes to advance. I have never in my life known anyone who has had so much contact with deviants as Sweep (except perhaps Mr. Voris.)
On major problem withy Trads is that they approved of the Lefebvre schism even though Saint Augustine said there is never a defensible reason for a schism.
As for the sedes and their laughable ideology, they are fearful folks who fled the Church during a time of trail and what happens to those who deny the faith they were brought up in
2 John 9
Let’s actually read what 2 John 9 says: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.”
In what sense is sedevacantism a revolt that does not continue in the doctrine of Christ?
A better question is. what about the post-Conciliar church *has* continued in the doctrine of Christ? As an organization, it has universally promulgated Protestantized rites; its leadership makes excuses and accommodates for sexual immorality; it teaches that non-Catholic religions are used by the Holy Spirot as means of salvation, which has logically led to a spirit of religious indifferentism; its putative heads since John XXIII have compromised more and more with the world at the expense of Catholic doctrine and dogma.
In the face of all that, how is refusing to accept such things as coming from the spotless Bride of Christ the actions of “fearful folk”? How is concluding that such a religion is objectively non-Catholic “fleeing the Church”?
I leave you with the words of St. Paul: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” [2 Corinthians 6:15]
Seems to me its the modern new church that lost the faith. What is laughable is to claim to hold the Catholic Faith and then claim that you are in union with a heretic. If you can get that square peg into the round hole and have no problem living in cognitive dissonance, then good for you. So ABS, you have a decision, you can either be in union with a heretic like Bergoglio and Ratzinger inside what you think is the Church or you can be in union with Catholics who are not in union with heretics like Bergoglio or Ratzinger.
Sedevacantists are not part of a visible church because a visible church includes a Pope.
Sedes subscribe to the idea of an invisible church, just like the protestants
Y’all could google False Principles of Sedevacantism and that two part series explains why sedevacantism is such a joke, but y’all won’t because Novus Ordo Watch is your authority.
As Trump likes to tweet, Sad
I’m okay when Novus Ordites laugh at me.
Believe it or not, some sedevacantists don’t mind being told to look up arguments against their position, because it’s about the pursuit of truth. (This goes besides the point that what you reference is a repost on Unam Sanctam Catholicam’s blog of two 2009 writings from Ryan Grant, and practically everything mentioned – degrees of papal magisterium, Vatican I, perpetual successors, etcetera – have been refuted many times elsewhere.)
First, your argument that sedevacantists (likewise sedeprivationists) deny a visible Church is false, because otherwise, every time a Pope dies, the Church somehow becomes invisible (by your own logic). The Church did not cease to become visible in the past whenever the chair of Peter was vacant, even for an extended period.
Second, you juxtapose the visible Church with the invisible Church as though we must choose one or the other. On the contrary, as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church has an invisible, spiritual sense; however, it is also a visible, material institution. Both are essential to the nature of the Church, and visibility is not necessarily lost during an extended interregnum. Moreover, a visible Church necessarily requires that it can be objectively discriminated among other religions as distinctively Catholic.
Now, the post-V2 church has provided objective signs that it no longer professes the traditional Faith. So in what sense does it being visible help you, if it no longer professes the Catholic religion?
You assert that sedevacantism is a joke; I respond that your contrary belief that the Church of Christ can universally promote and promulgate un-Catholic doctrine (as has happened since Vatican 2), and that the Vicar of Christ can be a public heretic (as has been demonstrated repeatedly since Vatican 2, through various encyclicals, allocutions, and catechisms), to be **blasphemous**.
Dear ASM. Th eponyms made by Mr. Grant have not been refuted, only denied.
That aside, where is the Church?
Dear ASM. You have no authority to make these judgments anymore than any run-of-the-mill protestant has the authority to do the same.
You don’t understand that Jesus blessed His Church with authority and did not vest it in either the NOW sect or you.
To be sure, you and vermont 2 and others submit to the fake authority of the NOW Sect but you can not point to any church teaching or ecumenical council conceding that any man or sect has authority to judge the church.
Sedes are protestants in an invisible church.
Saint Robert Bellarmine defined the Church as The assembly of men united in the profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on, earth, the Roman Pontiff
That definition excludes the sedevacantists, who generally claim there has been no Pope since 1958, but that won’t deter you and vermont2 and the rest of those who succor the NOW (Novus Ordo Watch) Sect – all of their bizarre claims and lies are constantly refuted at the True or False Pope Blog but y’all are true believers, that can certainly be conceded 🙂
First: using Saint Bellarmine’s own definition, you exclude the Vatican 2 sect as well, for they do not profess the same Christian faith as was professed pre-Vatican 2.
Second: If the Vicar of Christ is dead, and a legitimate successor has not yet been elected, do you mean to imply that the Church instantly ceases to exist until a new Vicar is elected? Because I think St. Bellarmine would consider such a conclusion absurd, and rightfully so; likewise, sedevacantists would love to be in communion with the Pope, but the men who keep claiming to be such have been manifest heretics by virtue of their public acts, and so they cannot be the Pope. It is out of love and devotion to the Papacy that such public heretics are rejected.
Third: your canard regarding the lack of authority to make judgments is a straw man. See here for a refutation: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/theology-by-dummies.html
Fourth: Do you mean to imply that a layman should be unable to objectively recognize whether someone is a heretic, schismatic, or an apostate through duly-informed reason? Because if so, you implicitly condemn those who rejected Arius because of his heretical doctrines on Christ, even before his local council of bishops condemned his opinions. Were they wrong to do so? Were they Protestants in so doing before a definitive judgment had been handed down?
Fifth: It’s interesting that you reference “True or False Pope”, because the whole motive for Siscoe and Salza appears to be “sedevacantists should recognize Francis as the Pope, even though we reserve for ourselves the right to criticize and disobey him whenever **we** think he’s out of step with Tradition.” In what sense is such an attitude remotely Catholic?
ABS, I would gladly stop being a sedevacantist if you or anyone else could show me the One Catholic Holy and Apostolic Church. Show me a visible indefectible church that professes the Catholic Faith without the errors or corruptions of Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo. Show me a Pope to be in union with that professes the Catholic Faith. When you can point to that church, I would get on my hands and knees to thank you. But please stop blaspheming Our Lord by telling us that the heretics in Rome and the local chancelleries are the Church founded by Christ.
SSPX in totally infiltrated with Nazi thought, perverted liars and priests whose education is extremely scant and slanted.
I know because I witnessed this first hand , having been invited to teach at one of their girl’s camps.
I found the discussions pathetically shocking while dining with priests and staff.
The SSPX seems to be the last stop on the train for Catholics who have actually discovered the sodomite clerics in the Novus Ordo and the Eastern Catholic Rites. Their numbers are legion. I read Fr Z’s blog and know first hand the priest’s he calls “friends” because they seem Traditional . They are active sodomites. I know the frustrated laity who work in their rectories or I know them personally. Maybe Z doesn’t since he seems to focus more on fine dining at times.
i know who ABS is and where he lives and how he sides wit the Hispanics and his Bishop who wanted to rid the Diocese of a good Irish priest because he convinced a perverted admitted sodomite priest to turn himself in to the Sheriff’s Dept.
I cannot stomach fake traditionalists and Catholics who tolerate or make excuses for perverts simply because they want the return of the Latin Mass nor can I tolerate people who quote encyclicals to prove their point while encyclicals themselves have clashed far to often from Pope to Pope throughout the ages.
How is it Catholics quarrel as to whether one can be both Catholic and a Freemason? Ambiguity between Papacies seems to be the name of the game and it dates far back beyond the V2 upheaval.
……….to quote other posters on other “Catholic blogs”.
“If you shout during sermon, ushers take you out. If you criticize them too openly outside the mass, they label you and eventually kick you out of parish. If you write them, they never get back to you – I did it several times, and nothing. Then you have pope himself saying that he is not afraid of ‘schism’, meaning probably that he would like questioning Catholics rather leave than stir trouble. So what is next step – get more people to do it, but everybody is so complacent these days!”
Then WHY would anyone with children think they can pass on the Faith in a church like this?
“I understand why people love traditional Catholicism, but for the life of me I just can’t wrap my head around anyone protecting child abuse, especially sexual child abuse. I understand why people leave the church. I really do. We look like a bunch of freaky pervert Scientologist. We’re not, but this stuff can’t be tolerated in the least, by anyone. It turns my stomach whereto see where this world is headed. I have a kid and I can hardly trust anyone because the stats have me so freaked out and still having to find a way to trust some people and remain balanced at the same time. God have mercy!! truer words never spoken”
I see the Orthodox as being way more catholic than any church and I am not alone since another poster on a blog mentions how shocked he was to find other SSPXers in the Orthodox besides his family. Someone on this blog mentioned Eastern Catholics who think like myself. Well having been an eastern Catholic for decades I can attest to the fact they still resent the political force their parents were under to convert to Catholicism as Uniates in the old country.
Or would you remain Catholic if you saw “Catholic” Nazis slaughtering the Orthodox , Jews and Gypsies in your homeland? It did happen in Serbia and other European countries.
Obviously both Tom and 2V are very confused because they cannot take part in any discussion without resorting to calling names SKIZZZMATIK and HERETIK. i.e. with NQP
Tom, V2 and yourself could not breach his intellectual thought.
Tom , There was no one with the title Pope in the Early Church in about the first six centuries. St Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and then later the Bishop of Rome and called “The First Among Many” or the “First Among Equals”……..Tensions arose when instead of making decisions on Doctrine and Dogma which included representatives from both the East and West, politics and greed entered in and decisions became one sided with inequity between the Latin speaking West and the Greek speaking East.
Jesus , suffering on His Cross , prayed to the Father that we should remain One……until a prideful evil and very “dangerous” fellow named Humbert , rashly slapped excommunication papers on the altar of Our Lady’s Basilica in Constantinople without the courtesy of dialogue. Despite four attempts to unify by both Popes and patriarchs, the laity in the East could not forget the theft and murders of the Fourth Crusade launched by greedy Venetian aristocracy. Both the Holy Shroud and countless relics were stolen and those trafficking and dealing in them were excommunicated by the following Pope. Then the next Pope lifted the excommunications and the relics remained the stolen property of the Western Church……..Was Pope JP2 wrong to try to return a pitiful few?
Did he do it because O Lof F asked for the split to be healed and to co consecrate Russia? I wonder having been a part of a Church that operates on Mammon first.
Tom ,I was a daily Communicant. formed the firs Catholic home school support group in my state. Was invited to represent the same at a home school Leadership Roundtable in VA and met and dined with Catholic Prelates , Speakers and even privately dined with Prince Sixtus de Bourbon Parma of France, a Lefebverist supporter.
Yes I met many clerical deviants and politicians embedded within the Church. I also knew about Maciel long before it was made public having a close friend whose family members are /were Legion priests. I was asked by several clerics and friends to meet and render an opinion on certain visionaries, to speak at a conference hosted by a homosexual bishop and to speak at a genuine parent’s rights conference hosted by a Catholic politician.Oh yes Tom I met quite a few !
I forgot to mention I also met Robert Hickson, Maike Hickson’s now husband , who was seated next to me at a private dinner given in my honor by an Archamandrite priest friend.
We had quite an argument. He ,praising Bishop Williamson and myself giving quite an opposite opinion based on the fact that I knew said Bishop had spent the weekend at the apartment of a open homosexual ( he told me so on a Pilgrimage bus ride) who is now the pastor of an FSSP parish.
So am I surprised Voris has an article about Williamson hiding and covering up for sodomite child molesting clerics? NOPE !
How about Angles in his lavish Rome digs?
Am I surprised Voris has an article about him?
Nope, my friend heard his pro Nazi homilies as did I Fr Hewko’s . When the “Angelus” listed his personal relic collection he left to St Mary’s college i laughed hard reading the list. The LIAR extraordinaire included such things as the Head of St Thomas More. A priest Historian asked me to contact the Saint’s family in the UK and gave me their address. They thanked me for the info and the “Angelus” quickly removed the phony relic list of the Nazi priest.
Do I believe the Voris produced story on Angles?
If you want to learn the politics behind the SSPX and it’s Founder , look no farther than ties to the Nazi Vichey Regime , Rosecrucian Propaganda Due Freemason Cardinal Lienart and the Masonic Knights de Notre Dame de Chevalier who supported Nazi Touvier for 40 years with a stipend while in hiding.
Dear Tom A Vatican ! infallibly taught the Church is indefectible but we knew that prior to then because Jesus established His Church and promised the gates of hell would not prevail.
You, Simple man. vermont 2 and the NOW sedevacantist sect claim that it has failed which means you think Jesus is a liar.
To A Simple Man,
Your fifth point demonstrates the irony of the recognize-and-resist position so well. Many of them condemn sedes for judging the Pope while they judge his every public act, word, writing, and inaction. While it is lawful and necessary to determine whether someone is a Catholic (even a superior at times), it is not permissible for the faithful to recognize someone as their lawful Catholic superior but to resist, criticize, disobey, and pass judgement on him whenever they please. It was exactly this that was condemned with an excommunication at Vatican I (at least when such judgements were levied against a Pontiff):
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd  .
4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful  , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment  .
The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon  . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
It is clear to every Catholic that he cannot profess the same faith as Francis or submit to his discipline and governance without committing apostasy. Yet, it’s also clear from this excerpt alone that no one can legitimately resist a true Pope, since this is condemned with an excommunication.
The only solution to this conundrum is to recognize that Francis is not a true Pope–and cannot be a true Pope,–since this would destroy the unity of the Church described in #3, requiring the faithful to be out of communion with the Visible Head of the Church and under pain of excommunication for fidelity to the Magisterium. Recognizing a public heretic/apostate as a legitimate Pope inevitably leads to absurdity.
All the best,
Kyle of Canada
On the contrary, an extended vacancy of the chair of Peter does not necessarily imply that the Church has failed, or defected.
By comparison, to assert that that the Vatican II Church *is* the Catholic Church (as you profess) is to assert that Christ’s Church can teach error and promulgate evil in her doctrine, that Christ’s Church can defect and contradict herself in her teachings on faith and morals.
Sedevacantism does not in and of itself imply that Jesus was a liar; however, taking your position to its logical conclusion would indeed imply that the Church has failed, and that Jesus was a liar.
For more on the matter of indefectibility, see here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10
ABS and ASM, This contenders for the visible catholic church Only worships Mammon. Why do you think they hide the sins of their perverts who come from wealth and flourish fooling so many?
i.e. The Legion of Christ ,SMOM, KoC,
Opus Dei and SSPX
“Interesting. When you look up for the Abbet family there are all over Facebook and living in Fully. Obviously, they are a rich family. They make money by growing and selling wine.
Fully is next to Econe where the Seminary is suited and Bishop Fellay lives. That makes sense. What, if we see here the same pattern as in St. Mary’s where rich donors can do whatever they want? Those people are protected by the Society. Do we see here a motive of Bishop Fellay’s action in favor of Fr. Abbet? Doing a favor for a rich donor family? I’m just guessing. Perhaps, that is something for CM to go after. Follow the path of money…”
Vagano himself comes from wealth and both sister and brother complain he stole their share of the inheritance in part.Why do you think he is chummy with OD Napa Valley personas?
Another comment I found on another blog to prove my point that the SSPX is the last stop to jump off for many seeking the Truth. i suggest all of you including sedes and sspx read Malachi Martin’s book
Do you understand that the Orthodox still respect the office of the Bishop of Rome BUT have witnessed so many transgressions and inventions away from the True Faith that they refused to go along with way back in the Early Church History, that resentment grew in the corridors of the clerical palaces in Rome , that they sent out Humbert from Rome to seal a formal schism?
comment from a man on another catholic blog………….
“There have been a number of splits. Each insisting they have the actual truth. One thing is that over time some cease to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. I am Orthodox and there are several former SSPX families in our parish. The young parents were brought up in the SSPX as children. They became disillusioned as adults but never considered returning to Rome – technically they had not left as they were brought up SSPX. One sad thing is they mention that some who leave the SSPX just give up on formal religion altogether.”
The slate needs to be wiped and pick up where the Church left off Reuniting the East and West again before there will ever be True UNITY…….This is NOT Ecumenism instead, in strength it could provide a bulwark against the NWO. Using the basic tenants of the Didachi as taught to the Early Christian Communities by the Apostles themselves, would be an excellent place to start.
Yes, the putative 62 year papal vacancy – SIXTY TWO YEAR – means there is no visible principle of unity which means the Church has failed.
Now, of course the Vagus Bishop Sanborn (He has no Jurisdiction; and No Jurisdiction, No Ministry is an axiom of Tradition) says its no big deal but he would because he is a schismatic sedevacaantist silly person.
The Roman Catechism notes that it is the unanimous teaching of The Church Fathers that a visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church but the church of Mario Derksen, Father Cekada, and the vagus Bishop Sanborn teach you otherwise and we all know to whom you are loyal – the sedevacantist sects
The organizations you list (the Legion of Christ, Oder of Malta, Opus Dei, SSPX, Knights of Columbus) are not sedevacantist.
I don’t know why you keep mentioning myself, Tom A, 2Vermont, and others of similar opinion.
They acknowledge Francis as Pope.
Sedevacantists do not.
With that in mind, why do keep lumping sedes and SSPX/SMOM/Legion of Christ/Opus Dei together?
Once again I ask you ASB, where can I find the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Are you saying that those in control of the Vatican profess the Catholic Faith? Or are you implying that membership in the Church does not demand one holds the Catholic Faith?
Sweep and NQP, you describe a Church that has no central authority and is guided by ones understanding of Apostolic Tradition. That is no different that the protestants who follow their own understanding of Scripture. Either way, its all up to you.
I want to follow a Pope who is protected by the Holy Ghost when he teaches on faith and morals. Tell me who is that Pope? If you tell me its Francis you are an idiot. If you tell me a Pope can err when he teaches on faith or morals you are an heretic. If you tell me we dont need a Pope and that he is only first among equals, then you are a schismatic.
There have been historical precedents of priests and bishops ordained during times of vacancy, yet still possessed supplied jurisdiction regardless.
In like manner, I’m sure the Great Western Schism would have been deemed impossible before it actually occurred, because in what sense could there be a visible principle of unity when there are three seemingly legitimate claimants to the Church of Peter? And yet it happened nonetheless.
Theologically, we must be sure to separate that which is possible (however unpleasant it may be) from that which is impossible.
It is possible for a vacancy to last for many years, without it necessarily following that the Church has defected.
However, to assert that the Vicar of Christ can legitimately be a public heretic (as you are demanding sedevacantists like me to recognize) is to asser that which is impossible. You are demanding sedes to violate the principle of non-contradiction.
I’ll take the unpleasant yet possible scenario over that which is impossible any day of the week, thank you kindly.
“There was no one with the title Pope in the Early Church in about the first six centuries. St Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and then later the Bishop of Rome and called ‘The First Among Many’ or the ‘First Among Equals’.”
To sweepoutthefilth in charity,
Firstly, please forgive the blunt/forward tone that follows, I don’t have the energy today to make my reply sound more gentle as I often try to do.
Quibbling over the particular title held by Peter is irrelevant. “First among Many” doesn’t support your position and “First among Equals” is a contradiction of terms if taken in the sense that you mean it; true equals cannot have anyone designated as being “first” amongst them–to acknowledge someone as first is necessarily to admit they are not truly equal to everyone else who is not first. That being said, it is clear both from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that Jesus Christ clearly established Peter (and his successors) as His visible representative on earth and set him apart as the leader of the Church. It was upon this Office that Christ promised that the Church would never fall into error when teaching Faith or morals.
In defense of the singularity of Peter’s Office, we have the very words of Christ Himself:
Matthew 16: 18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
John 21: 15-17
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
In these passages, Jesus does several things:
I. He explicitly states that He is founding His Church, then adds qualifiers to explain the details of the Church He is founding.
II. He explicitly gives His authority to Peter to rule over His Church. Jesus sets Peter apart as its leader and visible head, i.e. its source of stability, both doctrinally and in matters of governance:
(i) By giving Peter specifically the power to bind and loose in Jesus’ Name;
(ii) By giving Peter alone the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”**;
(iii) By again singling out Peter and commanding him, “Feed my lambs”, three times.
(iv) By using the authority of Peter’s Office as the means by which He promises to protect the Church from being overcome by the “gates of hell”. Jesus’ protection over Peter and his successors is confirmed by the historical fact that the Catholic Church’s dogmas have remained unchanged since Jesus Himself founded Her in AD33, despite some worldly and morally reprehensible Pontiffs.
**Jesus was referring to the keys symbolically given to the Stewards of the Kingdoms of Israel which indicated that they had the authority of the King to rule in his name while he was absent. The Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea foretold the coming of Christ the King of Kings, who fulfilled their prophesying of His Kingship and Kingdom when He gave Peter (His personally appointed Steward) the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This symbolism would not have been missed by any Jewish contemporaries: Peter was singled out as being Jesus’ representative with all His authority when Jesus was no longer present. Just as Jesus commanded, after His Ascension into Heaven, Peter and his successors have ruled in Jesus’ Name by His authority–and will continue to do so until the Second Coming.
We see this authority manifested in Acts, during the Council of Jerusalem:
Acts 15: 1-2, 4-7, 12, etc.
1 And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.
5 But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
12 And all the multitude held their peace;…
Here we see that there was a dispute in the early Church about whether circumcision and observing the Law of Moses in its entirety was necessary for salvation. The first Ecumenical Council was called to settle the matter, the Council of Jerusalem. After much debating and disputing, Peter, the leader and chief authority of the Council:  stood up;  clearly stated that God chose him specifically to teach the Gentiles;  despite the heated debate, everyone present fell silent;  they listened to his decision on the matter;  the Council accepted it as final, even those who argued against it. After the council, any who still obstinately rejected Peter’s judgement were labeled as heretics (“Judaizers” in this case) and were cast out of the Church. This sect eventually died off, proving that it was not from God.
These passages prove irrefutably that Peter was set apart by Christ as the leader of the Church. Those who deny the primacy of his Office are in a state of schism and in danger of losing their souls, since this error was condemned at Vatican I under pain of excommunication.
The rest of the arguments you present in your post are non sequitur fallacies, since your conclusion does not logically follow from your arguments. For instance, even if one concedes for the sake of argument that the Papacy made decisions without representatives of the whole Church, so what? As the head of the Church with the authority to bind and lose, the Pope was well within his rights to do make decisions independently due to the primacy of his Office (to which even the titles you quoted earlier attest). Again, even if for the sake of argument one concedes that certain Popes behaved in an immoral or avaricious manner, that does not somehow negate the primacy of their authority over the whole Church. Just because a hypocrite does not follow his own advice, that doesn’t mean his advice is invalid. In other words, just because a Pope was greedy, that doesn’t mean the Papacy somehow lost its primacy over all the other Bishops.
If anything, your arguments only prove that the schism of the Eastern Orthodox rests on specious grounds. Please reconsider your position.
Kyle of Canada
Christe Rex: adveniat regnum Tuum, in corde meum et a mari usque ad mare. Maria, Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Amen.
Sedevacantism is not a solution to the problems we Catholics face. It simply describes the practical steps we must take when dealing with an Apostate Rome. Let them be anathema! Regardless of Bergoglio and Ratzingers’s official Church status, no Catholic can look to them for proper teachings on faith or morals. For if the NO and V2 were Catholic, we would be disobedient by not going along with the new ways.
It is the correct DIAGNOSIS.
I feel like I’m either beating my head against the wall, or that you’re simply not reading what I say.
I am not associated with the SSPX. Neither, as far as I’m aware, are Tom A or 2Vermont. Why? Because as sedevacantists, we do not recognize the current occupants of the papal chair in Rome as true Popes, whereas the SSPX do.
I am not defending or excusing anything that the SSPX has done. I am not affiliated with them whatsoever. I’ve never even attended an SSPX chapel, **ever**.
So your repeated insistence in talking about the SSPX to me and other sedes, as though they have anything to do with sedevacantism n this day and age, is utterly perplexing.
Tom , who is ASB…( A Simple Brain?)
“…..no central authority?” Okay how did the Church that thousands of Christians were willing to be martyred for in the first centuries AD operate? There was NO Pope at the time , nor anyone called Pope.there was the Bishop of Rome eventually which the entire Church referred to as The First Among Equals……..Perhaps only because he had the largest See ?
Truly Tom and 2Verm “ASBs”are both Simple Brains working in tandem.
Not only was the ad hominem in my direction unnecessary, the ASB acronym corresponds to Amateur Brain Surgeon, because that’s who the replies were directed to. It’s not that hard.
Meanwhile, asserting that there was no Pope in the first centuries of the Church simply because that was not what they were called is a non sequitur. It’s the equivalent of asserting that because the Scriptures did not use the term ‘Trinity’, therefore there is no Trinity.
Okay, my apologies, ASB should be rendered as ABS. But, in context, you can see that Tom A is replying to Amateur Brain Surgeon.
It’s called the SSPX, Tom. They have the Bishops! The period we are going through is exactly what happened between 33 and 70 AD.
It’s been a transition from Catholicism to Modernism. A new mass came in just like in Henry VIII’s England. Since that new mass was hatched, the SSPX and Novus Ordo (FSSP, ICKSP) have been staring at each other.
Our Lady will decide when to shift everything over to the SSPX. It will happen sooner than later. Be ready!
Too Simple Simple, The Doctrine of the Trinity in 325 and no proclamation or mention of a Supreme Pontiff.
Infallibility of the Pope came about in 1870. Why so late when up until that time “infallibility” pertained only to Scripture and Tradition ? Perhaps the Evil One knew of BIG changes to come?
Siricius is sometimes said to be the first bishop of Rome to style himself pope, but other authorities say the title pope was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. Siricius was the first to declare himself authority over the universal church.”
The Western Christian Church always quotes Our Lord’s Word when referring to Peter as the rock on which He will build His Church .
Contextually speaking we have Peter first declaring to Jesus when asked whom he thought He is, that He is the Son of God. Jesus replied that no man has told him this, adding the conceptualization of Peter’s Faith as inspired by the Holy Ghost on which He, Jesus Christ, True God and True man will build His Church. The Church is built on Faith inspired by the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from the Father as in the original Nicene Creed.
This is even verbally confirmed by Bl Emmerich when she foretells that they are building a strange New Church. She adds the Holy Ghost is not a participating in it’s building.
She then says God has other plans and indeed He does.
Ask yourselves what Our Lord’s last Prayer on earth was to the Father.
A short study in semantics to keep in mind while arguing the virtues of sedevacantism between yourselves.
“The word pope derives from Greek πάππας (páppas), meaning ‘father’. In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.”
“From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it was applied to Pope Marcellinus.”
Tom ,”No Central Authority” is schismatic ?
For centuries the Church had a central authority who made his decisions known in the context of the First Among Equals . Doctrinal disagreements were hashed out in Councils where both the East and Western Church was represented.
Politics, greed and most of all the pride of men divided the Church by changing this TRADITION.
Read Tom and contemplate………..
The Church is the “Kingdom of God on Earth”…not to be divided…
“While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord.” — St. Cyprian in his Letter to Antonianus
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” — St. Cyprian in his Address to the Seventh Ecumenical Council
“Through the changes of time and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.” — St. Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI
“…the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of the Plenary (Ecumenical or General) Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world…” — St. Augustine in his work ‘On Baptism, Against the Donatists’
“…which by means of the Apostolis Sees, and the succession of bishops is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion.” — St. Augustine in his Letter CCXXXII
“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock I will build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built.” — St. Augustine of Hippo in his Tractate CXXIV, ‘On the Gospel of John’
“Thou art therefore, saith He, Peter, and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me upon thee.” — St. Augustine of Hippo in his Tractate CXXIV, On the Gospel of John’
“Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the Catholic Church.” — St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans
“It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command or wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.” St. Jerome in his Letter CXLVI to Evangelus
The East has always preserved the Cyprianic vision of the Early Church. St. Cyprian forefully preached that St. Peter’s primacy is shared by all the bihsops and St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo & Doctor of the Church in the West, unequivocally stated time & time again that supreme universal jurisdiction of the Church resides in its Ecumenical or General Councils and not in a single Apostolic See! St. Augustine had ample opportunity to express a belief in the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate…but he NEVER did so. From before the Third Century, the Church in Rome was accepted as “First Among Equals.” The “Chair of Peter” was the Undivided Church and not the “See of Rome” by itself. St. Cyprian clearly taught St. Peter’s primacy being perpetuated in ALL the canonical bishops of the Undivided Catholic Church. St. Cyprian’s works pointedly exclude the notion of St. Peter’s primacy being exercised by a single bishop to the exclusion of others.This form of Church government was the ONLY ONE recognized by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, as is preserved by the Eastern Churches today. “
Kyle , your quotes only serve to re enforce my statements of truth and quotes, i.e. St Cyprian et al , that the Western Church has left Tradition a long time ago and morphed into something very different from the Early Church Jesus Christ founded. it did not just happen with V2 or modernism.
Kyle , reread you Church History from an unbiased neutral perspective. Try Malachi Martin’s book “The Rise and Decline of the RC Church”.After all he was respected enough to be considered the Vatican’s Biblical scholar at one time. Then go on to read Barbara Frale’s book the ‘Templars and the Shroud”. She discovered a few very interesting ancient texts while researching for her PhD
in the Vatican Secret Archives for whom she is employed . Also peruse the quotes of St Cyprian and others posted below.
True Church history is NOT the simplistic one side right notion you paint above.
Simple, because none of these groups have members who know and practice the True Faith . It’s all about mammon.
The sedes here have nothing useful to impart.
Rush, if the SSPX is the Catholic Church, then why do they say they are in union with a manifest heretic? It is not possible for the Truth to be in union with error.
Hi Tom, they are respectful of the process. They know there has been a coup. But, they don’t want to become yet another sect that came and ended up on the trash heap of history. They avoid Divine Mercy devotions. They await the day when Our Lady when Our Lady of the Rosary will triumph!
However, to assert that the Vicar of Christ can legitimately be a public heretic (as you are demanding sedevacantists like me to recognize) is to asser that which is impossible. You are demanding sedes to violate the principle of non-contradiction.
Who died, resurrected and gave you the authority to make that judgment?
What you are doing is what Protestants have done for centuries and so you are a traditionalist, a protestant trad.
If the Pope were an arm of the devil would he have authority over you?
Dear Sweep. Google
Eastern Papal Florilegium
and discover what the putative Orthodox used to believe about the Papacy and its authority
Mr. Wojtyla (later Pope JP2) was born to a Jew mother, which has been so often omitted in his CVs! It appears as if he dedicated his acting (he was an actor before becoming a priest) to a great stage, climbing and even jumping up the ladder … I do wonder where this poor “saint” is spending his eternity no matter how much he organized a foolproof way for becoming “santo súbido”.
Excuse my technicalities, but Cardinal Mindszenty was a prisoner by Nazi during WW2 and then by communists 1949 to 1956, but was not held prisoner at the U.S. embassy, he received a political asylum there.
“Who died, resurrected and have you the authority to make that judgment?”
What use is the rule of faith if the average layman cannot use it in practice?
Truth is not a popularity contest, nor is objective reality. In like manner, one can recognize if someone has committed the *sin* of heresy even if they lack the power to prosecute the canonical *crime* of heresy.
You essentially render the laity doomed to follow whoever the claimant to the papal office is, even if that claimant were a false shepherd. In like manner, you render St. Paul’s guidance and command from the first chapter of Galatians nonsensical. To illustrate:
Paul: If I, or an angel, preach a gospel other than that which was preached to you, let him be anathema.
The Galatians: Okay.
*an indeterminate amount of time later*
Paul: Hello brethren; I have a new word for you. *proceeds to preach*
The Galatians: This new word is different from what you previously taught us.
Paul: Well, I’m the Apostle to the Gentiles; I know what I’m talking about, so just trust me.
The Galatians: But it’s a different gospel. You are now anathema.
Paul: You lack authority over me to do that!
Galatians: We’re just doing what you told us to do. *throws him out*
It’s an admittedly absurd example, but it bluntly illustrates the point: if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?
“If the Pope were an arm of the devil would he have authority over you?”
Nonsensical question. The Vicar of Christ by definition cannot be the arm of the devil.
The Council of Florence condemned this thesis of Wycliffe.
If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.
Dear A Simple Man. You walked right into that one 🙂
Of course, that should make you reconsider your private judgment protestantism – but it won’t.
You’ll continue to think you know it all and can judge a Pope and The Catholic Church and decide for your own self what is and isn’t doctrine.
It is you who has lost the Faith but owing to your ignorant haughtiness you think otters have.
Repent while you still have time.
Quote-mining the Eastern Fathers to deny the primacy of St. Peter does you no favors.
Secondly, for all of your repeated words about how the Eastern Orthodox have preserved the faith entire, their putative heads didn’t seem to have an issue with the false ecumenism and religious indifferentism of the Asissi Events.
Among the Eastern Orthodox leaders who took part in the Assisi Events of 1986, 2002, and 2011, were Bartholomeos I, the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople; Ignace IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch and of all the Orient; several metropolitans and dignitaries of the patriarchates of Moscow, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, and of Orthodox churches in Cyprus, Poland and Albania.
By contrast, such false ecumenism was condemned whole and entire by true Popes of the past. One example among many is Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI.
That may be your opinion that sedes have nothing useful to impart; it still does not change the fact that it’s disingenuous on your part to keep mentioning these groups and sedevacantists in the same breath.
You’re being too cute by half. I have in no way affirmed that a true Pope can be the arm of the devil (in fact, I denied such a thing), and you ascribe Wycliffe’s position to me when I have not advocated it.
After all, a true Pope is, among other things, a Catholic. That’s what it means to be the Pope, even if they commit and command evil actions.
However, I deny that a non-Catholic can be a Pope, in concordance with the consistent teaching of the Church. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis, it is the sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy which sever one from the Body of the Church by their very nature, rendering one a non-Catholic.
If you can’t determine that Francis, B16, JP2, and so forth since V2 have publicly promulgated heretical doctrine, then I can’t help you.
But what I find funny is that, for all your words that sedevacantists are Protestants using “private judgment”, you make the same error as the Protestants, making no differentiation between reason and private judgment:
(Besides, Vatican 2 has affirmed that Protestant sects can be used by the Holy Spirit as means of salvation, so I don’t know why you think being a Protestant would be an intrinsically bad thing. After all, Vatican 2 is obligatory and binding, if it was truly an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church…)
The reason may be that probably only Assisi gartering and Kissing the Quran is a clear and visible apostasy and blasphemy.
Rush, they can do all they are doing and simply omit Bergoglio’s name from the Canon. All they have to say is that they are waiting for Rome to return to the Faith and then they will add his name back. But as you say, in order to not appear as creating another sect, they compromised by putting that heretic in their Masses. And they stand accused by many in the NO false church of creating a sect anyway. So your reasoning again is flawed. Also, since when is “respecting the process” more important than defending the Faith. The SSPX needs to just tell the NO heretics to pound sand. Why do they give them any recognition at all? Why are you guys so desperate for a heretic to recognize you as a Catholic? Have nothing to do with them by striking that filthy communist’s name our of your Sacred Liturgies and then I would be able to see a glimpse of the true Catholic Church.
ABS, Just give it up ! You have zero credibility because you support a Bishop who slandered a good priest (Fr John Gallagher) who blew the whistle on a clerical sodomite child molester in the Palm Beach Diocese.
You ignore the fact Bishop Barbarito also used a bisexual molester in a Palm Beach parish confirmed in the PA GJ Report.
Nothing you recommend or state here holds any credibility because you support Bishops who persecute good priests and cover up child abuse.
See ABS posts here
Also Rush, you can never escape the fact that SSPX was founded in disobedience. Abp Lefebrve was told to cease and desist many times by “legitimate” authority. He disobeyed those who he considered were placed in authority over him. If there has been a “coup” as you state, why do you recognize as legitimate the usurpers?
ABS your referenced site in no way negates the fact that the Early Church considered the Bishop of Rome the “First Among Equals” to settle disputes in Doctrine and Dogma with the final say.
Schism…….Cardinal Humbert , directed to dialogue with the Patriarch of Constantinople chose instead ( between a Papal occupancy in Rome) to take advantage of the situation and place the papers of excommunication on the high altar of Hagia San Sophia while the patriarch was celebrating the Divine Liturgy.
Four attempts were made to Unite the Church again but the laity ,remembering the slaughter and theft of relics by the Venetians in the false Fourth Crusade, refused.
So give up the propagandized chant that the Eastern Church was solely responsible for the SCHISM……..
Perhaps this was ordained by God so the East could at least preserve Tradition and the original interpretations of Scripture. Jesus Christ said His Kingdom was not of this world. Why did these Prelates and Legates decide they were part of an an earthly Kingdom?
Dear Sweep. Please seek professional help. You are so obsessed with ABS that you follow him around from Blog to Blog and you are forever hailing him and writing to him, trying to get his attention.
Sweep, ABS is happily married. Leave him alone and find another to focus your feelings on.
Dear A simple man. Like Wycliff did, you deny the Pope has authority over you because you have plighted your spiritual troth to the sedevacanatist sect of NOW.
I would put at the top of the poll list:
The promotion of the heretical, modernist, evil Vatican II “Pastoral Council” throughout the world, infecting the faith of every continent, even choosing your Papal name “John” and “Paul” to support the popes who led the evil council, which lead to the complete collapse of the faith, wild heresy, persecution of true Catholics (SSPX etc), destruction of the clergy, rape of children, take over by the sexual predators, worldwide apostasy and the visible insanity that we see today.
No wonder JPII didn’t release the secret of Fatima…it exposed his precious “council” as the evil fraud it is. That horrid council seemed to be JPII’s god…I dearly hope I am wrong on that.
Is Vatican 2 obligatory and binding? Yes, or no?
“The Council of Florence condemned this thesis of Wycliffe.
‘If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.'”
Amateur Brain Surgeon,
You don’t understand what Wycliffe was actually proposing in the quote above, conflate it for an entirely different concept, and wind up misapplying it to sedevacantists.
Wycliffe is not arguing that a manifest public heretic or apostate loses the papal office (as some sedes argue), but rather, he is arguing that an immoral pope automatically loses his authority since he is an incorrigible and notorious public sinner (and therefore “a limb of the devil”, “evil”, and “foreknown as damned”). No sedevacantist has ever claimed this, because, as you have pointed out, it is contrary to Church teaching. Let us refer to that teaching now:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Clearly, the Catholic Church teaches that not all sins automatically result in expulsion from the Church, but that some do, particularly sins against Faith.
St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy:
“It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen–if the head of the Church was not of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30; italics added:
“…for men are not bound, or able, to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
“…a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3 orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious, and he understands [by this] before any excommunication and judicial sentence;”
But I digress, because while the personal heresy of these Anti-popes is notorious and publicly manifested, it is a moot point considering that Vatican I clearly teaches a true Pope cannot teaching heresy from his office:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, (#1-4), 18 July 1870:
“2. So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
‘The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church  , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour.‘”
As the above quote demonstrates, true Popes cannot promulgate heretical doctrines or disciplines and impose them upon the Church. Since it is common knowledge that the Anti-popes of the Vatican II Church have promulgated teachings and disciplines which are demonstrably contradictory to the perennial Faith held by the Catholic Church, its papal claimants cannot be considered valid.
Kyle of Canada
Don’t flatter yourself you rotund old Bishop boot licker .
You are on all the sites I frequent and I will not let you continue to get away with slandering a good whistle blowing priest. If all priests were like Fr John Gallagher you and your sodomite shielding Bishop would all be nightmares of the past.
Dear Sweepy. You refuse to stop obsessing over personal disagreements and that is a very unhealthy action for you to continue but ABS knows pointing that out will do no good.
You seem to think that others consider you as some sort of authority and will heed and obey your denunciations when the plain and simple truth is nobody cares about your obsession over an event that happened years ago.
Nobody knows what you are talking about and as for other Blogs, Mary Ann at Les Femmes deleted your absurd personal attacks as did Tancred. at Eponymous.
It is only in here that Louie lets your obsessive hatred continue.
Fine. It is his joint and he can do what he wants and he seems to want to let personal attacks occur.
ABS is done with this blog because it has become a place for personal obsessions whether it is your defense of a priest who is a proven liar, a racist, and who twice has had law suits against a Bishop dismissed or whether it is the obsessions of the hopeless popeless party.
One guesses this is where the sede eagle corp gathers because they aren’t satisfied with the insanity promoted at the Mario Derksen, Father Anthony Cekada ,Schismatic Sede Site of The NOW Sect.
No, it is not enough for the hopeless popeless party to have communion with the unchurched, no, they must evangelise others to join their protestant sect.
And to think that louie was once a man of influence but look at the quality of the crowd he attracts to his blog – those who nuture personal grudges and those who think there has been no pope for 62 years.
Good luck with al of this Louie 🙂
A Simple Man: ABS says “adios” on cue. He did the same thing when he posted in a NOW combox months ago (as “I am Not Spartacus”) the same quote and was refuted in the same manner.
I don’t have a dog in whatever spat sweep has with you, but I would like to leave you with one final observation: you call sedes the “hopeless popeless party”.
Which position is more hopeless?
That there has been no true Pope for 62 years?
Or that all of the Popes within the past 62 years have been public heretics, promulgating doctrines condemned in the past by the Church, and thus essentially changing the faith and morals taught by the universal Church?
I’ll let you decide that one. But the position you’ve previously argued for is one that believes Protestantism and the schismatic Orthodox churches can be means of salvation, which is why your constant charges that sedes are Protestants and schismatics will always ring hollow.
May God be with you.
Well put ASM. The likes of ABS and Rush will never be able to point to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The entity they point to as the “Church” lacks unity of Faith. It teaches error and heresy. That is the “Church” they claim we must be a part of for salvation even though that “Church” teaches you do not have to be inside for salvation. The illogical twists of reason and common sense boggles the mind. And for what? To keep Bergoglio on the seat of Peter? Its blasphemous. I would rather join Sweep in the schismatic eastern orthodox than have anything to do with the Apostates in Rome. But of course I will never join them. For all schism leads to heresy as we witness with every Sweep post.
Love one another , little children.
“They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.”
Hi again Tom,
You are confusing the founding of the SSPX in 1970 and the Episcopal Consecrations in 1988. The Founding of the SSPX in 1970 was totally above board. The Episcopal Consecrations in 1988 were done out of necessity.
Tell me Mr Sede, how can the SSPX be disobedient to a modernist anti-Church. You cannot have it both ways. The SSPX has the Bishops with succession! The SSPX is the visible Church even if you disagree.
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND Y’ALL.
Rush, in 1976, the SSPX lost their canonical approval and were suspended. Yet they continued their apostolate against the wishes of the man they considered Pope. My problem with the SSPX is not their disobedience to apostate modernist Rome, my problem is they call that apostate the Holy Father. My problem with the SSPX is that they insert the apostate name of Francis into the sacred Roman Rite. My problem with the SSPX is that they seek recognition with heretics and apostates. Perhaps the new leadership will simply walk away from the modernists. Bp Fellay has led the SSPX down a dangerous path. Its time for them to call out Rome for what they are; Apostates!
Ratzinger head of the CDF said they were never suspended. And what does it matter even if an apostate rules against a true Catholic? I’m beginning to think your ignorance is invincible.
Rushintuit: JP2 was not Catholic long before Assisi. Because his goal, as he himself stated, was to implement the heresies, the condemnations the true Church had made, of the documents of Vatican II, particularly that of ecumenism and its heretical teachings on “the unity of the whole human family.”
“Kyle , reread you Church History from an unbiased neutral perspective. Try Malachi Martin…” You’re funny 😀
It is impossible for me to know what another person truly believes. I can only observe what they do and say. The SSPX and the indult groups say their Masses in union with Francis the Apostate. Does that mean they believe what Francis believes too? If they do not believe what Francis believes then they are being dishonest in claiming union with him.
Rush, your ignorance is willful. If mine is invincible, then I will not be held guilty. But you choose to stubbornly and willfully continue to defy logic and reason. How is SSPX in any way in union with Francis?
Two things happened in 1970. The nu mass was hatched and the SSPX was founded. Take your pick. I do not think you will make it to paradise.
It appears that the only thing Rush focuses on is the liturgy. Rush, is Vatican II Catholic?
Hi anyone who is still reading this… I have no theology training and these are obviously confusing times, but I would like to add my two cents.
I’m a traditional Roman Catholic living in Florida with my husband and our six kids. I read AKA Catholic at times but I guess not often enough because I didn’t know this was any type of sede hangout.
I am kind of surprised at the anti-JPII sentiment here. Does anyone expect him to have been perfect or feel that unless he was perfect he should not be considered someone who had heroic virtue? Could he have done more? Yes, but I believe he tried hard to be a good servant of God – and would not any of us give anything to have him back sitting in the chair of Peter right about now versus the current purported occupant?
Kissing the koran – ok I see the issue but he also kissed the ground (a lot). It was his sign of respect but it didn’t mean he worshipped the ground or anything more. Fatima? I believe he released the vision but not the words of Our Lady. Do we deserve to know them? Yes but I believe they contain info so horrific it would be difficult for any human in our times, or even around 1960, to choose to release them but yes they should have done it. He came closer to releasing the secret than anyone else. Assisi? Yes I believe that should not have happened at least not in the way it happened. The abuse crisis? It happened because he was too forgiving and not strict enough but this goes along with his pontificate being completely dedicated to mercy as he seemed to have considered Divine Mercy a primary reason for his existence around the end of his life.
Theology of the body? Yes I see the issues and the modernism creeping in but I believe there is some good in this as well – which leads me to World Youth Day. I’m not sure how many of you saw JPII in person as I did on several occasions but I drove about 700 miles each way to World Youth Day in Toronto and it was one of the most moving experiences of my life. Eucharistic abuses happened yes – grace happened as well…which was, I believe, his goal.
I believe JPII was, overall, a great man when the church needed a great man. The fact that he died, after so many years and so many close calls, on the eve of the feast of Divine Mercy after receiving a drop of the precious blood speaks volumes to me. I believe God used JPII to give the Divine Mercy devotion to the church and only at the final judgment will we see how many souls escaped hell because of it. I believe Divine Mercy is Christ’s final gift to His Mom before the nuclear war that is coming (I believe in 2029 – 100 years after the initial request to consecrate Russia).
Did you all know that JPII sent a priest into the USSR itself to perform the consecration along with Him in real time in 1984? The story of that priest is fascinating. I believe what Our Lady requested didn’t fully happen but he came closer than anyone else and I believe he won certain graces for the world that otherwise would have led to nuclear war much earlier.
Anyway I believe that B16 is still the pope and I would like to know – why do people believe he is not in communion with the church or that he has excommunicated himself?
Because I don’t know enough to wade through all of the questions and controversies surrounding the state of the church I feel I have to take my cues from others holier than me. I rely on the fact that St. Padre Pio was still commemorating the pope as the pope after 1960 and after VII. I rely on the revelation to St. Francis in 1226 regarding the person who would later use his name:
“A short time before the holy Father’s [St. Francis’] death, he called together his children and warned them of the coming troubles:
“Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power; the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who obey the true Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal ears and perfect charity.
“At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
“There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God….
“Those who persevere in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth…
“Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
This quotation appears in Works of the Seraphic Father, St. Francis of Assisi, published in 1882 by the London-based Catholic publishing house R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250). [Quote taken from The Remnant article “Did St. Francis Predict Pope Francis”, 11-13-17].
The apostles, when they could and should have shone the brightest (after receiving the Eucharist) all ran away. St. Peter later tripled down on his denial. Only St. John bothered to try to show up later before Christ died. This sucked, but they are all still saints except Judas. The mercy of God can never be outdone, no matter what we do.
I don’t see any reason anyone should ascribe to anything other than the one true Roman Catholic Church and wait for her to be purified and glorified. Given everything that is currently going on it can’t be that much farther away… if we live to see it. We are re-experiencing the desecration of the body of Christ on Earth (His church) now. Let’s not run away from Him. Stay close to Our Lady and receive the sacraments whenever you can receive them and beg St. Joseph to help us. Do the First Fridays and First Saturdays over and over again in lieu of those who can’t or won’t. Don’t give up. We are all Christ has left on Earth now and we are few in number, but He has already won the victory for us – our part is to be humble, patient and faithful to our 2000 year history and traditions. Be spiritual children and let prayer lead you to where He wants you.
Friend, you’re actually not a traditional Catholic. Just as it’s impossible to be a compassionate serial killer, it’s impossible to be a traditional Catholic who loves destroyers such as JPII. He was most assuredly not a great man. Much more in your message could be mentioned to show that you’re actually not a traditional Catholic. Deceive yourself no longer.
Iou, are you aware that modernism is an heresy? Which JP2 adopted and professed. His 1983 Code of Canon Law contains heresy. His Catechism contains heresy. He professed ecumenism and indifferentism, both condemned. He also supported V2 and said the protestant Novus Ordo mockery. Take a closer look at what Traditional Catholicism taught and then compare that to what the NO V2 church teaches today. If you believe the two are the same then please explain it to me.
Please advise me of my non-traditional issues…
And yes I’m aware modernism is a heresy but I believe the novus ordo is a valid mass and VII a valid council although I acknowledge both lead away from Christ rather than towards Him. I don’t think any imperfect pope is automatically a modernist. Please let me know what the concern is in the 1983 code of canon law.
It sounds like you are saying JPII watered down the faith in promoting unity. Can you give me examples? The indifferentism I’m going to have to ask you to elucidate too. I’m not aware of any examples of that.
St. Padre Pio said “do not judge anyone unless it is your duty to do so” – basically saying to give the benefit of the doubt as long as reasonably possible. That is what I’m trying to do. In the case of the current purported occupant of the chair of Peter it is not possible but not so with prior popes I believe.
Exorcists have commented recently that JPII has been a powerful force in driving out demons during exorcisms… just another piece of evidence for me in taking my cues from those who are privy to objective evidence that I can’t access.
You are assuredly not a traditional Catholic. Study Fr. Matthias Gaudron’s The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. Get it here: https://angeluspress.org/products/catechism-crisis
A Proper Look at the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II
Most self-identifying trads think they are trads simply because they prefer the TLM over the NO.
ASM….it appears ABS has returned to NOW to troll as I Am Not Spartacus:
I wouldn’t say most, but many.
Related, here are some more tells that one isn’t actually a traditional Catholic:
-characterizing attending the TLM as a mere preference rather than a necessity of being a traditional Catholic
-characterizing attending the TLM as both a necessary and sufficient condition of being a traditional Catholic, when in fact it’s necessary but insufficient
-using the Orwellian newspeak of “Extraordinary Form“ when referring to the TLM
-accusing those who point out such marks of counterfeit traditional Catholicism as being “judgmental,“ “intolerant,“ and all the rest of it
A whole essay on such tells would be an interesting read. As a preliminary, this essay would of course have to go into cuckservatism, as cuckservatives are the supreme example of those who are not what they think they are. It would then go into CatholiCuckery as a species of cuckservatism, pitiful cuckservatism, and then go on to explore tells such as the above as manifestations of CatholiCuckery, pitiful Catholicuckery.
Your copious and (pardon the pun) liberal use of “cuckservative” leads me to suspect your true allegiance lies not with the Catholic Church, but the alt-right.
Rush, I just want to say that while I support the SSPX, even they don’t claim to be the visible Church, just part of it.
sweepoutthefilth wrote- “…the Western Church has left Tradition a long time ago and morphed into something very different from the Early Church Jesus Christ founded. it did not just happen with V2 or modernism.”
I largely would agree- though Apostolic Tradition is preserved in things such as the creeds and the Roman Canon (as understood without the much later admixture of transubstantiation). Modernism/neo-Modernism and V2 were really just a culmination of a long-simmering problem which really began with the influence of neo-Platonism, gnostic tendencies and above all the overwhelming influence of Augustine of Hippo in the West.
As far as KyleOfCanada’s citingof V1, it is simply proof-texting which is really neither here nor there. Indeed, V1 was part of the larger problem and hardly the solution.
“Related, here are some more tells that one isn’t actually a traditional Catholic.”
It would be interesting to make a list of tell tell signs that a person is a traditional Catholics. Here’s a few that comes to mind.
— believes there can be one Pope for two churches.
— thinks the entire Church hierarchy defected in 1958
— thinks the entire hierarchy defected in 1965
— insists that no one can reject the teaching of a true Pope, while accepting Pius XII as a true Pope, yet rejecting his teaching against consecrating a bishop without a mandate.
— adamantly rejects religious liberty, yet believes any priest is at liberty to start his own independent Church, in direct defiance of the ecclesiastical law.
— believes the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid, but can’t explain why.
— believes the only way to be a true Catholic today, is to never attend Mass or receive the sacraments.
— believes there’s no salvation outside the true Church with four marks, but can’t tell you where the true Church with four marks can be found.
If you happen across someone that believes one or more of these, you can be sure you’re dealing with a Traditional Catholic.
Super cucky! What’s next? Are you going to squeal “RAAAAAAAAAYYYccciiisss!!!!!”?
Lame. But what really interests me is this: as a former sede, why aren’t you more understanding and gentler with them? Because of the ex-smoker phenomenon?
If you’re not SSPX, you’re outside of the Catholic Church.
Like the Police say, you can’t talk your way out of a ticket, but you can sure talk your way into one!
ABS, Krietzer knows what you are ABS as evidenced by her refutation concerning the truth of whistle blower Fr John Gallagher, on whose behalf even the PBC Sheriff wrote to the Vatican.
Years ago? You never recanted your hatred of this priest for getting the sodomite priest in his rectory to turn himself in and tell the truth.Do you know what you did by slandering this priest is an excommunicable offense as are Bishop Barbarito’s public lies and slander?
Anyone who clicked on the link provided can read your slanderous screed themselves.
Rush, is Vatican II Catholic?
I actually meant to change most to many. Thanks for the correction.
I’m more concerned with fact that he calls himself former, but butchers much of what Sedevacantists believe.
I still don’t think I fail the traditional test according to anything published above but anyway I looked up Fr. Gaudron – but I can’t find by what authority he makes his judgments. He is SSPX correct? It looks like subjectivism is one of his major concerns… Ok I can understand that but I don’t feel I can say JPII or B16 excommunicated themselves on that basis.
I read the catholic apologetics piece and yes I understand and share the concerns they raise but most of it is focused on people’s perceptions pf JPII rather than his actual statements and actions. I would like to equate the Assisi events with Christ dining in the homes of Pharisees and tax collectors but I’m not sure that is an equivalent kind of situation. It does strike me as similar though. In short I see failings, misunderstandings and compromising situations but I do not see excommunication material.
The quote from St. Francis above for me is huge. To me it means that something very different is happening now with this current purported occupant of the chair of Peter versus anyone who has come before. That’s what I believe for now. If I am wrong, God, please guide me.
Yes vatican II is Catholic in the same way that the denials of Peter were papal acts. They both severely missed the mark.
Traditional Scripture commentaries and magisterial documents attest that at the time of his threefold denial, Peter had not yet attained the keys that Christ promised (for the keys were not immediately granted in Matthew 16). It was only after the resurrection, when Christ asked Peter “lovest though Me?” three times, and – upon Peter answering in the affirmative, as recorded in John 21 – responding “Feed my lambs. Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep”, that the full powers of the Petrine office were conferred upon Peter.
Besides, Peter’s denials were of a different category than Vatican 2, which was an ostensible ecumenical council promulgating doctrines that had previously been condemned as heretical by the Church on matters such as ecclesiology, ecumenism, and religious liberty.
ok it is catholic in the same way that the pope who briefly signed agreeing with the Arian heresy was Catholic (before he recanted)
Who lacks common sense? In charity, I believe you are confusing Priests/Clerics who are in a state of Mortal Sin with those who are ipso facto excommunicated. If one is an “Apostate” and/or a Freemason one is AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNACATED. PERIOD!
As such they are no longer, IPSO FACTO, members of the Catholic Church, let alone a priest, Bishop, Cardinal or Pope. You gotta be a Catholic to be a cleric in the Church.
Now that’s a big difference between being a priest who commits/or is in mortal sin. That does not invalidate his Mass or other sacraments. Cdl Lienart admitted to being a freemason etc. Big difference.
You refer to Pope Liberius, and the historical record in favor of his orthodoxy against the Arians far outweighs the charges that he capitulated to them: https://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
Don’t confuse folks with common sense let alone truth. It’s real simple.
Only Catholics can be clerics and say Mass (Sacraments)
Apostates/Heretics are ipso facto not Catholics
Therefore, Non-Catholics can’t say the Mass (Sacraments)
Vatican II is not Catholic. The Vatican II church is the anti-Church. The last Catholic Pope was Pius XII.
“I’m more concerned with fact that he calls himself former, but butchers much of what Sedevacantists believe.”
There is no uniform set of beliefs in sedevacantism. Far from it. And each of the points I listed are indeed held by individuals who call themselves traditional Catholics, and ONLY by those who call themselves traditional Catholics. They are peculiar beliefs that distinguish them. And I didn’t limit the list to only sedevacantists, but to all trads.
That is only one side of the story. Why doesn’t Daly mention what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say about the allegedly forged letters of Liberius? The reason he conveniently omits it, is Bellarmine said he read the letters himself in the Vatican library, and he confirmed that they are legit, written “in Liberius’ own handwriting.”
Pope John Paul I might be in Heaven.
IOU, in charity, As a life long early babyboomer, cradle Catholic, I have been where you are at and know exactly what you are facing. I am old enough to be raised in the Pre Vat 2 of “pray, pay and obey”, era. Be forewarned and prepared to get upset. My experience is this will not be an easy journey….but a most necessary one for everyone (all faithful Catholics) to make. It is not easy. When you start really digging you are going to get upset…But keep going. Truth is upsetting by its very nature. We have been played for fools by the evil one and his sycophants aka Partisans of Satan. But be of good cheer. Our BVM wins in the end.
I found the following 2 link(s) very informative. They cover the whole disaster that clearly surfaced at Vatican 2. The subversion began long before then. Apostasy at the top in the RRC has long been prophesied by Popes, Saints, Visionaries, etc. If Vatican 2 et al is not that period, I shudder to think what will be. When you add the more recent “Fake Sister Lucy” professionally/scientifically documented info at “Sister Lucy Truth” things start to make sense.
I find/found asking Our Lady of Fatima for guidance and praying her rosary daily very helpful. My God Bless You and His Mother Guide You.
Daly does in fact reference Bellarmine in that article (unless you are referring to some other work of St. Robert besides De Romano Pontifice); furthermore, it still does not erase the fact that the weight of contemporary evidence is heavily on the side of Liberius’s orthodoxy.
Another point of reference in support of Liberius is the following 1883 article from the American Catholic Quarterly Review: https://books.google.com/books?id=o-gRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA529&dq=alleged+fall+pope+liberius&hl=en&ei=3rt-ToDBHePW0QH66I3jDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alleged%20fall%20pope%20liberius&f=false
Former sede, can you point to the one church that possesses the four marks? I asked others here on this forum to tell me where I can find a church where there is unity of faith and where they all profess the Catholic Faith? Can you tell me who is its leader that is protected by the Holy Ghost on matters faith and morals? Please someone tell me where to find such a Church. For years I was part of a church that taught error and where everyone believed whatever it was they choose to believe. No unity and no holiness. I yearn to be part of the Catholic Church were we all profess the Catholic Faith and we have an Holy Father protected by the Holy Ghost, with Apostolic Succession, and universal. Any idea where I can find such a Church? ABS, any clue? Former sede, where? Rush, do you know? And please don’t say SSPX, Rush, their “Holy Father” is an apostate.
sweepoutthefilth wrote- “True Church history is NOT the simplistic one side right notion you paint above.”
I’d remark that history, especially when the specific focus is something fairly expansive and vast like the church history, is nearly always complex, complicated and fraught with a great number of uncertainties and unknowns.
In other words, church history is quite “messy”. And it is seldom if ever simple, in spite of the fact that what Jesus gave to us is quite simple.
ok – but what does the fake sister Lucy have to do with JPII or B16 (or others) and the questions of their status regarding heresy?
is the question whether a pope ordered her to be “replaced”?
regardless of whether the pope himself signed off on the arian document or not didn’t all of the cardinals do it? they were not excommunicated and replaced – should they have been allowed to continue in their roles? was one of those who briefly accepted arianism the next “pope” and if so was their election valid?
again I say these questions are too heavy for common laypeople and I feel I should rely on cues from those holier than I and stay at the foot of the cross – receiving the sacraments, praying the rosary and staying close to Our Lady – and St. Joseph
You are getting bogged down in minutia. Ask yourself only one question. Is Vatican 2 Catholic or is it not. Everything hinges on how you answer that one question. If its Catholic, then follow the Pope and his bishops. If it is not Catholic, then it could not come from the Catholic Church. There is no in between.
“ok – but what does the fake sister Lucy have to do with JPII or B16 (or others) and the questions of their status regarding heresy? is the question of whether a pope ordered her to be “replaced”
Answer: At this point. It doesn’t matter if they ordered it. What does matter is the proven fact they had to know about it because she went silent with no public appearances/communications for 10 years. Then in 1967 an imposter appears with PP6. The deception then goes on from at least 1967 to her death in 2005.
2) From 1967 to her death in 2005 the proven imposter went from “Our Lady is unhappy her instructions/message is being ignored” to a pro Vat 2 supporter.
3) Cdl Ratzinger had to know and/or approve the handling of Sister Lucy. He would have been ultimately in charge of her prior to becoming PB16.
4) If the “Popes” didn’t order the change or the real Sister Lucy died they certainly abetted a fraud on the faithful, not to mention ignoring Our Lady of Fatima’s requests. Why??
5) Pope Benedict has admitted the entire 3rd Secret has not been revealed. Why?
6) Could it be warnings about a Bad Council and Bad Mass?
For my part, the Assisi abomination represents the foundational betrayal which led to all the others in that it is the 1st Commandment.
It is really not simple at all. I have done a lot of research and found many conflicting sources so there are no clear conclusions to be drawn. I try to listen to Our Lord when He said “By their fruits you shall know them.”
You are malicious and without charity. That can never be the mind of a Christian.
My comment was directed to Sweepoutthefilth.
My comment was to Sweepoutthefilth.
Vatican II was inspired by the devil I believe, as was the new mass, etc but yes they are Catholic and valid – but both mistakes and I believe they will both be reversed one day. I don’t understand using the answer to that question to then accept or reject every associated thing / person that follows. As far as I understand it the church’s only certitude is that a true pope cannot err when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals.
And ok if I believe there was a fake sister Lucy and the popes knew about it …then I should conclude they were not valid popes? Yes the original text of Our Lady’s words in the 3rd secret probably discuss Satanic infiltration into the church and nuclear war and other things to horrific to comprehend which is why it was refused release.
I read the whole “chiesa viva” intro story (a photo of which should be next to the term rabbit hole in the dictionary I feel) and it was very eye opening and frankly I wish I had never read it but my main conclusion is that there are many really, really bad people in the church. We already know that don’t we? Fr. Villa – did he consider himself Roman Catholic or SSPX or something else?
The time of antichrist is a very specific time that comes after the time of the great roman pontiff and after the great french monarch. That time has not come yet. I believe Freemasons have seized control and something like a nuclear war is the only way for the church to be purged.
I don’t see or hear anything that makes me question the validity of B16 or his precursor popes. If we are going to talk about evil men as pope what about John XII? He is still considered valid…
Iou, I stopped reading anything you wrote after reading your first sentence:
“ Vatican II was inspired by the devil I believe, as was the new mass, etc but yes they are Catholic… ”
Until you can see the obvious blatant error in that sentence, there is really not point in going any further. You need to study up on ecclesiology.
“Former sede, can you point to the one church that possesses the four marks?”
Sure. It’s the Roman Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome, and headed by Pope Francis.
“I asked others here on this forum to tell me where I can find a church where there is unity of faith and where they all profess the Catholic Faith?”
Look no further. It’s the worldwide Church united to that of Rome. That’s the Church that professes the true faith. Every doctrine taught de fide is infallibly true, and every doctrine that requires the assent of faith is infallibly true. Learn what that means, little grasshopper, and you will have a slight chance of escaping from the heretical trap that you are ensnared in.
“Can you tell me who is its leader that is protected by the Holy Ghost on matters faith and morals?”
No such Church exists, little grasshopper. The leader of the Catholic Church is only protected when he DEFINES a doctrine of faith and morals. That leader is Pope Francis.
“For years I was part of a church that taught error and where everyone believed whatever it was they choose to believe. No unity and no holiness.”
That is a perfect description of the sedevacantist antichurch that you now belong to.
“I yearn to be part of the Catholic Church were we all profess the Catholic Faith…”
Then leave the den of vipers, abandon your sedevacantist heresies, and return to the Catholic Church, But first, learn what the phrase “profess the true faith” really means, instead of relying on your private judgment to determine the meaning.
“and we have an Holy Father protected by the Holy Ghost…”
In the true Church, the Holy Father is only protected by the Holy Ghost is very limited circumstances, little grasshopper. If you’re looking for a Church where the leader can never err in faith or morals, you’re going to be disappointed, because it doesn’t exist.
“Any idea where I can find such a Church?”
The Church you are looking for does not exist, little grasshopper, because you have a false idea of the inerrancy of the Pope, and you don’t know what it means to profess the true faith.
Find a real Catholic priest and ask him to instruct you in the faith. At present you are fallen away Catholic, and the reason you fell away is because you never truly understood the Catholic Faith that you profess.
Correction. ” the reason you fell away is because you never truly understood the Catholic Faith that you professED.” (past tense)
No sedevacantis professes (present tense) the Catholic faith.
Tom A. wrote: “You are getting bogged down in minutia.”
I think that this could apply to the mindset of many “traditionalists” of any stripe.
So many seem to miss the forest- faith as a reasoned belief, (Apostolic) Tradition, Who Jesus is, a proper Christian metaphysic (philosophy) -for the trees- the papacy and the Pope, trivial liturgical matters, canon law, supposed locutions and apparitions, etc..
Tom A. wrote: “Ask yourself only one question. Is Vatican 2 Catholic or is it not.”
Agreed. And the answer quite simply is that it is not. That’s a start for many people who realize that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Well you haven’t really said what you mean in asking “is it Catholic”.
It sounds like you are asking was VII a mistake or not – or should the church after VII not be called catholic anymore but be called another name.
Yes I think it was a mistake – a catholic mistake – is there something written somewhere saying the Catholic church cannot ever err?
The church is guided by the Holy Spirit but composed of people. The apostles still had some failings after Pentecost… converts don’t stop usually sinning even after confirmation. The only guarantees I know of are the infallibility of a true pope when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals and the gates of hell not prevailing against the church in the end.
VII was a valid act of the church inspired by vanity and stupidity just like the novus ordo, but they are both valid acts of the church that will hopefully be purged very soon. Satan is attacking the church and its members now as never before. VII was one of his greatest triumphs. One day I believe the church will acknowledge the error of VII the way they will acknowledge that the person everyone thought was pope was not the pope at this time in history.
When a person sins they don’t stop being the same person they were and after VII the church did not cease to be the church, but she made it harder for people to get to heaven as a result of this council and this mass.
This is what it’s like: an affair. VII was like the church, the bride of Christ, having an affair.
It doesn’t mean they are now divorced or that they were never bride and bridegroom, but it was a horrible and ridiculous and absolutely unbelievable decision on the church’s part. But it was a decision of the catholic church, yes.
So Holy Mother Church is now and an adulteress whore. We ask her for food and drink and she gives us poison and lies. Iou, you really need to study ecclesiology to see if the Catholic Church is capable of doing the things you accuse her of doing.
He’s actually not far off. He just hasn’t connected the dots yet: the Vatican II sect is the Whore of Babylon.
JPII—the man who would be God.
Will he listen to Our Lady of La Salette?
“Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the anti-Christ.”
Tom, you need to distinguish between the Church and her members. If the fidelity of the Church were determined by the fidelity of her members, she would have been an adulterous from the beginning.
Please don’t call me a he, it bothers my husband.
I believe Rome has (at a minimum) started to lose the faith in terms of capitulating to modernism and basically opening the door to Satan (she is heading in the wrong direction) and that she will eventually become the seat of the anti-Christ – but that time has not come. We are in the 5th age of the church before the great pontiff (who will reign from Rome) and the great french monarch. They will reign in the time of peace before the anti-Christ comes.
I sincerely don’t understand this idea that the church is no longer catholic because she made and perpetuated several very bad decisions. Satan is very powerful and he has been given more power now if we are to believe Christ’s vision to Pope Leo XIII. What did we expect to happen? I believe this was prophesied in the book Hosea. Even the apostles couldn’t stay faithful immediately after receiving the Eucharist. What happened to Jesus’ physical body will happen to the church – and it is what is happening now.
If there is some other guarantee for the church other than infallibility of a true pope speaking ex cathedra and her triumph against hell please let me know.
If you are talking about the four marks of the church – one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic and if one wants to say because VII destroyed her holiness she is no longer the church you could, it seems, say the same about her oneness after the protestant reformation.
For me it comes down to the Eucharist, saying valid masses and apostolic succession. As long as one valid mass is being said anywhere in the world each day the church survives. As long as apostolic succession is being passed on the church survives. As long as the Eucharist is validly confected the church survives. I believe those things are still happening. Christ basically laughed at Satan when Satan said he could destroy the church in Pope Leo XIII’s vision. Why does anyone believe Satan has been successful?
Yes the rites were changed and are now weaker but priests ordained under the new rite like Fr. Ripperger are doing very successful exorcisms. The demons themselves give us the answers we need in times like these.
Former Sede, if my idea of the Papacy is wrong, then your notion is of an irrelevant papacy and thus an irrelevant Church. We just make up as we see fit. Whether we call it Tradition or private interpretation of scripture. It is all the same. We make it up as we go along. We are already seeing in the last century a huge movement to private revelation as the source of many peoples faith. No FormerSede, the Pope must be the Rule of Faith and he must be protected by the Holy Ghost. If not, then there’s no logical reason to be in union with him. I’ll just go my own way where the “spirit” takes me. You follow your “spirit of Tradition.” It is no different than Luther and the charismatics.
Tom A. wrote: “We are already seeing in the last century [sic] a huge movement to private revelation as the source of many peoples faith.”
I think that the whole Fatima thing with its “secrets” was what really caused that.
Frankly, to me it all seems indicative of a weak or corrupted faith. Christians have faith- reasoned belief – in the person Jesus. Not in his mother, not in highly dubious predictions of future events, and certainly not in some theological concoction or mere set of dogmas.
A little belated, but I feel that I should respectfully distance myself from your apparently Eastern Orthodox stance, sweepoutthefilth.
Any similarities I might bear in my comments to Orthodoxy are incidental; the Eastern churches have their own sets of deep problems and crises, both institutionally and theologically. And their mutual “patriarchical” ideology is practically as ahistorical and problematic as the “hyperpapalist” ideology in Catholicism.
To Tom A.
“Former Sede, if my idea of the Papacy is wrong, then your notion is of an irrelevant papacy and thus an irrelevant Church. We just make up as we see fit.”
Make up what? Catholics don’t have to wait in suspense on a daily basis for the Pope to tell them what to believe. For the first 1900 years most Catholics knew nothing more about the Pope than his name, if that. I recall the story of a missionary priest who wrote to his bishops about some matter, and requested that when his bishop write back he include the name of the Pope, so he would know whose to name in the canon of the mass. He didn’t even know Pope’s name! But somehow this missionary priest still knew what he believed as a Catholic, and what others needed to know to become Catholics. That must baffle the mind of a sedevacantist.
“Whether we call it Tradition or private interpretation of scripture. It is all the same. We make it up as we go along.”
I agree that sedevacantists make it up as they go along, but they are heretics, so what do you expect? The deeper problem is that lay Catholics are delving into complicated theological and canonical matters they know nothing about, and as a result are falling into heresy. Or they are following heretical priests and being deceived by their specious theological or canonical arguments. What Protestants did with the bible, lay trads and heretical sede priests do with the writings of theologians and popes. The end result is the same. Scores of heretical sects, and deceived laity being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” before dying outside the Church and being damned for eternity.
“We are already seeing in the last century a huge movement to private revelation as the source of many peoples faith.”
When a person’s faith is weak, they turn to private revelations to supplement it.
“No FormerSede, the Pope must be the Rule of Faith and he must be protected by the Holy Ghost. If not, then there’s no logical reason to be in union with him.”
The Pope is the rule of faith. Whatever the Pope DEFINES must be believed by faith. That’s what it means to say the Pope is the rule of faith. Only what has been proposed as de fide is believed by faith, and nothing else.
“I’ll just go my own way where the ‘spirit’ takes me. .. It is no different than Luther and the charismatics.”
I agree, the sedevacantist approach is no different than Luther. You left the Church and rely on your private interpretation, not of the bible, but of magisterial documents and theologians, to judge the Church and the Pope. And what was the result? You ended up reaching the same conclusion as Luther – that the Pope is the antichrist and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.
Spend some time reading the writings of the early Protestants and you will be amazed at how similar they sound to those of the sedevacantist heretics of today.
NobisQuoquePeccatoribus wrote: “So many seem to miss the forest- faith as a reasoned belief, (Apostolic) Tradition, Who Jesus is, a proper Christian metaphysic (philosophy) -for the trees- the papacy and the Pope, trivial liturgical matters, canon law, supposed locutions and apparitions, etc..”
The “Luminous” Mysterious no less.. The new agey luciferian vibe there creeps me out.
Sedevacantism is a mostly-misused term; often, sadly, misused with malice for nefarious purposes. Everywhere, diabolic dishonesty. Lord, have mercy on us. Forgive us our sins. Purify us.
Well said. The Siscoe and Salsa book seems to try to work backward from a false assumed premise. I had really wanted to be convinced by that book and got it on pre-order. It did not prove its case.
You are a Catholic, Tom. You subscribe to the unchangeable One Holy Faith.
Acknowledging a factual truth – that there is no current pope as claimant is a blatant manifest heretic on numerous grounds.
We are to know the Faith. One is not to receive the Sacraments of Confession or Holy Communion or Confirmation without knowing the fundamental tenets of the Faith.
God bless your patience and well done for keeping to facts amid all the unjust personal attacks. It is sinful to knowingly deny the truth as is knowable by a child. One ought not pretend that Francis is a Catholic when nothing is more temporally and necessarily evident than that he is an enemy of God and the Holy Catholic Church. We may not throw Reason out, our reason serves the Faith, the Truth. Lord, have mercy.
It is in eclipse, underground. There are priests, lay Faithful, some bishops.
Of course a person can do much evil and still be a member of the Church. However, the true Faith, the true Church is by necessity all good.
The true Church cannot go against the Faith. We are to avoid heretics. We are obliged to remain in the One Holy Catholic Church.
We are to know the Faith. One is not to receive the Sacraments of Confession or Holy Communion or Confirmation without knowing the fundamental tenets of the Faith.
When you say that, do you mean jurisdiction in terms of faith, discipline, or both?
I’d argue that Apostolic Tradition is the supreme and therefore universal rule of faith.
Discipline, on the other hand- laws, customs, rites, etc. -is arguably more a matter of local and immediate jurisdiction unless a very serious crisis arises.
That’s when…and ONLY when…a synod should be convened. When the church ITSELF is in internal conflict. The church is not beholden to the world and its issues, even if it has something to say about them.
That was one of the great errors of John XXIII calling the Second Vatican Council in the first place: there was, arguably, no real need at all.