I recall those days, during my “conservative” adolescence, when it was shocking to hear Bishop Fellay, or a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, say, “Rome has lost the faith.”
Unaware of the entirely valid and utterly crucial distinction that is to be made between “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” I wondered, how could this be true?
No longer.
In any case, if ever one was compelled to question whether or not the predominant crop of men running the show in Rome today, objectively speaking, hold the Catholic faith, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided a crystal clear answer in the “resources” that it published for the so-called “Prayer for Christian Unity” for use “throughout the year 2015.”
The gist of the lengthy document – the creation of which was assigned primarily to a Brazilian ecumenical conference, the members of which represent the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession, the Episcopal Anglican Church, and the Methodist Church – consists of reflections for use in ecumenical services that focus on the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well.
In sum, it weighs-in at some 13,000 words (hey, it takes some doing to undermine nearly 2,000 years of Tradition), but as a service to readers, I personally endured the agony of wading through the text in order to select a handful of nuggets that merit closer consideration. (For those of you looking for a mortification opportunity, not to worry, you’ll be tortured plenty enough here.)
While this is a document published by a Pontifical Council, let no one be confused:
This document and the claims that it makes are in no way out of step with the “official” mindset of “Modernist Rome,” (aka the Holy See in our day), up to and including that of the pope.
The introduction to the document poses the rhetorical question, “Who drinks of this water…”
In answer to this, the modernists suggest:
The encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman invites us to try water from a different well and also to offer a little of our own. In diversity, we enrich each other.
Ah, yes… “Unity in diversity;” the ecumenical buzz phrase / motto of the Franciscan pontificate.
If we really take this nonsense to heart, we’d have to believe that the Holy Roman Catholic Church stands to be enriched by drinking from the well of Westboro Baptist Church of “God hates fags” fame.
So much for “who am I to judge,” eh?
The proposed study and meditation on this text [from the Gospel according to St. John] during the Week of Prayer is to help people and communities to realize the dialogical dimension of the project of Jesus, which we call the Kingdom of God.
The promoters of this nonsense speak as if the “Kingdom of God” is just some label invented by men who can’t seem to find any better way to describe the Lord’s work of salvation; when in truth the “Kingdom of Christ on earth is the Catholic Church.” (cf Quas Primas 12)
The document goes on to state elsewhere:
A common point in our faith, regardless of the church to which we belong, is that God is mystery beyond our comprehension. The search for Christian unity brings us to the recognition that no community has all the means to reach into the deep waters of the divine.
Obviously, those who currently dominate the halls of power in Rome no longer believe the immutable doctrine that identifies the Holy Catholic Church as that perfect society endowed by Christ with all that is necessary for fallen humankind to “reach into the deep waters of the divine.”
So why don’t they just go full bore and deny the Divinity of Christ?
Oh, yea, it looks like they did that too.
In the text of John 4, Jesus is a foreigner who arrives tired and thirsty. He needs help and asks for water. The woman is in her own land; the well belongs to her people, to her tradition. She owns the bucket and she is the one who has access to the water. But she is also thirsty. They meet and that encounter offers an unexpected opportunity for both of them.
Elsewhere in the text we find:
Jesus needed help. After a long walk, fatigue strikes … He needs water, he needs her help: everybody needs help!
Oh, yes… poor, helpless Jesus! If not for that Samaritan woman, proud owner of a bucket, He may have died of thirst on the spot!
I suppose it never occurred to these make-believe Catholics that the text of John 4 gives no indication whatsoever that Our Blessed Lord actually drank at that well, much less thanks to the benevolence of the Samaritan woman.
In fact, one of the “lessons” offered in this passage comes from the realization that the Samaritan “left her water jar” and ran off to tell the Good News of having found the Messiah, apparently without ever having filled it!
In any case, for those who see Jesus Christ as but a mere man who was dependent upon the aid of a stranger, it only makes sense that they would see the Catholic Church as dependent upon the aid of the heretics.
“Give me to drink” implies an ethical action that recognises the need for one another in living out the Church’s mission. It compels us to change our attitude, to commit ourselves to seek unity in the midst of our diversity, through our openness to a variety of forms of prayer and Christian spirituality.
Again it is confirmed; the “Rome” of today no longer believes that the Holy Catholic Church is “perfect in its nature and in its title, possessing in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei)
Rather, to these men of little faith, the Catholic Church needs the heretics’ assistance in order to live out her mission; a mission that, in the minds of the apostates, has nothing to do with calling them to conversion:
Mission is not proselytism. Those who truly announce Jesus approach others in loving dialogue, open to mutual learning, and respecting difference. Our mission requires us to learn to drink from the living water without taking hold of the well. The well does not belong to us. Rather, we draw life from the well, the well of living water which is given by Christ.
As for the unambiguous teaching of the pre-conciliar popes affirming that the Holy Catholic Church is indeed the wellspring through which the divine life flows, the Kingdom of Christ on earth, and the one true religion, that was, according to the newly enlightened men in Rome, but little more than sheer competitiveness.
Who are the true worshippers? True worshippers do not allow the logic of competition – who is better and who is worse – to infect faith. We need “wells” to lean upon, to rest and let go of disputes, competition and violence, places where we can learn that true worshippers worship “in Spirit and in Truth.”
Thanks to the example set by Pope John Paul the Great Apologizer, the churchmen of today must now beg forgiveness for the triumphalistic attitude exhibited by those Roman Pontiffs past who didn’t know any better:
Gracious God – Often our churches are led to choose the logic of competition. Forgive our sin of presumption. We are weary from this need to be first.
With this being the case, it comes as no surprise that they have long since ceased to believe, as Pope Pius XI infallibly stated, “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.”
As such, they busy themselves, at the expense of souls, searching for a false “unity” that is accessible via some as yet unidentified way, asking:
Which is the path of unity, the route we should take, so that the world may drink from the source of life, Jesus Christ? Which is the path of unity that gives proper respect to our diversity?
Let’s not beat around the bush here; this isn’t the Catholic faith, but a new one.
This new “faith” requires, of course, a new corresponding rite (as if the Novus Ordo alone isn’t novelty enough), and so the Pontifical Council proposes the following cringe-worthy, hyper-feminized pageantry as a means of symbolizing the weak, unsure, searching church that modern day Rome has come to embrace:
A path can be arranged with candles, flowers, colourful pieces of cloth… on the floor of the central aisle of the place of celebration, leading to the front of the assembly. In the center of the path, a large basin is placed and jugs of water nearby. These pitchers could be different from one another to represent the diversity of the assembly.
The celebrants may enter in procession along this path. Passing near the “well”, each representative of a participating church will slowly pour the water from a jug into the bowl. This water, from different sources, is a symbol of our unity, already present though incomplete and hidden from our eyes. This gesture should be introduced at the beginning of the celebration and may be commented upon in the preaching.
The path may be used in the preparation of the confession of sins. People come from different parts of the assembly on the way to express petitions for forgiveness.
Yes, you read that correctly; not only do these apostates encourage feel-good rituals that undermine the very cause they claim to promote, they also delight in making a mockery of the sacrament of confession.
From here, the “prayers” that are offered amount to nothing more than arrogant men dictating to God the terms of their new arrangement.
Almighty God, breathe into us the wind of unity that recognizes our diversity … Breathe into us tolerance that welcomes and makes us community … May your Spirit who hovered over the waters of chaos bring unity from our diversity … Refresh us with the water of unity drawn from our common prayer.
The wind of unity… the water of unity…
These meaningless phrases are a stellar example of what I call pseudosacral homopoetic prose; the flowery language of post-conciliar clerics no longer willing to act and speak like men, much less Apostles.
And why would they?
The evidence is in, folks, and the objective truth is they’re not even Catholic.
Scripture tells us that Our Lord posed the question: “When I return, will I find faith?” I believe He will find faith in a small remnant, but I doubt He will find faith in Rome. The Vatican is under the control of Satan, the Father of Lies and the Ultimate Master of Deceit. Rome did not “lose” the faith. The modern post Vat.2 church gave it up willingly. When the Titanic was going down, Captain Smith gave the only advice he knew to give: “Be British!” The modern church is going down like the Titanic. Now is the time to “Be Catholic!” Hold on the the True Faith. Hold on to the Church as Christ established it. Hold fast to all Her glorious Traditions. This is our life raft. “Be Catholic!!”
Is it just me, but none of Louie’s quotes are showing up in the post – just blanks?
Louie, I’m without words enough to thank you for this excellent analysis.
Thanks to the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner I found my way into the SSPX in 2005 after spending 40 years in the wilderness of the Vatican II debacle.
Peter,
If the problem persists, please let me know what browser you’re using. I can’t imagine why that would happen. Thanks.
Thanks Louie. I don’t know enough about it to be able to tell you what browser I’m using. I re-booted but its made no difference. I’m one of those fellows who just knows how to turn the car on and if it doesn’t start I’m stuck. I’ll wait and see. Thanks again. 🙂
Definitely not Catholic. Definitely not.
“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends! Rome is in apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! Certain! ”
-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlWYp1qQLA
To hear the Archbishop’s words in French is absolutely heartbreaking.
hey!!!!!!! what this LV calls bad we know is GOOD!!!!!!!! this is bc WE are EVOLVED unlike u TROG TRADITIONALISTS….. we all must OPEN TO THE WORLD & the unity in diversity….along w the blessed dirt… & SAY NO to the PROPHETS OF DOOM like this louie!!!!!!!! there4 what u NEED TO DO is drink deeply of one of my great vids, this time on Unity Stir-Fry Omega Point Jamboree at the Crystal Cathedral!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aO0nOz4ffM
Funny you didn’t quote Jesus Christ to the Samaritan Woman: “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.” John 4:22
This quote runs through my mind whenever Protestant/ Evangelicals are talking to me about their (Corinthian) worship. Samaritans were Jews with a corrupted faith and worship.
http://newlife.id.au/a-brief-history-of-the-samaritans/
Of course, those serving Satan have no interest in salvation–the thief cometh only to steal, kill and destroy. John 10:10
Here is the Profession of Faith from “Preces Gertrudenae”. You can find the free ebook on Google Play. Note the great promise Our Lord made to St. Mechtilde!
Profession of Faith
O MY God, thou ancient and absolute truth, I (N.) believe with my heart, confess with my mouth, and profess by my actions, that I most firmly believe all and every article of faith which the holy Roman Church
proposes to us to be believed, and that I will believe them to the end of my life.
And although I can in no wise understand how the
truths which the faith delivers to us are possible,
nevertheless I bring my understanding into captivity to the obedience of Christ, I revere these most sacred
mysteries with profound submission, and I beseech thee to render them availing to my salvation. And even as I now profess this faith, so I vow, promise, and swear,
in presence of all the holy angels and saints, and above all in thy presence, O most holy Trinity, that I desire
to live and die in the same. So help me God and these his holy Gospels.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Here commend thy faith to God, as follows:
for our Lord revealed to St. Mechtilde that
those who do so shall be preserved from temptations against the faith to their lives’ end.
I COMMEND this my faith to thine omnipotence, O
eternal Father, beseeching thee that thou wouldest so strengthen me therein with thy divine strength,
that I may never depart from it or waver in it.
I commend it to thine unsearchable wisdom, 0
only-be-gotten Son, beseeching thee that thou wouldest so enlighten me with the light of thy knowledge, that
I may never be led astray by the spirit of error.
I commend it likewise to thy most compassionate goodness, O Holy Ghost the Comforter, beseech-
ing thee that this my faith may so work in
me by charity, that at the hour of my death
it may be found perfect and entire.
You’re exactly right Placido! Like Fairy Tom Rosica just remarked, ‘the church must smell like the world it penetrates’ (I don’t believe (personally) that he was just making a sodomite pedophile double entendre to amuse Team B and his boss Bergoglio).
@1:20
http://www.gloria.tv/media/om8RurtFb5K
On Monday the Bishop Of Rome addressed Catholic followers regarding the dire importance of exhibiting religious tolerance. During his hour-long speech, a smiling Pope Francis was quoted telling the Vatican’s guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings contained therein, are just as valid as the Holy Bible.http://conservativebyte.com/2015/07/pope-francis-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/
Amen.
Well,well,well….
Lord, save us! Purify us! Thank you, Mr Verrechio, for your horrible job of exposing the continual heresy and apostasy and promotion of evil by the prelates in the Church, with the imprimatur of the Holy See.
I’m not able to read, listen to, this constant stream of evil from the leaders of the earthly Church. And what’s worse is the collusion of so many by silence, excuses, etc.
Thank God, for people like you who give the remnant such support and consolation. The vast majority who would’ve lambasted such apostasy before Francis, now implicitly accepting the apostasy from the top, departing from advertance to the unchangeable Deposit of Faith and morals.
Hasn’t it been said that if this time of Apostasy were not shortened, even the elect would be led astray? There, but for the grace of God . . .
N.W.O. ANYONE ?
Thank God that I have seen the light. As little as two years ago this article would have truly depressed me and sent me into a further state of confusion (How could the CATHOLIC Church promote such things??). Now however, it is just added fodder to what I now know is the only logical stance; the insanity that Louie rightfully condemns is simply par for the course of a false church led by yet another false pope.
Thank you Ock! Well this is it folks. If this quote is true, here is Bergoglio promulgating indisputable, formal, pertinacious heresies:
“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.”
Remember he stated that his homilies were Magisterial. Would any Catholic dare now to say this agent of satan is the true Vicar of Christ?
Over the centuries the surest truest way to Our Lord has always been through The Immaculate Heart of Mary. The greatest saints were nourished and brought up by Her. No Mary, No Faith. Let Them- False Rome, pray all they want, they are just words. St. Louis DeMontfort says God will raise up the greatest saints in the end times, by and with and in The Immaculate Heart. It is no coincidence these false men of God, pray and speak Christian Unity, and no good comes to the world- these pathetic pansy so-called men, have forgotten their mother. Mary s day is coming. Blessed be God forever.
Watch! This will precipitate the Great Schism!
“and the time for such a movement is now” Malachi Martin nailed it !!!!!.
With respect to all of the great posters on this site….how can anyone not see this evil man for what he is at this point?
Piokolby,
Is this the man you call true Pope?
Is this the man you seek union with?
Is this the man you pray with?
He is waiting for the cardinals to depose him (as if that could or would ever happen). The same heretics who elected him are now supposed to get rid of him….you couldnt make this nonsense up if you tried.
I believe it was in 1997 Father Martin, who read the 3rd secret of Fatima, said in an interview that it (theChastisement) would not be 200 years, 100 years or 20 years. I take him at his word on this one!
A question: I know that there are a small number of bishops who have rejected the vatican 2 false religion; is there even one cardinal alive today who has done the same? I dont believe there is one but Im not entirely sure.
WOW!!! That quote sent chills down my spine. How far off are we from the Antichrist coming to power?
This can’t be true. What is the citation? I’m not doubting you, Peter, just this is so important I would like to know where it comes from. If it is true this is beyond frightening.
Ock supplied the link above: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/07/pope-francis-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/
Barbara……Washington Post….http://washingtonpost.com.co/pope-francis-to-followers-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/
washingtonpost.com.co is different than washingtonpost.com. It seems the article is a hoax.
If you follow the links it takes you to a site called “national report” which is a hoax site.
Peter,
Yes I regard Francis as Pope (Act). He is Pope until I am told otherwise by the Church. I admit it is possible that he is a anti Pope (potency) potentially. This has become more complex because Benedict is still alive.
With that said. I will never believe that the personal faith of a laymen has the power to declare a cleric has lost his office. That is a error coming from an American heresy created in the 1970’s called sedevacantism.
I place sedevacantism in the same heretical folder in my mind as the rapture heresy. I have a general rule. If some comes from America pertaining to religion it is likely false.
Laymen simply do not have the power to depose a Pope. Clearly Francis is a heretic. Only a future Pope or council can declare him a formal heretic. I can not. Neither can you. This has happened in Church history before watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9y3RVqUtc
We are just going to have to wait. So yes I believe Frances is Pope that is my opinion. I could be wrong the Church can not be I will wait for the Church to clear up the matter.
In my useless opinion I believe a future Pope will declare Vatican II, the new rites and the whole novus ordo along with all the clerics (the Popes as well) that gave it to the world excommunicated and we will see a wholesale condemnation of the novus ordo.
I agree with Bishop Williamson on today’s Rome he said “I don’t know what is going on” I think that is a wise answer. Today we have Catholics who hold Benedict as still being Pope and those who think Frances is Pope this has happened before and we have two canonized saints one who followed the anti Pope and the other who followed the true Pope but both are saints. So I am not worried.
What we have never had is this sedevacantist heresy. If for no other reason I think Frances is Pope because we deserve him because of our sins. I think back on my many sins and my abuse of God’s grace and yes it is easy to believe that Frances is Pope he is a punishment from God.
So, can I spit out the hook, the line and the sinker? Mind you, what Louie quotes above is just about as bad.
Piokolby
The pope deposes himself via his heresy….being officially removed from office is simply “book-keeping”. Cmon now.
I had a look around and it seems that this story is a satire.
There was something about the wording of the article that made me doubt it being true, but I could not put my finder on it.
Probably like many here, I could not immediately dismiss it as a hoax story, but had to check the facts from a number of sites.
Here’s one:
http://www.thatsfake.com/did-pope-francis-say-the-bible-and-koran-were-the-same/
I should have scrolled down a bit to see that there were others already saying what I just said. Ooops.
Peter Lamb
Dont feel bad….I was taken in as well…lol.
If this story is a hoax, I sincerely apologize to all for posting it !!! “stupid is as stupid does” Sorry Peter !!!
Piokolby,
“Laymen simply do not have the power to depose a Pope.”
You are absolutely correct! Please see my comment of 20 July to S. Armaticus, under the post “Full Communion 101” in this regard:
“Dear S. Armaticus,
Your observation regarding monarchies is very interesting and very apt, because Christ’s Kingdom is a monarchy …”
The fellas would pelt me with tomatoes if I repeated it here. Let’s take it slowly, one point at a time.
Lets be honest…this story you linked is obviously “satire” but in reality the entirety of what he has already said during his “papacy” and your link arent that much different…and THAT is the scary thing.
Rich,
You need to learn act and potency: http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php
Your statement “The pope deposes himself via his heresy” if act and potency is applied in you are right in potency in act (we don’t yet know formally) you do not have the authority to declare Frances a Formal heretic.
This sin of the sedevacantist is the Mortal Sin of Usurpation. You do not have the authority to declare in this matter yet you do and then you try like all heretics to impose your sin on the Catholic conscience. No sir not going let you do that to me take a walk.
Peter,
I told you I am not going to discuss the sedevacantist heresy with you until you watch all four parts of Father Chazal’s talk on the sedevacantist heresy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_jtouIg6ElbgquobR0QCzXa3pzlpw91r
“A path can be arranged with candles, flowers, colourful pieces of cloth… on the floor of the central aisle of the place of celebration, leading to the front of the assembly.”
–
Whatever happened to the super lengthy homo-dossier compiled during the waning days of BXVI’s pontificate?
I thought this was cute:
“Jesus needed help. After a long walk, fatigue strikes … He needs water, he needs her help: everybody needs help!”
It sounds like it was written by an uncatechized 9 year old during a test or homework assignment…
🙂 🙂
Amen!
Amen to that!!!!!!
“De Maria Numquam Satis”
~ St Bernard of Clairvaux
Fr Malachi Martin was not all he seemed . http://mauricepinay.blogspot.ie/2013/07/the-file-on-malachi-martin.html
Who needs to worry about a hoax when we have the real thing? ;-( 🙁
1995: Bishop Swing- Founder of URI: United Religions Initiate:” toward unity of global economy, media, ecology,— what is missing is a global SOUL.”
(from his book and charter)
— Its code: Hans Küng’s “Global Ethic” and the Earth Charter
(the new Ten Commandments per Gorbachev);
–its creed: “UNITY IN DIVERSITY” (That rings a bell)
— its cult: The “sacred Earth.”
–The new sins: pollution, overpopulation, “fundamentalism,”
— Heresy: religious orthodoxy.
========
1997: J.Davis,interfaith minister:”We’ve never seen any organization build coalitions as quickly or as successfully as the URI.”
========
2007: Jorge Bergoglio invited Swing to celebrate URI’s 10th anniversary in the Metropolitan Cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
========
2015: Former Sec. of St. George Schultz singled out URI testifying (Jan 29th) to the
US Senate Armed Serv. Committee on global threats and national security strategy,
“the kind of positive, non-military approach that WE MUST SUPPORT TO DEAL WITH THE RISING VIOLENCE OF RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM.”
“The URI issues: Conflict transformation, economic development, EDUCATION HEALTH CARE, nuclear DISARMAMENT refugee and displacement and WOMENS’EMPOWERMENT nterfaith –groups, are called Cooperation Circles. Now -more than 665 COOPERATION CIRCLES in 85 countries,
Currently -Largest interfaith organization in the world.
Not that any of us need more convincing, but ….
.. on a recent trip to Brazil, Pope Francis met with representatives of Candomble.
“The post asked: If the Pope embraces reconciliation with Candomblé, with real, human, interface between leaders, why shouldn’t Catholics also embrace practitioners of Voodoo? Or indigenous African religions? Or modern Paganism, for that matter? INDEED THE POPE’S NEW ATTITUDE IS NEEDED MORE NOW THAN EVERY BEFORE. We live in a world where human beings, fueled by religious beliefs, are persecuting and killing one another in increasingly disturbing incidents. WHAT BETTER TIME FOR A POPE TO EMPHATICALLY EMBRACE AN INTERFAITH MISSION? A MISSION THAT HAD BEEN BLUNTED DURING THE PAPACY OF BENEDICT, BUT NOW, HOPEFULLY, WILL BEAR NEW FRUIT.”
__
*** Wicki NOTE:Cadomble : is a syncretic religion, practiced mainly in Brazil (name means dance in honor of the gods) First temple built in 1800’s now two million followers. –Absorbed elements of Roman Catholicism. Oral tradition, believes in a Supreme Creator called Oludumaré, who is served by lesser deities, which are called Orishas. Every practitioner is believed to have their own orisha, which controls his or her destiny. Dances enable worshippers to become POSSESSED by the orishas. There are priests and priestesses. Candomblé does not include good and evil.
No need to insult 9-year olds! My guess is a 5-year old.
Dear Louie,
As always, a very perceptive and excellent article on what is happening in the Church today. Clearly, these modern churchmen have lost the faith and the faith they now profess is right in line with Pope Francis. They are to be avoided at all costs.
“Rome itself will lose the faith”, said Our Lady. Now all we need to do is sit back and await the arrival of the Anti-Christ. I’m sure the apostate clerics will welcome him.
1Cor5: 9..
“I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with… the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world. “
I agree Rich. My reason says I was baptized Catholic in 1961. I know what the Church taught in 1961 by examining the history and tradition of the Catholic Church up to that point. I know that what the false churchmen in Rome and their imposter pope teach often substantially opposes what the Catholic Church has always taught through Scripture and Tradition , therefore I feel free, no.. duty bound… to reject any innovation and any false gospel.
The kind of fairy crap that Louie exposes in his article is one of the major reason why real men are leaving the Vatican II false church in droves.
Ok Piokolby,
I’m gonna start on part I. I hope it’s worth it, because 52 minutes on YouTube will use a lot of my data time. In the meantime, you read my comment to S Armaticus to start getting a few facts straight, so you don’t spout crap in ignorance. 🙂
Piokolby
I am not intelligent enough to decipher what you linked to me. If you, or anyone else, could sort of summarize it, Id appreciate it. Thanks.
Even reading the small excerpts of this work here caused me to vomit uncontrollably multiple times. I now need a new laptop. Perhaps I should mosey on over to the nearest Prosperity Gospel church, free of the “logic of competition” – and any other form of logic for that matter – and pray to acquire one.
I managed to clean off the monitor, but then came upon this next one:
“A path can be arranged with candles, flowers, colourful pieces of cloth… on the floor of the central aisle of the place of celebration, leading to the front of the assembly. In the center of the path, a large basin is placed and jugs of water nearby. These pitchers could be different from one another to represent the diversity of the assembly.”
If satan possessed Caitlyn Jenner long enough to write a document on “ecumenism” for the Catholic Church I think it would NOT AS BAD AS THIS.
Rich,
Sorry this video from Father Hesse on Catholic definitions will explain Act and Potency well listen to the whole video it is worth it these definitions are key to understanding the crisis of today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDcB_zJ5jCU
That link is to a satire site (or the story quotes from the satire site). Click through the “continue reading” button and look at the other articles.
There’s enough real stuff to deal with with Francis without mixing it with fabrications.
Sad thing is, with him, such words are actually plausible
My grandmother used to say, “People do what they want to do.” And they believe what they want to believe. I’m becoming ever more convinced that, with rare exceptions, will trumps reason.
“…amount to nothing more than arrogant men dictating to God the terms of their new arrangement…” This could aptly sum up the concilar New Order ‘church’. Louie said: “In sum, it weighs-in at some 13,000 words (hey, it takes some doing to undermine nearly 2,000 years of Tradition)”. Excellent point. This is why the modernist suffers from chronic logorrhoea.
–
“…If not for that Samaritan woman, proud owner of a bucket, He may have died of thirst on the spot!” LOL. What an obvious ‘oversight’ by the N.O. Wizards. “the Samaritan “left her water jar” and ran off to tell the Good News of having found the Messiah, apparently without ever having filled it!” The New Order makes a materalistic distortion of the ‘woman at the well’ and, in typical fashion, subverts the truth of a profoundly supernatural encounter: “After any water, or any drink, a man naturally thirsts again; but Christ speaks of the spiritual water of grace in this life, and of glory in the next, which will perfectly satisfy the desires of man’s immortal soul for ever…Our Lord foretells her that sacrifices in both these temples (Jewish and Samaritan) should shortly cease, giving her these three instructions: 1. That the true sacrifice should be limited no longer to one spot or nation, but should be offered throughout all nations… 2. That the gross and carnal adoration by the flesh and blood of beasts, not having in them grace, spirit, and life, should be taken away, and another sacrifice succeed, which should be in itself invisible, divine, and full of life, spirit, and grace… 3. That this sacrifice should be truth itself, whereof all former sacrifices were but shadows and figures. He calleth here spirit and truth that which, in the first chapter (v.17) is called grace and truth.” Haydock.
Nothing to be sorry about Ock!
Let us all read the popes fave book Lord of the World. That I suspect is the key to understanding all of this mumbo jumbo. Lord have mercy on all our souls.
@ piokolby:
Thanks for the link.
The latest from The Remnant website:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1877-down-with-the-sunshine-of-vatican-ii
How can we expect orthodoxy from THIS!!!!!!
Pacido,
The video window comes up with a message saying, “This video is private. Sorry about that.” instead of the video. Have you been censored?
Actually Rich, Bergoglio has deposed himself both in act and potency in terms of Divine law, but only in potency in terms of canon law. I’m doubt Piokolby understands the distinction between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy.
Actually, sedevacantism is merely a terminology pertaining to periods of interregnum when the Chair of St. Peter is not occupied by a true Pope, due to death, usurpation, or when the identity of the true Pope is unknown.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. In other words, heresy is a belief, or opinion, contrary to orthodox Catholic faith.
To describe sedevacantism as a heresy is therefore nonsensical.
The “eminent” Piero Miring said this upon the election of Francis:
“It’s a breath of fresh air; it’s opening a window onto springtime and onto hope. We had been breathing the waters of a swamp and it had a bad smell. We’d been in a church afraid of everything, with problems such as Vatileaks and the paedophilia scandals. With Francis we’re talking about positive things”
If that was the case with poor Benedict, which I don’t believe. But, we are now stewing in the bottom of a septic tank!
Peter Lamb,
–
I felt I needed to reply to your vulgar comment from the previous post:
–
“You persist!
“As soon as I provide you with an opportunity to have this issue discussed you shut the door for discussion firmly shut?”
Read the comments more carefully Hoc!
What I said was:
“I was struck by the fact that neither Louie, nor any commentator in that post, raised the question of whether the NO eucharist is valid … I would be very grateful if these matters could be examined in depth AT SOME STAGE.”
The clear implication was that I recognized this to be Louie’s site and that I would be grateful for a post, subject to his discretion and at his convenience, regarding the validity of the NO sacraments, which would allow extended, in depth discussion on the subject.
You responded by providing me with a number of your preconceived ideas regarding the validity of the NO sacraments and a link.
I replied: “This [your link], I would love to discuss IN AN APPROPRIATE SPECIAL POST.”
Crikey mate, don’t you get plain English? Starting a lengthy OT debate in this post, I considered then and consider now, inappropriate. This is not firmly shutting the door! It’s just the opposite – I’m seeking an opportunity to throw the door wide open! Why can’t you get that? Instead you rather uncharacteristically rant into a series of disjointed, irrational, insulting attacks on my integrity. You must have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning Hoc. In this one you did not do yourself proud.
“In short: you ain’t foolin’ me. And I hope you’re not foolin’ anyone else on this site either.”
What a stupid, inane remark!”
——————————————-
First off, watch your vulgar language and your “ad hominem” attacks. I’ve lived in the UK and realize calling someone “mate” in such a kind of conversation between strangers is disrespectful. You can call my remarks “irrational or disjointed” all you want, but you’re not answering my arguments.
2nd – cut the BS, please. You know perfectly well that the topic could be moved to the forum but you haven’t shown any willingness to do so. Furthermore, that you should be whining about my alleged desire to have the discussion (which you requested) on the post itself (a false conclusion you reached at purely on supposition), is laughable, and seriously, just grotesquely hypocritical, considering your fondness for hijacking virtually every one of Louie’s posts to push your sedevacantist agenda.
3rd – considering your non-stop desire to promote sedevacantism, it is more than obvious that your real intention in holding such a “discussion” is not to look at the available evidence which disproves your beliefs (which I have already provided but you have shown no willingness to discuss), but to direct and guide the comment section towards your sedevacantist beliefs – a most dishonest act.
Look – I personally have no problem with sedevacantists (De Maria, Salvemur, Rich? etc), what I do detest most profoundly is hypocrisy and dishonesty.
–
I’ll say it again: you ain’t foolin’ me (I could add the vulgar “mate” here if you wish)…
If you think you have seen everything, watch this video, especially 36:32 to 40:30.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/#.VbJoS6Sqqkr
Hoc,
This sort of talk is neither pleasant, edifying, nor constructive. Moving on!
Dear Peter,
It’s abuse from start to finish. Makes us wonder if he ever had a vocation, and again, the Bishop is greatly at fault for fostering this, or it wouldn’t be as entrenched as it obviously was by the time of this “retirement-party-Mass” video.
__
For a refreshing contrast and a look at the other possibilities for the N.O, take a look at this other Novus Ordo Mass video: https://youtu.be/Ish5zre-SRA
__
(We’d ask the pastor to enforce a no-pants dress code for female lectors, but other than that one problem, it seems to us very well done, -including the Communion.
It’s back in private mode.
How can a Novus Ordo service ever be well done? Hurtling into the abyss at 50 mph rather than 500 mph still portends doom.
Dear AlphonsusJr
Did you watch any of it before asking this question?
AlphonsuJr,
Do you know why Placido put it back in private mode?
Only priests, deacons or those with the minor order of Lector, ought to be a lector during Holy Mass. Sadly, I was brought up with the people-centred subversion of the Mass. I read a reading at the Mass for my First Holy Communion.
Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last;
but a woman who fears the Lord will be greatly praised.
Proverbs 31:30
We agree. We fully expect that when Our Lady’s heart Triumphs this novelty that catered to feminists will be promptly put back in “Pandora’s box” and locked tight by one capable of doing something like that– perhaps he whom the book of revelations says is to “rule with an iron rod”. Both of us get accused of being ant-women because of this issue as well as our stand on altar boys and Eucharistic ministers. But as the above video shows, even Communion in the hand can be ousted after all these years. The priest announced a Latin Mass for the following week’s Feast day, so it looks to us like he may have been attempting to acquaint people with their rich heritage- in stages.
p.s. this comment was in response to Lynda’s.
We agree with yours too, Em, but would add that (IOHO) being virtuous and being praised for it, doesn’t also require their needing to be in the Sanctuary doing the work of deacons and priests.
And what a good time to reflect on the ten virtues of Our Blessed Mother…
Most pure,
Most prudent,
Most humble,
Most faithful,
Most devout,
Most obedient,
Most poor,
Most patient,
Most merciful,
Most sorrowful
St Louis de Montfort
And with Scriptural references…
The “Ten Evangelical Virtues” are as follows:
Most Pure (Mt 1:18, 20, 23; Lk 1:24,34)
Most Prudent (Lk 2:19; 51)
Most Humble (Lk 1:48)
Most Faithful ( Lk 1:45; Jn 2:5)
Most Devout (Lk 1:46-47; Acts 1:14)
Most Obedient (Lk 1:38; 2:21-22; 27)
Most Poor (Lk 2:7)
Most Patient (Jn 19:25)
Most Merciful (Lk 1:39, 56)
Most Sorrowful (Lk 2:35)
“True devotion to our Lady is holy, that is, it leads us to avoid sin and to imitate the virtues of Mary. Her ten principal virtues are:
deep humility, lively faith, blind obedience, unceasing prayer, constant self-denial, surpassing purity, ardent love,
heroic patience, angelic kindness, and heavenly wisdom”
– From True Devotion to Mary, no.108
Yes, I have just reread that wonderful book. How closely Father Benson gets to our present day crisis. I see the sheep we have now also closely foretold in the people in the book. Propaganda is very powerful.
–
As well the old trick of create a crisis then bring forward the solution has worked wonderfully well.
–
Francis is the solution to the ‘reformation’ of the Church so muddled by the post Vatican II crowd. And look at how the masses love him.
–
We can take some comfort in that the masses are so fickle that they are already starting to tire of Francis’ nonsense. The scary part is that the next ‘leader’ will have to be off the charts to keep the crowd entertained. God help us.
Louie, have been reading your blog the last 6 months or so. You are spot on with your analysis and criticisms. My only criticism is that you should be compelled to take the logical leap forward as accepting sedevacantism as the only rational conclusion in our present crisis. If however, you accept this Pope’s legitimacy you have to accept His authority.
AlphonsusJr,
No the new mass can never be well done it is objectively evil. Don’t waste your time with Indignus famulus. They defend the new mass they are adherents to the new religion of Vatican II. They are trapped in newchurch and insist they are good Catholics while still attending the new mass. They have been given a ton of information on the Mass and they reject it. They think 2+2=4 & 5 They have the theological AIDS.
Dear Mattbrac, I understand that a pope remains pope until there is formal heresy pronounced by him. Now, we all know that Francis is continually pronouncing material heresy but it is arguably not yet been made manifest that he intends heresy. He hasn’t explicitly said he intends for his material heresies to be against Tradition, the Deposit of Faith. Of course, we may not follow material heresy.
I think Fr Hesse explained it very well in this discussion on Tradition and the Papacy. I recommend those who haven’t to listen to it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wSfRcc-e5SY
Dear piokolby,
Time to take some of your own advice from a response you gave yesterday to a Sede:
“You do not have the authority to declare in this matter yet you do and then you try like all heretics to impose your sin on the Catholic conscience. No sir not going let you do that..” 🙂 🙂
The video speaks for itself.
Amen. Ave Maria Regina caeli et terra. 🙂 🙂
Beats me!
Accept his authority, yes. Accept his abuse of authority, no.
That comment was directed at me. Any idiot that knows his/her faith is MORE than capable of discerning heresy….one need not be a high-ranking member of the vatican 2 hierarchy nor a learned theologian to call a spade a spade when it comes to those who have abandoned Catholicism….and what said abandonment of the Faith entails. Many good (misguided) Catholics feel that it is right and proper to be in communion with a heretic by attending masses which acknowledge the man (or past men), who masquerades as their leader, as somehow being a leader of Catholics. We defame this man and his words daily on this blog…..and yet some, for whatever reason, still proclaim him to be something he cannot possibly be. I do not understand this faulty logic.
I think that in the minds of most R&R Catholics, whether they admit to it or not, there are DEGREES of heresy (for them at least). In other words, if bergoglio tomorrow said that the Catholic Church was never the true Church of Christ and that we have been deceived for 2000 years, basically every R&R Catholic would probably totally abandon the vatican 2 religion and its popes all together and recognize the sedevacantist point of view…..until something crazy like that happens however, they keep hoping against hope. R&R’s are waiting for the atomic bomb to drop; a simple mortar round is more than enough for sede’s.
Dear Rich,
The bottom line here should be, that Louie welcomes all of us, knows our views are sometimes very different from one another, and wishes to run a blog and combox that allow for respectful ongoing discussions, or simply statements of opinions, without personal attacks resulting. If you or anyone else believes that everyone must conclude what you do, and therefore speak and behave as you do, or else deserve to be insulted and/or berated as either unfaithful, or ignorant, then you are not cooperating with Louie’s stated intentions; are, making it unpleasant for others, and are less likely to be open to information which you may need to correct your thinking in any area where you are mistaken.
__
After a while, It frankly also gets rather boring to have to repeat and repeat to the same people, the reasons we believe the Pope is a separate case from other heretics so it’s not our place to judge him as you choose to do, and that your statements against the N.O. are contradicted by reputable Catholic leaders, like Cardinal Burke, with whom we agree because our experiences have shown us they are right.
You’ve heard these facts often enough to know them. Louie came on a short while ago and basically said “enough already”, let the Sede issue about the Popes go. Why is it you are’t listening to him, and are continuing to repeat these things and act with hostility?
Not a single Novus Ordo ‘Cardinal’. Even the much touted Cardinal Siri who, rumours would have it, was the real electee at the ’58 conclave. The apostasy at the level of the Cardinalate, Rich, is pretty much blanket.
Louie’s last post on this topic was entitled “Combox” June 21, 2015 In it, he said,
QUOTE:
I want this to be a place where people can engage in frank but charitable conversation about the Catholic faith without fear of being moderated to death just because they disagree with the post or the prevailing opinions of other commenters.
__
…Just be civil, and when a disagreement reaches an impasse, shake the dust from your feet and move on…. So far, this approach has worked really well. There have been nearly 20,000 comments posted here in the past few years and I’ve never had to remove a commenter for being consistently uncharitable.
__
More pressing at the moment
Comments should be related to the posted topic. Of course, tangential matters will frequently come up, and within reason, that’s just fine. It can lead to some great conversation.
What I’m not going to allow is for the com box to be treated like a mini blog site for any one, or group of commenter’s pet topic. In fact, this is the only reason I have ever banned a commenter who was otherwise polite and well behaved .
Lately, sedevacantism has become the pet topic that has cropped up in post after post, turning each comment section into a debate on that one topic. Enough already.
Look, I went to a lot of trouble and expense to create a Forum on this site where all are encouraged to zero in on any number of topics. That’s where the sedevacante debate usually, but not always, belongs.
Obviously, I don’t endorse the theory, but I am sympathetic to those who do. We’re all just doing our best to make sense out of this terrible crisis, so in that regard, we have way more in common than either of us do with the nitwits who can’t make excuses for the pope fast enough.
In short, I welcome their participation here, provided it falls in line with what is said above.
Lastly, please know that I’m grateful for all who comment here. Seriously, the depth of insight in the combox here alone is a benefit to readers, and I’ve learned from them as much as anyone.
“Most Holy Mary, I know the graces which thou hast obtained for me. And I know the ungratitude I have shown thee…” pg 159, Raccolta online: https://archive.org/details/theraccoltaorcol00unknuoft
A public heretic has no jurisdiction in the Church of Christ (why people cannot see that God made this so for our own good, and reiterated it time and again through His Bride…who can say?) What this means is that though someone is the so-called ‘pope-elect’, (but there are solid Catholic arguments (which I haven’t seen anyone make a good refutation of other than, ‘well, that’s just too hard to accept’) for why an heretical Cardinalate can not possibly have jurisdicition to elect anyone), he is no more than an authority approved by God than the Archbishop of Cantebury. There is a profound distinction. The difference between choosing to be in concord with Henry VIII or in concord with Pope Clement VII. Those in concord with VII CANNOT possibly be in concord with Christ. This means there is no ‘bridge’; no ‘continuity’. The VII Institution, lauded or loathed by VII-adherent ‘catholics’ and loved by the world, has no concord with the Catholic Church, which VII reduced to a ‘remnant’.
IF
I comment here very infrequently when compared to most posters. I was simply pointing out that the comment by piokolby was directed at me. I am surely a sede and will continue to be. I visit this site because I see true Catholicism here, both by Louie and the posters. As strongly as you stand for bergoglio I stand against him. At the end of the day, whether or not he is an actual pope is ALWAYS going to be the underlying debate. I do not push my “agenda” on this site but I cannot simply remain totally silent either.
IF
Lastly, I dont believe I have ever acted with “hostility” as you claim. If I have I apologize….but I dont believe I have.
We really need to define what “Rome has lost its faith” mean. Does it mean the Pope becomes a formal heretic? Does it mean the citizen of Rome lost their Catholic Faith? Does “Rome has lost its faith” contradict with Christ’s promise that gate of hell would not prevail against the Church(I would say NO because in Church history Pope Honorius was declared a heretic after his death)? So I guess Christ’s promise is not about the Pope but as long as there are some people still hold on to the Catholic Faith. Just like Honorius I think Christ intended to have a Pope there we just don’t listen to him when he teaches heresy.
A pope who teaches heresy separates himself from the Church and can therefore not lead it. Christ never intended anything…He is God, and therefore perfect, and therefore knows all. He has no need to “intend” anything as He already knows everything.
Eternal Rome belongs to the Voice of Our Shepherd.
–
The other and very tolerant ‘feel good stay where you’ ahhhh…that’s usually the something a 15-cent-germanic decided that God and the Church were adversaries to.
I haven’t read this particular speech by the Pope and frankly I’m not sure I would care to.
What I do know is that Islam is a heresy, made up out of various pagan Jewish and Catholic bits and pieces, put together by a deranged mind, by a man who by any standards today would be locked up, and added to over some centuries by others concerned with justifying the resulting violent imperial expansion of the Muslim world which goes on to this day and in Europe and Africa is assuming increased virulence.
The Koran apart from a few little incidental bits of Catholicism, is a heretical and extremely dangerous collection of writings.
“…What I do know is that Islam is a heresy…” You said it, very few have the **** to say it. What it equals is that evil creeps use heresy to throw another fail on the back of Our Lord…and most go, ‘well…’
Dear Salvemur
Thank you for the link…what a treasure trove, now at hand on downloaded PDF
For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle ?
1Cor 14:8
Problems? What problems?
“There is nothing progressive about solving problems by eliminating a human life.” That is what “mafiosi do. There is a problem: we get rid of this guy . . .”
Pope Francis
Yes that is indeed the scary part. If Francis is just the warm up act what will the next pope be like? Yes God help us!
There is a significant Judaizing aspect of this modern heresy. There is also an internal logic in it reflected in the modern liturgy.
The Jews believe the Messiah has not yet arrived but is to come in some future time. So too were the problems with Joachim of Flores, who believed an ‘age of the Spirit’, not yet then present in the then 13th century, would shortly arrive, with Marx that the proletariat revolution would inaugurate a new age of communism, and, the most insidious one of all, the ‘progressivism’ of the British/Anglo-Americans, that the use of reason and science would lead us step-by-step both away from the obscurantism of superstition and religion, of “monkish ignorance and superstition”, to a perfectly enlightened society. All of these movements — and there are many others of different kinds and degrees — have these two things in common: 1) a belief that the present times and society is only a passing phase to a more perfect and future, but always temporal, society; and 2) that this future society to come into being will be temporal and earthly.
Is it not true that in the post-1969 Roman Rite “Ordinary Time” has replaced the Sundays of Pentecost? The post-1969 Roman Rite suggests that Ordinary Time is in preparation of the Feast of Christ the King, which happens to be the last day of the liturgical year of the post-1969 Roman Rite? Doesn’t this give the overall impression that the Kingdom of God is not really at hand, but that the Kingdom of God is a temporal event to occur in some future time?
Our traditional Catholic notions of Earth and Heaven are being eradicated, so too the so-too Augustinian distinction between the City of God and the City of Man.
No wonder Holy Scripture proclaims — nay, may I say shouts out — repeatedly that the Kingdom of God is at hand! For the Eternal is ever here and now and our faith is not in vain, as we pray to our Father “… thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Hey folks,
with great effort and deliberation, constant assiduous reading and meditating, I believe, the truth and revelation has been granted to me, which I wish to reveal upon you all. Here goes…..drum roll please…..:
Placido and AlphosusJr. are one and the same person!!!
I believe you are absolutely correct Rich. I thought that the atomic bomb had just landed when I read that link that turned out to be a hoax. That’s why I got so excited.
Alarico, you have put it in a nut shell:
“1) a belief that the present times and society is only a passing phase to a more perfect and future, but always temporal, society; and
2) that this future society to come into being will be temporal and earthly.”
This is the dreamed of New World Order. This is the dream of the Jews, that when the messiah comes, they will have all the gold and silver in the world. This is the Church of Man, when lucifer will reign.
Dear Rich, We do not defame Francis. That would be gravely sinful. Defamation is false witness. We speak the publicly-known truth.
Danielpan,
“Rome has lost its faith” means that the Catholic hierarchy no longer promulgates – has lost – the Catholic Faith. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, because there will always be a remnant of true Catholics, be it large, or tiny, many, or few and the Church resides in its Members, not in buildings. There has never been a heretical Pope in the history of the Church. There have been plenty of bad Popes, but not heretical ones, until Roncalli. A Catholic must submit without reservation to the Magisterium of a true Pope. That is Catholic doctrine in concrete. To sift the teaching of a true Magisterium, is the definition of heresy.
Dear Salvemur,
The heretical, material pope has lost his jurisdiction, but maintains legitimate designation and therefore the right to legitimately designate himself. In other words, the material pope may legitimately appoint new cardinals and archbishops and the material cardinals may legitimately elect a new Pope.
In this way the Perpetual Succession of Peter is maintained in accordance with the infallible teaching of Vatican I. Any of these designatees may instantly regain their jurisdiction by conversion to the Catholic Faith.
Dear Lynda,
There is no sin in material heresy, because the man does not know that what he is expounding is heresy. Bergoglio has had a Jesuit’s training. I very much doubt that there is anything in the Catholic Faith that he does not know about, or understand. His heresies are not therefore material, nor are they occult (hidden), they are manifest, or else we would not know about them. They are pertinacious, therefore formal, because he stubbornly sticks to them, repeats them and promulgates them to the Universal Church through his Magisterium. Bergoglio has lost his jurisdiction by committing the sin of heresy, but maintains his designation as material pope. He is not a Member of the Catholic Church and no Catholic may follow him, or pray with him – he is anathema.
rich,
this is absolutely correct. The Divine Essence if pure Act.
that should read *is* pure Act.
Peter,
I think the “Judaizing” propensity of the modern heresy is a logical result of intending a syncretism of all religions, especially the three major monotheistic ones. As you Sedevacantists argue, the aim of the modernists are to create a future union which is spiritually and metaphysically greater than Christ, in which the Church of Christ will be absorbed; the complete opposite of restoring all things in Christ.
A theology in which God and his Word are not one, and in which the Word of God is not consubstantial with the Father.
rich,
you’re addressing something very important here. What you describe is among the multiplicity of effects of the Heresy of Modernism. For the sake of brevity, the recognize & resister succumbs to Modernist thinking even though many actually will attest to the “fact” that they are immune, if you will. This is why you will often find the resister seeking that one “orthodox” statement coming out of the mouth a blatant heretic -and actually defend such a statement as a good- when in reality an orthdox tidbit here & there is a Lucerian tactic which makes the heresy of Modernism that illusive synthesis of which Pope St Pius X speaks.
Dear Mr Lamb, Yes, the material heresies (which are many) are easily proven. However, formal heresy, to include full knowledge and intent, must also be proven. If the pope denies any intent to go against the Deposit of Faith and morals, the accuser must prove otherwise. He has the presumption of innocence. The onus of proof is on the accuser. (In Francis’s case, I think it would be possible to prove knowledge and intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. This ought to be done by a cardinal or bishop, preferably a group. However, if the pope denies intent, he must be fairly tried to prove otherwise.)
Did you listen to Fr Hesse on the issue?
Dear Alarico, Pope Francis is acting as if he’s the Head of such an evil religion, which gives the moral and spiritual support to the evil NWO tyrannical world government, already in operation. Motus in fine Velocior. Lord, preserve us from apostasy.
Sad to say the stench has surrounded, permeated, the Vatican, modern theology and modern philosophy for 150 years. It will take a purging hurricane-force wind to blow it all away. Will Our Heavenly Father provide it, or will He allow us to sink/stink further and farther before He sends the Breath of Life – The Holy Spirit to revive an almost-dead Church?
Lynda, sorry you were such a poor little mite that was told something so wrong. You and I both know Our Lady was watching over you that day, and she has brought you to this day…
–
Please forgive me for hijacking your comment but the ‘reply’ sections have all been taken up just above your comment.
–
I’m dismayed at the name-calling, and mean-spirited harangues that pass for comments here sometimes. If I have been guilty I’m happy for someone to tell me so I can be more thoughtful in future.
–
I mostly skip comments when they start to get really silly and boring. BUT, can we just think what a ‘stranger’ reading one of Louie’s excellent posts, and then scrolling down to the comments, must think?
–
Have we turned anyone away from learning truth because we get into these nitty-gritty wrangles? Does the wrangling show a lack of cohesion in our Traditional Catholic beliefs? When we slam the Pope instead of his words and actions, or a bishop, or priest instead of a violated principle what example of reasoned argument do we give?
–
Hey, I’m no saint – I’ve been snippy in comments, or shown anger towards Francis and others. But I am now aware that the world reads Louie’s blog. I’m going to try from now on be think before I write.
Let’s not intend to know God’s intent. God is in charge and any power that anyone has comes from Him. It is Catholic teaching to believe that God gives us bad leaders because we DESERVE them. I think it’s our own pride that tells us we somehow are righteous and deserve the perfect Holy Pope. It would be perfectly within God’s right to allow such a horror Pope for those that claim to be Catholic and yet have abandoned His laws. I can’t see anyone that seeks Truth, recognizes the errors of the Pope and lives to be Holy as anything other than blessed by Grace. And hopefully winning the crown of victory through all the chaos by remaining focused on Christ and Mary. We’re living in unparalleled times through chaos we’re not responsible for. And we follow Christ because we LOVE HIM!
The horror of mass apostasy will be worse than you can imagine. Remember the definition of apostasy is the full repudiation of the Christian faith. Not what some on these boards would have us believe, like anyone that attends the NO. If you want a taste of real apostasy read comments on a liberal news site. Especially on the subject of religion. You will see the most vile, evil, blasphemous insults against God that will make your jaw drop.
The syncrenistic melding of the religions serves to dilute the Truth and divert attention away from the real aims of Talmudism. Which is to gain total control over the others and eliminate the “idolators”. The NWO. Eliminating the true order/logos/Christ. Under the “messiah” or in reality, antichrist.
Dear Rich,
The tone may have been taken as hostile in this and other cases, when it was not your intention. The persistence of many Sedes here in pushing Sede ism even AFTER Louie’s intervention, is itself a form of hostility, even if you or others insist it is just a natural reaction, as he has asked for it to stop, and it becomes a form of harassment when almost every post of a non sede is attacked with the same or similar arguments that they are blind to the realities, in effect.
You are forgiven, we are sure, for all the unintentionally hostile remarks. You don’t seem to be dealing fairly with the overall effect of the continual “harassment” of those who think differently than you and the others who insist on continuing this so frequently.
despite the ongoing aggravation that causes a number of posters here,
God Bless us all, sincerely.
Bingo. It’s not brain surgery guys.
In our day, A Pope that teaches heresy (he has not done so ex cathedral) is in perfect line with the vast majority of the Church. This is the chastisement. Do you think if Francis suddenly had a Damascus conversion and began preaching that everything would roll back to 1950? The same people would reject him! Benedict showed glimpses of orthodoxy and people were up in arms. We got the Pope we deserve thanks to the millions upon millions of Catholics that seek after easy feel good Christianity. Because a tiny handful of sedevacantist believe the Pope must perfect in their eyes in order to be Pope doesn’t make it so.
Meant to say… if he began preaching like Pius X.
James,
objectively speaking what you say here bypasses the Primacy of Peter. We cannot mix the category -” bad leaders” with the Papacy. Because of the Primacy, no analogies can be made here. The Authority which the Supreme Pontiff possesses eminates directly from His Majesty Jesus Christ to His Vicar. A man who speaks heresy, even within the Universal & Ordinary Magisterium, does not possess the Authority of the Keys, therefore such a one cannot be Christ’s Vicar. We can be punished in many ways, I am sure in ways that we cannot imagine now, as you say. But no, we cannot be punished with a horrible pope, if by horrible you mean an heretic. That is impossible. So far, all this applies even in times prior to VII.
***
From VII was borne that which is not the Bride of Christ, but a different non-Catholic sect-of which the man who calls himself Francis has been the head since early 2013.
Infallibility is a very narrow charism with certain conditions that must be met. It’s laid out in Vatican I. Unless he exercises infallibility the speaks as himself, the man, with his free will and is capable of speaking error.
De Maria, do you believe Francis, along with the bishops of the world, is capable of consecration Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary?
Lynda,
I think you are referring to the ecclesiastical trial which must precede a formal declaration of his deposition by the proper authorities (Cardinals), for committing the canonical crime of heresy. The formal declaration being made in the interest of good Church governance. The Cardinals elected him Pope, i.e. designated him and they have the power to withdraw that designation from him by declaring him deposed.
However, he has long before that terminal stage of legal proceedings, committed the sin of heresy. His authority (jurisdiction), comes not from men, but from God. No man can rescind a Pope’s authority – only God can and He does so when the pope sins against the Divine law by committing the mortal sin of formal heresy. We then have precisely the situation we are currently in – a material pope, legally designated, but without jurisdiction, ensconsed in the Chair of Peter until the proper authorities, death, or resignation remove him.
I don’t want to start a war by saying that I don’t think Fr. Hesse is good reading, or listening, on anything except viticulture.
James,
We don’t say he must be perfect, we just say he mustn’t be a heretic. 🙂
It is a veritable treasure trove – and a source of great mercy.
Dear Indignus,
What you are really saying is sedes please keep quiet, or better still go away. We don’t want to hear your story, or to think about it, or to really debate it according to Catholic doctrine. We want warm, comfortable chats among like minded Catholics who never ruffle our feathers and agree with our version of events. We know that we are right and that is that.
If anyone is interested there is a site called Jihad Watch which sends me a daily news updates on the Islamic world.
As Fr Cekada says – these folks are ‘cardboard’ prelates – for display purposes only.
–
“[The First Vatican Council’s] definition [of Perpetual Succession] was in fact directed against heretics who taught that St. Peter’s special power from Christ died with him and was not passed along to his successors, the popes. “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual – not limited to Peter, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
PS. To the argument for a legitimate ‘election’ I mentioned above, in a talk by Fr Cekada he asks the question of whether or not an heretical cardinalate can legitmately elect anyone. If they cannot, if Bergoglio converted to the faith tomorrow he still could not be a pope as his election was not legitimate. If I understand this aspect of the argument correctly that is how it runs. Either way, none of the changes imposed by these men have any legitimacy as the ‘chair is vacant’ – a time when the power of the Church is basically put into neutral until a valid successor takes up the reins again.
Thanks Salvemur. I did not know, or appreciate the distinction between “perpetual SuccessION” and Perpetual SuccessORS”. That is most interesting and informative.
So right, James,
The URI has gone world-wide into schools with their Free “Talk-back -to-hate” kits , telling kids how to identify and report it and write letters to their local reps to pass legislation against it.
Their ” pledge” is
” to be a voice for respect and acceptance, and to take action with others in my school, workplace, home, community, or place of worship to create a more safe, accepting and inclusive environment. I will stay alert to all forms of hate speech and discrimination in my area and take steps to prevent and discourage these acts of hate.” Their website includes all religions and the LGBT community in theses groups they are protecting, of course.
Bet we can guess how they’d classify the Bible’s teachings against sodomy today.
Dear Mr Lamb, Fr Hesse (May his soul rest in peace) answers all the questions you raise. No, I’m saying that the onus of proof of formal heresy is necessarily on the accuser(s) if the pope does not admit he has the requisite intent for formal heresy. In any case, we do not follow a pope in his material heresy – we are bound not to.
“But no, we cannot be punished with a horrible pope, if by horrible you mean an heretic”
How about Pope Honorius? So God being God does not have the right to punish us with a heretical Pope?
Dear de Maria, Those who know and assent to the Faith, know that opposition to any point of doctrine is heresy. The Deposit of Faith is one, and may not be divided. If one rejects any part of the Deposit of Faith, one rejects the Faith in toto. It matters not what good things a heretic says, things that appear to comport with the Faith; he is still a heretic.
Salvemur,
With regard to your P.S.:
I think that’s the difference between “total sedevacantism” and “materialiter- formaliter sedevacantism”. Pity the terminology is so clumsy. I think Fr. Cekada is a “total” sedevacantist, whereas Bishop Sanborn is a m-f sede, as I am.
The problem with t-sede is where does the new true Pope come from? If Our Lord were to intervene and appoint a new Peter, He would be starting a new Church. This we know He will not do, because He promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church built on the Rock of Peter and Our Lord keeps His promises. The gates of hell will have prevailed if the Church built on Peter has to be replaced by a new Church built upon a new Peter.
M-F sede avoids this problem:
The conciliar popes are legitimately designated (popes materialiter), therefore the succession from Peter remains intact and if a conciliar pope should convert, we would immediately have a true Pope. Alternatively, if the material cardinals were to elect a Pope who was orthodox, (by Divine intervention, if necessary), we would have a true Pope who was a successor of St. Peter. To me this theory makes more sense.
In practicality, the two theories come to the same thing – we have not had a true Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII. The difference arises in how the Papacy might be restored.
Fr Hesse here explains primacy and infallibility, and how a pope who has made grave theological errors remains pope until formal heresy is proven (where he does not admit intent by his own words (were he to acknowledge intent to change Tradition, formal heresy would be proven)).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ
Peter – may we have a true pope in our days!
–
In general folks – here’s a sort of sedevacantism crash course:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sedevacante-conference-2002.htm
Dear James the Lesser, We are in the Great Apostasy. The vast majority of those baptised, including clerics are in apostasy as they have rejected the Faith (if one rejects part, one rejects all). The majority of those still attending Mass and receiving the Blessed Sacrament in an ongoing unrepented state of mortal sin, are in apostasy. For instance, those who voted for the purported Conferral of legal status on sodomitical relations in Ireland on 22nd May are apostate. This was a rejection of the Faith. Many can feign membership of the Church because the bishops and priests that are apostate collude with this lie.
Salvemur,
The clock has just this minute struck 4am and I’m clapped. I’m off to bed. Here’s wishing you all a very good night! I suppose you are up and about at around 10am. Love to everybody on the site including Hoc and Piokolby. 🙂 🙂
I have seen the evil material with which children are abused, corrupted and brainwashed. And the formal institutions of the Catholic Church all over the world, at least in the West, are actively involved in colluding with this diabolic destruction of the minds and hearts, the innocence of children. Parents need to do their duty and get their children out. If illegal (as , for example, in Germany) make arrangements to go to another state.
Dear Peter Lamb
You should look up some talks by father Hesse on sedevecantism. You are failing to make distintions. Yes what Francis has said is heretical but this only proves that he is a material heretic and material heretics don’t loose office. To be a formal heretic he would have to show he has committed the sin of Heresy and REJECT Church teaching. Either he would have to say he rejects WHAT the Church or An ecumentical council said or he would have to be warned and rebuked by bishops like Paul says to Titus. Maybe Pope Francis is ignorant of Church Teaching; he seems like a idiot to me. I will say he does hover near the line of formal and non formal heresy but “do not judge lest you be judged”.
To commit the sin of heresy is kind of like committing a mortal sin. What you do may objectively be grave matter but because you were ignorant of the evil of sin you comitted it was not a mortal sin subjectively. Therefore you would still be in communion with God. For instance some one may not go to mass or worship Christ on Sunday. This would be an objective mortal sin. However what if the person was born in India and never even heard of Christianity. God will not hold him responsible if he is ivincibly ignorant. Ivincible ignorance does not damn nor save a person. So to with material heresy.
@JamesTheLesser: You do realize that your comment is anti-semitic? Don’t you realize that ANY type of anti-semtism is not permitted in the Catholic Church? I wonder what has come over you? I remember you taking it upon yourself to criticize Paul IV because of, in your eyes, his supposed paranoia about the jews? What has come over you to make such a radical change?
–
https://akacatholic.com/the-imprisonment-of-the-ffi-continues/
=
“The Holy Roman Catholic Church stands to be enriched by drinking from the well of Westboro Baptist Church of “God hates fags” fame.”
LOL!
Every Novus Ordo head since and including Montini has publicly rejected Church teachings – including ecclesiology, religious liberty, and promoting disciplines universally that are dangerous to the faith (impossible for the true Church). The conciliar code of canon ‘law’ its conciliar catechism and its liturgy promote errors (by promotion or omission of declared Catholic teaching) and promotes sins against the first commandment (impossible for the true Church). As to the personal individual heresies of the Novus Ordo heads all of whom have publicly taught heresy, a manifest heretic can never be the Pope. Bellarmine concluded with the predominant teachings of the Church and those theologians who followed him concluded this.
–
This audio link: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sedevacante-conference-2002.htm
–
is four hours long but covers in detail the angles of heresy and who is and is not Catholic, what is and is not Church.
Amen. Thanks EM for always reminding us to look to Scripture, I appreciate your efforts. – Mike Poulin
Yes, this is the technique of taking an argument to its extreme conclusion to see how ridiculous it actually is. I wonder; if Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happening Now” is included?
As the prophecy of La Salette says “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” Bergoglio is the Biblical False Prophet greasing those skids.
Dear A Critical Thinker, I am very impressed by such perspicuity and perspicacity from such a young person! An earlier comment suggested you were still in High School, and suffering “liberal” , or bad, teachers. May I ask if you’re a boy or a girl?
As for the gross abuse of a line of Casti Connubi by Pius XI, to support sinful avoidance of children by avoiding the marital act at fertile times of the menstrual cycle – it is the third sentence in the below paragraph (as I’m sure you can easily tell it is a wicked subversion of the clear meaning of the sentence in its proper context:
59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end
End of quotation above from Para 59 of Casti Connubi:
” . . . and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Horrifyingly, what is actually occurring appears to be very similar to the False Prophet prophecy. Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in thee!
No. The reality has always been there. How it is to be dealt with is a different issue. It wasn’t about paranoia but treatment. I don’t have the answer. But Paul IV’s solution seems a bit cruel. Maybe because I am NOT antisemitic.
Lynda,
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
P.S. The disintegration of the once great Catholic country of Ireland breaks my heart, while also makes me angry. There were points in my life that I actually thought moving there would be wonderful. Then reality and horror set in.
Dear James the Lesser, Yes, I know the definitions. We are all surrounded by such people. One can be in apostasy but pretending to be Acatholic by acting as a priest, bishop, religious or “practising” lay person. If one rejects a fundamental part of the Faith, one rejects Christ and His Revelation in toto. One may not invent ones own “Catholic Faith” with the content one chooses oneself.
Dear James, I have stood outside Catholic Churches in Ireland campaigning against the diabolic evil of “legalised”, systematic killing of babies in Ireland, and been abused by pro-abortionists who had earlier received the Blessed Sacrament – people who publicly and obstinately support the greatest intrinsic evil and who contemn God and His Holy Laws. Let me know if you ever do come to this unholy place – I would love to meet you. God bless.
1. If you ever go across the sea to Ireland
Then maybe at the closing of your day
You will sit and watch the moon rise over Claddagh
And see the sun go down on Galway Bay
2. Just to hear again the ripple of the trout stream
The women in the meadows making hay
And to sit beside a turf fire in the cabin
And watch the barefoot gosoons at their play.
3. For the breezes blowing over the seas from Ireland
Are perfumed by the heather as it blows
And the women in the uplands diggin’ praties
Speak a language that the strangers do not know
4. For the strangers came and tried to teach us their way
They scorn’d us just for being what we are
But they might as well go chasing after moonbeams
Or light a penny candle from a star.
5. And if there is going to be a life hereafter
And somehow I am sure there’s going to be
I well ask my God to let me make my heaven
In that dear land across the Irish sea.
Dear EVER mindful – thank you. Ireland once was – generally – a nation of God-fearing, good people. I mourn every day for Her because I love Her. It breaks my heart – and all those who are true to the unchangeable Faith and moral law – to see my countrymen so corrupted and alienated from God and His Holy Truth. What country are you in Ever Mindful?
Lynda I am a boy.
Dear Salvemur, the new Mass was never made obligatory on the Universal Church nor was the old Mass abrogated. Paul VI never signed any letters making it mandatory though there are some mistranslations that use too strong of language. Therefore it was not infallible and could be bad. All of the bad disiplines I am aware of are indults not universally binding and hence not infallible. For instance communion in the hand is technically an indult but all novus ordo churches do it illicitly. As for as there heresies go you have not proven they were formal. Even Belarmine thought he would have to be a formal heretic. This is why he used as his major premise St Paul’s teaching on people needing to be warned by the Church before being avoided as heretics. Furthermore if you only need to a manifestly material heretic to be a non Catholic and not Pope then why have we had heretical Popes in the past (though only materially heretical) . pope Liberius signed a simi arian creed, John the XXII did not believe the saints were in heaven, and Pope Honorius was anathematized by THREE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THE PAPAL OATH USED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. How do you deal with these facts. Clearly you must be a formal heretic to loose office.
One more thing Salvemur, how could the Church be without a hierarchy. All the Bishops with diosese are just as bad as these popes. And all the traditional bishops only have supplied jurisdiction and have no authority besides the fact that they are smart theologians.
I recently watched The Quiet Man, from 1952, set in the 1920s. It depicts a thoroughly Catholic milieu. Idealized? Perhaps. But maybe not. Check it out.
I was blessed to have an Irish mother from Limerick, then grew up under the shade of Table Mountain, now growing in Faith in Our Lady’s Dowry.
God bless you Lynda!!
My grandfather on my mother’s side was Irish.
I need some help here, any answers or guesses would be greatly appreciated. Someone said Fr. Barron is a heretic, I said that is right, he is a student of John Paul II. And he said JP II is a Saint so for the good of my soul I should not say JP II preached the heresy that all would be saved(actually Fr. Barron is less optimistic only 98% would be saved). So I don’t know what the implication is. I would be lying if I say JP II did not say all would be saved because you can find it in Vatican’s website that was exactly what he said. Or maybe he did say it but it is Ok because he is a Saint now. My question is given the fact JP II changed the rules on canonization is the declaration of sainthood protected by the Holy Spirit just like when the Church defines a dogma? How can a heretic be declared a Saint? I did some research online but can’t find anything beyond the general steps for a canonization process. Thanks for your help in advance.
If I rightly recall the film, it was not very realistic, nor meant to be; the people portrayed as simpletons. When I was a child in Dublin in the 1970s, there was still a real Catholic community in most parishes, rural or urban, and a general shared morality based on objective truth, strengthened by Faith, though coming under attack from the “elites” that controlled Media, politics, academia, and,of course, the Church, itself. The rot came from the top down, in each of these areas, mostly using international agencies, with the help of traitors in Ireland. As most people are aware, Ireland was targetted for destruction of Faith and morals because of its power as a traditional beacon or bastion of both. Everything was worse and more intense here, within and without the Church. The corruption has been dramatic. The lay people tried to fight, but were generally undermined by the Catholic hierarchy (bishops and priests) whom some naive Catholics trusted long after they’d shown their enmity for the defence of Catholic Faith and the moral law in public life. Many Catholics in Ireland have been distracted and immobilised since the 1970s by a private, feelings-based, charismatic-type of new Faith – perfect for rendering them unable or unwilling to fight evil in public life. There is still a lot of denial among “practising” Catholics who are focussed on feeling good – about everything, good or evil.
So you’re from the same country as Dr Lamb. I love the Capetown accent! God bless you.
Hey, Critical Thinker:
–
“In matters of faith and morals the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.” Lumen Gentium, ch. 3, n. 25.
–
I reckon Catholics need to understand what the magisterium is and what it requires of us as Catholics. It is not by any means only the ‘sacred infallible’ magisterium which is to be obeyed but the ordinary magisterium as well. Further, infallibility extends to the “universal” ordinary magisterium in that the Church teaches it cannot and never will ‘universally’ impose error – in other words teachings and disciplnes universally applied are to be trusted as infallible. VII – if it was a Council of the Catholic Church and not a defection – MUST be obeyed – and more – it has been ‘universally applied in every diocese and parish on the Catholic planet (the Novus Ordo Rite, the application of the new code and new catechism are part of the ‘common discipline of the entire [conciliar] church’.) – therefore it comes under the banner of infallibility if it belongs to Christ’s Church.
–
1989 JPII profession of faith:
–
“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act…I shall foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law (the 1983 Conciliar Code).”
–
Authentic Magisterium as defined by Paul VI in 1966 goes like this : Montini said that VII must be obeyed because he said it belongs to the ‘ordinary and truly authentic (sometimes translated authoritative) magisterium which must be accepted, not in faith, but with facility and sincerity’ – yet Montini’s new ‘authentic’ magisterium contradicts the ‘old’ authoritative magisterium of the true popes.
–
The conciliar institution has brand new Cathechism, and brand new Code of Canon Law, and a brand new universal liturgy – all applied to support the documents and ‘spirit’ of VII. Could any one say a new code of law, a new catechism and new universal liturgical rites – all supporting a single heretical Council – represent mere ‘accidents’ in the Church and not substantial changes? The sedevacantists see clearly that these very much universally imposed changes represent a substantial change from Catholic worhsip, faith and discipline – therefore they belong not to Christ’s Church but to an institution which has defected even if it still occupies the real estate.
–
The has considered three main way a crisis like the current one could be resolved:
1. Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings of some approved mystics. 2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post-Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope. 3. An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the college of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church.
–
Excellent article on the issue:
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
–
Excellent video that does an overview of the arguments:
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c_JL8_Wa-k
–
PS. The above video makes it clear what Bellarmine taught.
PPS. What the profession of JPII says is that one must apply the obedience of one’s soul to the dictates of the man (authentic magisterium (or personal ‘authority’)) even if it contradicts the Church.
“Public heretics, even those who are ‘in good faith’ (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, the legal commonwealth of the Church.” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – Dr. Ludwig Ott. 1955.
–
Ott is repeating what Bellarmine taught who said that the above is the ‘doctrine of all the fathers.’
–
PS. ‘Pertinacity (formal heresy) is present when a man knows the truth and yet refuses to profess it.’
Hey EM,
Next time I’m on Table Mountain I’m gonna drink a toast to you!!!
Wojtyla (JPII) indeed taught heresy frequently and publicly and sinned against the first commandment frequently and publicly – as such he was no Pope. His unrepentent public heresy and sins mean that to apply ‘sainthood’ to him is in itself a sin.
–
As to canonizations themselves – the teaching is that the Church ‘cannot err’ in such matters. So, if the Novus Ordo is the Church, Wojtyla is a saint. http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/john-paul-canonization.htm — But, having said that, the Novus Ordo under Montini/Paul VI ‘revoked’ the sainthood of St Christopher which means the N.O. itself decided that the pre-VII Church ‘erred’ in calling Christopher a saint.
–
One can with confidence call Wojyla a pertinacious heretic who spent – at least his public life – outside the Church. Wojtyla got a doctorate (PhD.) in Sacred Theology in 1948 from the Angelicum in Rome under the guidance Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange – an anti-modernist Thomist who wrote a refutation of contemporary heresies for which he was roundly attacked by the modernists, but vindicated by Pius XII in Humani Generis. There is no way Wojtyla lacked a sufficient knowledge of the Faith (to hold such a view would seem to me pertinacious).
This may help you.
http://cfnews.org/page88/files/6f68a916ecfd1824ca26cf802db0c2fc-217.html
PS. I notice you mentioned Liberius. “There is no proof that he signed ambiguous statements in exile. There is no proof that while in exile he signed anything at all. There is no proof that while in exile he excommunicated St. Athanasius…he suffered exile precisely for the Nicean Creed and because he would not condemn St. Athanasius.” Liberius suffered these slanders largely based on historians of the Reformation era. http://www.papastronsay.com/resources/PopeLiberius/
–
As to Honorius – based on a private letter (to Sergius), 42 years after his death he was accused of heresy. There is no public heresy.
PS. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Balamand_Statement – The ‘Balamand Agreement’ promulgated by Wojtyla to never proselytize the individual/partial ‘churches’ [which the Church teaches are schismatics and not part of the Body of Christ] of the agreement. “We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect” (December 7, 1987).
PPS. From the link on ‘canonizations’:
–
“…Assertion 5: The Church’s infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today…Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter. – Proof: – 1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.” 2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? (Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957])
Dear Ock,
the quote from your link seems to be of rather dubios origin. The author, a certain Jane M. Agni, also writes for Modern Woman, a rather odd feminist site.
There is no indication about the exact date or the circumstances. The following is apparently wrong: “St. John Paul II has courted several controversies since being elected as Pope Benedicto XVI’s replacement in 2013. Francis has gone on record to say that homosexuals are not to be judged, Proselytism is nonsense and has endorsed the usage of contraceptive by Catholics.”
A research on the official vatican sites has not shown any hint this quote might come from pope Francis . Not even the Jesuit from the german RV section, who reliably quotes whatever this Pope says, mentions anything like this.
Do you have reliable source for this obviously scandalous Statement, please?
Salvemur
Since VII recent papal encyclicals, the new caticism ect….. are all not infallible they can be condridicted. However we must give submision to what they say unless we have PAST MAGISTERIUM that contradicts it or TRADITION OR SCRIPTURE. As you said there is a clear rupture with the past So we don’t judge these ruptures but the Church of all time does.
Something is part of the Ordinary and Univeral Magisterium because it is believed or practiced by a moral majority in space and TIME just like we know something is part of tradition because it is believed always every where and by all.
I disagree with what you say about Liberius but I do understand his life was thretened. You still have answered the problem of the other two Popes you mentioned.
If you don’t want to respond to any thing above could you please respond to this:
The worst thing you said is that a public material heretic is outside of the Church. I know you site a theologian but I would very much appreciate the theology behind that claim. This is false because a material heretic has NOT committed a mortal sin of heresy and has not separated himself from Christ or the Church. Unless he commits some other mortal sin he is in a state of grace and worthy of heaven . However we know no one can go to heaven unless they are in the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore it is clear that material heretics are inside the Church. Hence they would not loose any office of the Church unless they became formal heretics or were deposed because keeping authority has nothing to do with how knowledgable you are. Belermains theory rests entirely on the fact that you cannot be a head of that which you are not but a material heritic is Catholic.
Ps. You still have not answered how the Church can exist without any Hierarchy whatsoever. You have just said how we might get one back.
Oh yea and people did know about Honorius’ letters. They were used by heretics to supports their arguments. It was an official papal letter though it was not stressed to the whole Church.
Oh yea and we do obey these Popes when they order something that is not wrong. For instance the sspx says the 1962 Missal even though that caused some priests to leave the society and take some churches with them.
Ps the burden of proof is 100% on sedevecantists. If you are wrong you are guilty of judging personally a soul in the subjective forum. If I am wrong I am merely being too good natured and giving some one the benefit of the doubt.
@Critical Thinker: The papacy is, in part, a teaching office; in fact, the papacy is the ultimate teaching office in the Church. Whether a papal claimant is a material or formal heretic when he professes/teaches heresy from the seat of Peter is besides the point; by allowing a claimant to profess/teach heresy from the seat of Peter means you will tolerate a Pope leading some of the faithful to damnation!
–
I believe that a better practice is for the College of Cardinals to get in the habit of electing a new Pope and thereby deposing sloppy Popes like Francis at the instant a claimant like Francis professes/teaches anything that is objectively heretical from the Seat of Peter. Note, this does not mean the claimant is necessarily excommunicated; once removed from the Office the prior claimant may be judged if he persists in his heresy. After a couple of loud depositions of sloppy or wolf-like popes, later claimants will take more seriously the responsibility to defend the deposit of faith and to teach the faith whole and inviolate.
–
It is also noted that such a public and noisome spectacle as the removal of a sloppy Pope like Francis will immediately highlight to those who may have ascribed to the Pope’s heresy (heresies in the case of Francis) that it is, in fact, heresy and needs to be recanted.
–
Such a procedure, if rigorously followed will ensure that all Popes serve as the proximate rule of faith and visible sign of unity in the Church because if they don’t perform these functions in a positive manner, the College of Cardinals will make sure the negative example of their deposition will highlight what is NOT the faith.
Dear Cyprian
Remember that a pope cannot be deposed in the strict sense of the word because no one is above the Pope. However if Cardinals rebuked the Pope concerning his heresy and yet he refused to lessen he would become a formal heretic and loose the chair (Belarmine’s opinion) or then if the Cardinals declared he was a heretic he would loose the chair (Suarez’s opinion). after a pope looses his chair some one else can be elected take his place. The problem is that the Cardinals are almost as bad as these popes or worse so they will tolerate them.
Some things you should consider:
–
By divine law, a formal heretic is immediately cast from the Church by the Almighty himself. If he has been cast from the Church he cannot rule in the Church.
–
Accordingly, when a papal claimant begins to profess/teach heresy from the papal seat there is a strong possibility that he was cast out from the Church by the Almighty as soon as he began to publicly profess/teach heresy.
–
I am concerned that those who want a declaration and a lengthy, drawn out HUMAN proceeding are willing to make the Almighty wait until HIS Church is ruled by a faithful Catholic! Why should a divergence between the Almighty’s Judgment and man’s be tolerated? Shouldn’t the presumption be that a claimant who is professing/teaching heresy from the seat of Peter be immediately replaced by a new Pope?
–
Otherwise disobedient and slothful men would tolerate what is, in fact, an AFFRONT to the Almighty in that lazy and cowardly men allow a claimant who the Almighty has already cast from the Church to continue misleading the faithful by professing/teaching heresy from the Papal seat!
–
Let’s look at this from a game theoretic angle. Under the current situation, the fearful assume the Pope is, at worst, a material heretic and he is tolerated and allowed to spread heresy because nothing is ever done about it. Accordingly, some of the faithful will adopt the heresy to their damnation.
–
Under the procedure I suggested, the Pope would be immediately replaced as soon as he professed/taught objectively heretical matter from the seat of Peter. The spectacle of the Pope being immediately replaced would cut off the opportunity of the claimant to continue misleading the faith and would highlight to the faithful that what got the Pope replaced was heresy.
–
There is precedent in the Church for the procedure I outlined and is described by St. Robert Bellarmine. St. Robert stated the following in discussing the Pope Liberius – Antipope Felix controversy:
–
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: 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 [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
——-
Here, St. Robert recounts how to the Roman Clergy Liberius appeared to be a heretic and was thus replaced by Felix who was true pope for a time. According to St. Robert, the Roman Clergy was correct in what they did because Liberius appeared to them to be in league with the Arians and thus a heretic.
–
Your reading of St. Robert that pertinacity may only be assumed after two warnings is unduly narrow. Ignoring two warnings is an example of pertinacity. There are other ways to demonstrate pertinacity, e.g., self-declaration. It can be argued that Francis is self-declared since he recently stated that the teaching he proposed might sound heretical or be heretical depending on whose translation you believe.
–
Further, Pope Francis has been in the habit of actively participating in the formal rites of non-catholic religions. Pope St. Agatho stated that “He who prays with heretics is a heretic”.
My last comment was directed to Critical Thinker.
Cyprian said: I am concerned that those who want a declaration and a lengthy, drawn out HUMAN proceeding are willing to make the Almighty wait until HIS Church is ruled by a faithful Catholic! Why should a divergence between the Almighty’s Judgment and man’s be tolerated? Shouldn’t the presumption be that a claimant who is professing/teaching heresy from the seat of Peter be immediately replaced by a new Pope?
–
This is the reason, surely, for Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV, which represents Divine Law. But “disobedient and slothful men” live to tolerate evil so they can stay put in comfort-zone.
In answer to Criticalthinker above – I did answer the question (with several courses of action the Church has considered) – one thing I didn’t say is that the first course of action should be that as many so-called faithful should cut off communion with the contemporary ‘Arians’ as dare to call themselves ‘Traditional Catholics’. If this happened the playing field would change rapidly and the other courses which the Church considered, may just be made available to us by God.
–
What most people insist (and against Church teaching) is that in order to maintain the ‘visibility’ of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we must ‘see’ a defective heretical construct as the Heirarchy. This is against faith and reason. Where was the ‘visible’ Church in St Athanasius’ day? Liberius was in exile for many years, the sees were occupied by Arians – and the whole terrible event went on for 70 years. The ‘visible’ Church was where UNITY OF FAITH, WORSHIP & DISCIPLINE continued. The ‘sense of faith’ of people contending that the appalling Novus Ordo somehow represents the ‘visible’ face or ‘body’ of the soul of Christ’s pure bride is a mystery to me.
–
Saint Vincent of Lérins way back in the fifth century considered what must be done if the whole living authority of the Church fell away for a period of time – he concluded that the Church teaches that we should and must ‘cleave to tradition’ = the existing magisterium of the True Church, even if that Church currently lacks a pontiff or cardinalate to ‘incarnate’ that voice.
Louie,
your courage is beyond reproach. In holding on to truth while gazing staeadfastly on reality, like Greek Ulysses tied with ropes to his ship listening to the sirens wailing, you constantly risk schism and heresy. So I pray that the Holy Spirit may continue to guide you and that the temple of your mind be filled with the Holy Spirit and that it remain a fruitful member of our One Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This reference to Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is so very ironic. It’s just as you say, Christ needed neither the water from the well nor the woman, but he could plumb the depth of the well of the woman’s being and find it ever wanting although she herself had five husbands.
On the other hand, Christ always likened himself to the one Groom of the one Bride, His One Church, and from this we, His members, recognize one mark of his true Church, its Unity in and of and through Himself.
But not from this Catholic point of view does the said Pontifical Council view itself and other denominations and religions, but from a hyper- and secular Protestant point of view. But in doing so, the Pontifical Council makes Christ out to be a Groom with many brides, and His One Church becomes just one bride amongst a harem of brides— a harlot! But in scripture Christ likens himself not only to a Groom with One Bride, but also a Vine with many branches, and his Church the One Head of One Body with many members. Yes, Salvation does come from the Jews who had one major worship at Mount Moriah where was the Temple of Jerusalem, just as Christ told the Samaritan woman at the well. The Samaritans, on the other hand, worshipped at totems and poles erected at various hills throughout Israel, like a harlot of many marital hearths. Christ could have told the Samaritan at the well then and there that he is like the Temple of Jerusalem. But he did not, and of all the figures and images to which He likened of Himself, not once did he say he was like the actual Temple of Jerusalem with its concentric circles of various and varying worshippers. On the contrary, Scripture says Christ warned the people of Jerusalem that the Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed and that his One Body would be resurrected as a new Temple replacing forever the old one soon to be destroyed forever.
The irony of the comments by the same Pontifical Council just doesn’t end as the unity it describes of many churches, many denominations worshipping at one altar, at one Temple, is similar to nothing other than the concentric circles of the Old Temple of Jerusalem which it is attempting futilely to reconstruct.
It’s this malicious spirit that has directed both the brutal liturgy and the architectural brutalism and modernism of the post-VII churches.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sede.htm
Old potboiler. Full of inaccuracies.
“Rather, to these men of little faith”
## Shouldn’t that be “no faith” ? No Catholic could possibly write such humanistic trash as these people have. They totally confuse supernatural faith with purely natural uncertainty. This talk of “the divine” is a disgrace – Catholics say “I believe in One God, Creator of Heaven and earth…”. These people are secular humanists with a few Catholic frills.
I can well believe that reading those 13,000 words was an “agony” – there is something vastly depressing & discouraging & faith-sapping about wading through the non-Catholic & anti-Catholic effusions of pan-religious or pan-Christian ecumaniac documents. The contrast with a Catholic bishop like Abp Lefebvre could not be greater.
“Mission is not proselytism. Those who truly announce Jesus approach others in loving dialogue, open to mutual learning, and respecting difference. Our mission requires us to learn to drink from the living water without taking hold of the well. The well does not belong to us. Rather, we draw life from the well, the well of living water which is given by Christ.”
## What did St Boniface, Apostle of Germany, learn from the Frisian pagans who martyred him for cutting down their sacred oak ? That’s right – nothing ! Since when was light illuminated by darkness ? That wicked quotation – and I stand by the word “wicked” – confuses the truth that the Gospel is from Christ before it is from the Church, and that she depends for it on Him, with the lie & deceit that there are other Churches than the CC. There can be and is only One Church, the CC, just as there can be and is only One Christ, One God, One Holy Spirit. To posit several Churches amounts to positing several Christs. It is appalling that Catholics should co-operate in spreading soul-destroying heresy. They are worse than paedophiles, worse than terrorists, far worse than ISIS, who are at least an open enemy.
“Who are the true worshippers? True worshippers do not allow the logic of competition – who is better and who is worse – to infect faith.”
## These people have totally missed the point. It is a sin to disbelieve what God has revealed to be true. It is Satanic to disbelieve what one knows God has revealed. Such pride deserves an eternity of everlasting fire. To make what we owe to God a matter of human competition is the result of the apostate Unfaith that emphasises man in place of God. This horrible blunder denies that to have the grace of faith, is a grace, not a human achievement, but a gift of God which depends on God’s Mercy and not on human desert. The True Faith is – true. It is spiritual, moral & intellectual suicide to treat it as no better than the superstitions of the heathen and the heresies of the sects. It is equivalent to insisting that food is excrement, and excrement is food.
“Thanks to the example set by Pope John Paul the Great Apologizer, the churchmen of today must now beg forgiveness for the triumphalistic attitude exhibited by those Roman Pontiffs past who didn’t know any better:…”
## What these people fail to notice, apart from the self-conceitedness of such a position, is that their position is blatantly relativist. If the Popes of the past were wrong, why should those of today be right ? At a stroke, doubt has replaced the gift of faith. The wickedness of propagating such errors needs no comment. I can’t be bothered to read any more of this rubbish – it’s making me sick. And it is all too typical of the dreck that Catholic ecumenists help to propagate. Rome badly needs a third Apostle. Paul VI has one Hell of a lot to pay for, as this is all his fault.
Excuse me while I vomit after reading that flowery nonsense :blechhh: I know just the music for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNEawM6vZf4 The only “wind” these people know of comes out of them.
That item at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/07/pope-francis-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/ about Pope Francis saying “….These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world….” is a hoax. He is quite problematic enough without being accused of saying enormities he has not said. He would not be Pope if he had said such things.
The best place for the Koran is a bonfire. It might actually do some good, for a change. Unfortunately, Catholicism is for some reason far more benign to Mohammedanism than it deserves, and not nearly as good at seeing what is wrong with it as Evangelicals have been. Mohammedanism is anti-Christian to the core.