Conservative cheers resonated throughout much of Catholic social media when it was reported that on day one of the Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Péter Erdő, with Pope Francis seated directly by his side, delivered an address that forcefully reaffirmed traditional Church doctrine and discipline relative to the civilly divorced and remarried and those in homosexual relationships.
Spurring on the applause is the fact that the cardinal’s intentions seemed rather obvious; namely, to preemptively discredit the arguments that are expected to be made by those who favor the controversial proposals put forth by Cardinal Walter Kasper.
More provocative still is that just prior to Cardinal Erdő’s address, Pope Francis, who publicly praised Kasper’s proposal as an example of “profound and serene theology done on one’s knees,” struck a rather different, indeed opposite, tone.
Clearly attempting to set the stage for changes to come, the likes of which were suggested rather plainly in the events of last year’s Extraordinary Synod, Pope Francis encouraged the bishops present to view their gathering as that through which:
…the Church interrogates herself with regard to her fidelity to the deposit of faith, which does not represent for the Church a museum to view, nor even something merely to safeguard, but is a living source from which the Church shall drink, to satisfy the thirst of, and illuminate, the deposit of life.
These, my friends, are the ramblings of a modernist!
The contrast between Pope Francis and Pope St. Pius X, who is perhaps best known for his condemnations of modernism, is stunning.
In the opening paragraphs of his magnificent Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, for instance, Pope St. Pius X wrote of the duty assigned to the Office of Peter as being one that requires of him:
To guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints…
In his address to the bishops, Pope Francis, by contrast, stopped just short of suggesting that Divine revelation continues as he belittled the immutable nature of the deposit of faith; proposing instead that the bishops should be open to the movements of the so-called “God of Surprises” (the opinions of whom bear a striking resemblance to those of Jorge Bergoglio), saying:
In the Synod, the Spirit speaks by means of every person’s tongue, who lets himself be guided by the God who always surprises, the God who reveals himself to little ones, who hides from the knowing and intelligent; the God who created the law and the Sabbath for man and not vice versa; by the God, who leaves the 99 sheep to look for the one lost sheep; the God who is always greater than our logic and our calculations.
And yet, in spite of the fact that Cardinal Erdő’s address was tantamount to a smack down of the ideas expressed by Pope Francis just moments earlier, His Humbleness showed no signs of agitation as His Eminence proceeded, in some 7,000 words, to pull the rug out from under his sensible shoes.
How is it, one wonders, that Pope Francis is able to “proceed so calmly” (item #3 on his “Ten Secrets to Happiness”) amid the tidal waves of division, confusion and contention caused by his modernist leanings?
I would suggest that this is due to an attitude that is well summed up in the so-called “Serenity Prayer” which reads:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
You see, Pope Francis knows very well that he can change neither the definition of marriage nor the Church’s doctrine with respect to its indissolubility. He also knows very well that he cannot change the Church’s teaching as it concerns adultery and the sinfulness of homosexual activity.
He does, however, possess the hubris (otherwise considered by the modernists as a sign of “courage”) to effect changes everywhere else, including in the area of “pastoral practices” that once altered would effectively undermine said doctrines and definitions.
For example, just days following his elevation to the papacy, The New York Times reported that as the Argentinian Senate was debating a gay marriage bill that would also secure adoption rights for homosexual couples in 2010, Cardinal Bergoglio supported a compromise measure that would legalize same-sex civil unions.
Such an endorsement on the part of Cardinal Bergoglio would be scandalous indeed; giving the impression that the Church sees value in homosexual relationships. (Sound familiar?) It would also run counter to guidelines that were established by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003.
According to John Allen, then with the National Catholic Reporter:
One source for that story was an Argentine journalist named Sergio Rubin, co-author with Francesca Ambrogetti of an interview book [an authorized biography] with Bergoglio titled El Jesuita.
Allen went on to cite additional sources verifying the claim.
At this, the D.A.T.F. (Defenders of All Things Francis) sprang into action, at once denying that Cardinal Bergoglio ever favored any such civil unions, while also pointing to a letter he had sent to the Carmelite nuns of Buenos Aires just days before the Argentinian Senate vote took place wherein he encouraged them to pray for the bill’s defeat, writing:
Let’s not be naïve: This is a not simple political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
Catholic News Agency, for instance, quoted the Director of Agencia Informativa Católica Argentina (the equivalent of the USCCB’s Catholic News Service) as saying of Rubin’s claim:
He never said who said it and when. It’s wrong to invent something like this out of thin air. That article was severely criticized by the bishops. He probably was referring to (heterosexual) domestic partnerships, but not that anything be legalized.
It’s also wrong to sully the reputation of a writer whose account is supported by numerous others, not the least of which is Federico Wals, Cardinal Bergoglio’s spokesman.
As reported by ABC News (among others), Wals, in a 2010 statement made to the Argentinian media outlet InfoNews (links to which have since been scrubbed from the internet), said:
We don’t have a fanatic vision. What we are asking is that the laws are respected. We believe that we must propose more comprehensive civil union rights than currently exist, but no gay marriage.
The point is simply this; in spite of the D.A.T.F.’s attempt to promote a false dichotomy suggesting that the same prelate who so firmly encouraged the defeat of a “gay marriage” law wouldn’t support a civil union compromise, all indications are that Cardinal Bergoglio did precisely that.
All of which is perfectly consistent with the modus operandi of a churchman who proceeds with serenity even as he labors to change what he can while remaining cognizant of those things that he cannot.
So too are the events that unfolded at the Synod yesterday as Pope Francis gave an unscheduled intervention (about which I’ll have more to say later).
In it, he called on the bishops to stay the course set, not by Cardinal Erdő’s address, but by the Extraordinary Synod, saying that there are but three official documents to be considered as foundational moving forward – his opening and closing speeches given last year, and the controversial final report (the relatio synodi that included, at the pope’s insistence, articles on the divorced and remarried and homosexuals that did not receive two-thirds majority votes).
In so doing, Pope Francis made it clear that the Synod Fathers are free to continue pondering ways in which to manipulate “pastoral practices” in keeping with the “cries” of sinful men who allegedly breathe the very will of God.
He insisted, however, according to Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, that Catholic doctrine on marriage is not being called into question.
In other words, reaffirm what you must; change what you can.
The primary value of the day-to-day activities of the Synod is that it puts on display the make up of the various characters, and admittedly they are, if for no other reason, fascinating.
In the end, however, as has been suggested in this space and elsewhere, the Synod is truly little more than a charade, the result of which will be whatever the “God of Surprises” (aka Jorge the Humble) wants it to be.
Mr Bergoglio may tip-toe through the tulips to the tune of VIINO ‘fascinations’ that thrill him and his kind till the cows come home; hopefully through this protestant smoke and mirrors there will be and are souls with a sense of the faith – enough to give up an Ave at the last. If there is one thing I know, protestants will curse the last breath that would ‘Ave Maria…’
–
“gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto”
Ah! yes , the continuation of ‘pastoral’ council Vatican II and all the more ambiguous language, so very shameful. Oct 11, 1962
Here is a photo gallery of what we have lost.
http://www.churchpop.com/2015/09/19/27-fascinating-photos-of-pre-vatican-ii-catholicism/
It wasn’t enough for the enemies of The Church. They won’t be happy until every memory of the True Church is wiped out. That is why Catholics must seek Tradition. These photos are not things of the past. They are HERE today. “Seek and you will find!!!”
God bless you and thank you so very much for this photo link.
I get the impression from the blogs in general that this month represents a critical moment in the history of the Church. I cannot see, however, why it is more significant than any other in the last five decades.
For example, I have written previously on the working document for the Synod in 2008. This document includes the following statement, at #15 (all bold emphases below added):
“[T]he following can be said with certainty…
with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture,
inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)”.
Fr. Brian Harrison, who has described the above statement as “heterodox”, concluded a 2009 article on this subject as follows:
“We may well pray that the See of Peter does indeed soon ‘clarify’ this difficult issue effectively and authoritatively.”
I have found no such clarification under either Josef Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio. What is more, Fr. Harrison added that “evidently as a result of the Synod’s final proposition 12, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has been preparing a document on the inspiration and truth of Scripture“.
This latter document, which was published in February 2014, is still only available on the Vatican Web site in Italian. The following, however, is a direct quote from the document as reported by one Italian commentator:
“[I]n the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104).”
Although it is a much older document from the standpoint of historical scholarship, I believe it is worth comparing the following quote from the The Catholic Encyclopedia as a purely logical religious statement:
“Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth.”
I will leave it to others to investigate and demonstrate whether the Sovereign of the Vatican City has any interest in defending this expression of faith, let alone the natural law.
I get the impression from the blogs in general that this month represents a critical moment in the history of the Church. I cannot, however, see how it should be different from any other in the last five decades.
For example, I have written previously on the working document for the Synod in 2008. This document includes the following statement (at #15, all bold emphases below added):
“[T]he following can be said with certainty…
with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture,
inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)”.
Fr. Brian Harrison, who has described the above statement as “heterodox”, concluded a 2009 article on this subject as follows:
“We may well pray that the See of Peter does indeed soon ‘clarify’ this difficult issue effectively and authoritatively.”
I have found no such clarification under either Josef Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio. What is more, Fr. Harrison added that “evidently as a result of the Synod’s final proposition 12, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has been preparing a document on the inspiration and truth of Scripture“.
This latter document, which was published in February 2014, is still only available on the Vatican Web site in Italian. The following, however, is a direct quote from the document as reported by one Italian commentator:
“[I]n the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104).”
Although it is a much older document from the standpoint of historical scholarship, I believe it is worth comparing the following quote from the The Catholic Encyclopedia as a purely logical religious statement:
“Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth.”
I will leave it to others to investigate and demonstrate whether the Sovereign of the Vatican City has any interest in defending this expression of faith, let alone the natural law.
A Reason for Hope:
http://gloria.tv/media/4DZnhcWhJcP
Modernist Evolution on display. Hubris for Humility, Heresy for Heritage. Judases for Jesuits, Destruct for Defend. Surrender for Support. It’s just words. What could go wrong?
http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/revised-gates-our-souls
I reckon the reason why Francis was so calm during Card. Erdo’s speech was because, deep down he knows the majority of the bishops are going along with his perfidy (the paragraphs in favor of sodomy and adultery DID achieve a majority last year).
–
The goal of the “Sin-Nod Against the Family” TM is merely to try to push some of those bishops sitting on the fence into the apostate camp via an “avalanche” or “lemming” like effect by following blind leaders into the moral abyss. And if the 2/3 majority is not reached, it matters little, most of the final Sin-Nod documents have probably already been penned down or are undergoing their final touches; like in any tyrannical system that has a pretense of delegating authority to some sort of governing body (the synod of bishops), ultimately everything is nothing more than a well crafted pantomime, and what matters in the end is iron-fist of the tyrannical despot.
The Motu Proprios implicitly deny the essence of marriage according to God’s Law, the Natural Moral Law. A valid marriage is a valid marriage for so long as the parties both live, and cannot be retrospectively invalidated. That is to lie about an unchangeable fact and make the validity of a marriage contingent on the two parties continuing to want to be faithful to their marriage.
Have you seen that at the Synod, a Panamanian Cardinal called for Moses to be followed instead of Our Lord in respect of divorce?? And said it was due to hardness of heat t that divorce was not permitted??!!!
http://gloria.tv/media/KRwyZFd8VD1
I’m wondering—On Oct. 7th (Feast of the Holy Rosary), did the Synod Fathers assemble together to pray the rosary, begging Our Lady for Her intercession? Do they even know how???
Below is an example of so many, who are so scandalized about the evils in the Church, that they fall into despair and become atheists, heretics, or sedevacantists.
Hell is paved with those consecrated to God, who have betrayed and polluted with SIN the BRIDE OF CHRIST!
Miserere!
An ex-Catholic. • 3 hours ago
I lost my Faith; sorry. All of this is just too much for me, and I have NO choice but to conclude that Catholicism, the Catholic faith, and the Catholic Church are just basically memes, that is, products of human imagination and/or culture. The Catholic Church, as it exists today, stands for absolutely, positively nothing. No so-called “dogma” exists that cannot, at some future time, be reinterpreted, and after that, some (re)reinterpretation, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. If the Eucharist is really, truly the Body & Soul of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, then there can be nothing more wicked, nothing more profane, than receiving that most precious Sacrament and then going home and having sex with someone who is NOT your sacramental spouse. But, if it is just nothing more than bread, then who really cares??? Sorry, but I have better things to do with the precious, limited time that I have left on this Earth. If the Church is truly the Bride of Jesus Christ, then, pray tell, where is the Bridegroom in all of this??? Heaven remains silent, as it, apparently, always has and always will. At least until “Heaven speaks,” I can no longer profess Catholicism anymore than I could “choose” to hold my hand on a hot stove.
Folks, stop feeding this monstrosity, the Catholic Church. Stop giving it your hard-earned money, and just go on with your lives. When death comes, just accept it; as for me, I am planning on having only a private graveside memorial service with family and close friends. If there is an afterlife and even if Catholicism does, in fact, turn out to be true, my reply to the Lawful Judge will be, “Sorry, my Lord, but you, the Holy Spirit, spoke with a forked tongue, or least your Bride did.”
Viva Cristo Rey!
All adherents to the vatican 2 religion have rejected Catholicism. Whether they attend a simple novus ordo ceremony, or they attend an FSSP or SSPX ceremony while praying in communion with a known heretic…its all the same…you might as well be bowing down to the devil himself. The apostate bergoglio will wind up converting a lot of fence sitters.
Yes, God forbid we realize that the seat is vacant as opposed to defaming a man incessantly who we call pope.
Rich, I hope people read and re-read your comment in that maybe, just maybe, the Protestant perversity of their ‘position’ is called to task. The very concept of Christ and His Bride is daily soiled, poisoned, perverted by all those who say ‘pope’ with regards to Bergoglio. But the creepy thing is, he is just a parrot of VII. Wojtyla ‘abolished’ (yep if he’s your papa) before the face of the world, the First Commandment. Bergoglio goes on to ‘abolish’ the Sixth and Ninth Commandment. Ratzinger slid with serpentine largesse through this whole mileu of antichristianism.
–
The Novus Ordo is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Pray about this, I dare folks.
Dumb Ox, solid as an ox and not ‘dumb’ at all.
Before the Sedevacantist armory of arguments
many feel helpless…..Ave Maria!
The leaders of the Sedevacantist movement have many convincing arguments to demonstrate that the Popes after Pope Pius XII are not true Popes and have fallen from the Catholic faith.
Their arguments come from the statements of Saints, Canon Law, Papal Bulls and historical examples to name but a few sources.
It’s a terrible waste of time to keep debating this stuff. Many who believe these things as dogmatic truths have become gnostics obsessed with obtaining knowledge for which they lack any grace of state. We are only given sufficient grace for our particular state in life. It’s very dangerous to our souls and sanity to hunger for more than what God wills us to possess. Pride and their unnatural thirst for forbidden knowledge is destroying them. They are doing exactly what Eve did in the Garden of Eden, unable to say no to the temptation of the forbidden fruit.
Despair weeps…….’God, I can handle hell!’
Pride says…….’I am not as the rest of men’ (sinners).
Humility says…….’O Lord, I will be mindful of Thy justice alone.”
Love says……..Humble your heart…… TRUTH, cannot lie……Be not high-minded, but fear”
In other words, why would we seek alternative way, and refuse to follow the way that leads to it……’Where is Peter there is the Church!
Let us all take a deep breath ” God Will Not Be Mocked!’……’The gates of hell, will NOT prevail against the holy Church!”
“The enemies of the Church, who think that their time has come,
will see that their joy was premature, and that they may close the grave they have dug”
(Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius IX [1937]).
God is Just, fear but do not sin, persevere!
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
“The apostate bergoglio will wind up converting a lot of fence sitters.”
–
He already has. Those with the Protestant spirit love this little antichrist. He makes, in their minds, the Rock, a piece of play doh. ..which every VII heresiarch loved/ loves to play with. The father of lies cannot mess up the Rock, but he can present a manipulable and subsantially different substance easily ‘worked’. All the audience needs to do is dissent from the Rock (Catholic) and assent to the clay (Novus Ordo).
–
Great Apostasy. Pretenders to the Throne. Interregnum. Catholicity. The Eclipse of the Church. Balanced against the Promise to St Peter..”And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Where hell ‘prevails’ is not the Church. The Fruits are clear and we must judge them.
Its coming to a head…..the r and r crowd is about to be called to task.
So stop defaming your pope then…if he is your pope then how DARE you or anyone else call into question anything he sets forth as part of the magisterium. What exact heresy are you waiting for this deviant to utter before you wake up and see that he is not of God??? The Catholic Church CAN NOT promote error!
This comment posted by an “ex-catholic” is instructive. First of all this man, or woman, could be a liar. He could be a jew or a mason trolling online to attack the Faith of believers. It happens. His comment ends by giving us advice as to how to proceed. Seems all to calculated to me. Here’s my advice: be aware that this is going on and as our Lord said, “Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.” In any case, put not your Faith in the folly’s of man, whether a churchman or a layman. In the Catholic Church doctrine does not change. Hold to the Faith of our Fathers and you cannot go wrong. Remember what St. Vincent Lorens said:
“Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all….But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm
“The Catholic Church CAN NOT promote error!”
Seriously now, you “CAN NOT” just make statements like this. Is this a theological statement? What are your definition of terms. By “promote” what do you mean? Error = ? You mention magisterium. What do YOU mean by that? Here’s my definition: The magisterium is the vehicle that actually accomplishes the handing on of tradition. Where is Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper et al doing that?! Be careful that you are not sinning by excess regarding the dogma of infallibility.
Since the Pope is not the Church, he can indeed promote error.
How can I not make the statement that the perfect Church of Christ, aka the Catholic Church, can not promote error? Im not getting your point here.
Are you actually defending mr bergoglio?
I hear you…..don’t be so loud!
….from the ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott
‘The Church is idefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, UNTIL the end of the world.’ and the essential immutability of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy….
Now, this does NOT exclude the decay of individual ‘men’, ‘churches’…..and accidental changes. Not only those members who are holy but the sinners also belong to the Church. (Sent. certa.)
‘In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is INFALLIBLE…..that is,……INFALLIBILITY is the impossibility of falling into error!
Pope Leo XII says in his encyclical (Satis Cognitum)…..”The Church of Christ is one and everlasting” (in spite of the ‘cockle)….. Until He Come again……Deo Gratias!
Keep Calm, and carry on!
Long live Jesus the King!
Not as part of the universal magisterium .
We all know the Church if indefectible .Bergoglio is not Catholic and therfore obviously cannot be pope. The Church is still here….what is your point?
Bergoglio the man is of no interest to me. Of course he causes great scandal as pope or let us say “pope figure,” but Pope Bergoglio is not promoting error as part of the “universal magisterium.” Now I define the universal and ordinary magisterium as universal in space and TIME i.e Tradition. I am aware that SV leaders, Lane, Daly, Kelly, Sanborn, and Cekada define ordinary acts of the magisterium that are “numerous” as infallible because the Church has “committed herself” to them. But acts of the ordinary magisterium are either inside Tradition or they are not, whether accomplished by one priest or a multitude of popes and bishops. What is the will of the Pope? Scandalous behavior and erroneous statements notwithstanding, the will of Pope, acting in his office, will always be inside apostolic tradition.
Francis leads souls to hell. Why are you defending him? The Church cannot teach error and that is the only purpose of v2. You are defending an apostate and a false religion and therefore im done with you.
Bergoglio may well not be who he seems to be, but my point is that you yourself are making erroneous statements.
You state: “How can I not make the statement that the perfect Church of Christ, aka the Catholic Church, can not promote error?”
Wrong. Do these churchmen not have free wills? Are they not human beings? Does God allow it? “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.” [1 Cor. 11:19]
It seems to me, objectively speaking, that you are denying the dogma of infallibility by sinning in excess, or wrongly applying it. Stop listening to the five SV leaders for awhile and get a grip on this.
Dear Rich:
Have in mind, that the Church of Christ is……The Resilient Church…..the glory, the shame & the hope for tomorrow! The history, the martyrs, her saints, and the glorious soldiers of Christ, and most simple and humble faithful understood that, in some mysterious way the Church is always in crisis…..there’s a constant purification going on, of the consecrated and the lay. We are tested as gold in the fire……salvation is not free. Also, understand we are not here to save the Church (rather our soul), but the Holy Church is here to save us!
….from ‘The Devastated Vineyard’ by Dietrich von Hildebrand
“We must never forget that in spite of all diabolic devastation of the vineyard of the Lord, the glory of the holy Church, the bride of Christ, and the glory of all the saints nevertheless remains untouched in its reality, indeed it is the one true reality. What do all the changing trends of the time really amount to? They are so much ‘sound and fury, signifying nothing’ when compared with the eternal truth and the objective glory of Jesus Christ, with the holiness of the saints which glorifies God. Of Course, it is terrible to see the vineyard of the lord ravaged, to see the souls of the innocent children poisoned by outrageous catechisms ..etc., we cannot shed enough tears over all this, we cannot fight fiercely enough against it with all the resources at our disposal. And yet, holy joy must awaken in us because we know what the truth of the Redemption is, because God is and remains the same God who is revealed to us by Christ and His holy Church in the deposit of the Catholic Faith. The true sacred humanity of Christ, of which we find a reflection in all the saints, remains the same”……
Hail, thou who man’s Redeemer art,
Jesu, the joy of every heart;
Great Maker of the world’s wide frame,
And purest love’s delight and flame,
Be thou the aim of every breast;
Be thou the soother of our tears,
Our sweet reward in endless years. Amen.
dear FromPoland,
Sedevacantism is not a movement.
Sedevacantists are Catholics who hold that the Chair of Peter is vacant of Authority of Jesus Christ.
Many SSPX priests are non una-cum sedevacantists. Many sedevacantists go to SSPX celebrants for the Sacraments. Many non sedevacantists go to sedevacantist priests for the Sacraments. Louis & most commenters here are sedeoccupantists or sometimes are also referred to as sedeplenists. They hold that the Chair is occupied with one who holds authority.
There are no “leaders” of the sedevacantist movement for 2 reasons
one already mentioned:
1- as noted-it is NOT a movement. Note in the link I provide, within the first third specifically, the definition of sedevacantists is expounded upon.
2-the bishops and priests who hold to sedevacantism feed the sheep the Faith undefiled by the heresy of Modernism–IOW-to not preach the conciliar church heresies. These men are not ‘leaders’of anything, certainly not a movement. They are merely true shepherds of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Lots of folks have made crude attempts to disparage not only sedevacantists but also the clergy, by intimating that Catholics who hold this position are following some kind of fringe gurus.
—-
Those folks must gain suffiicient knowledge of the issues before they’re able to engage in discussion.
To that end, I hope this will help: If you’d like, we can discuss further in the Forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRbDWrSDSY
Is Bergoglio the Pope or not the Pope??? The bottom line is that the WORLD THINKS HE IS THE POPE!!! Perception is Reality. He wears white, he lives in the Vatican and he is called “POPE” Francis until someone in authority proclaims him to be the heretic that he is and gives him is walking papers. Whether we believe he is the pope or not, we’re stuck with him. He is running the show—legally or not, canonically or not! Catholics on both sides of the issue must unite to combat this dreadful papacy–whether it is a true papacy or an anti-papacy. I, in no way, mean any disrespect for those who comment on this blog.
The reasons that the religion of which Francis is head -which is observed in what were once Catholic churches/buildings worldwide— is not the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church are covered under the following titles in the link found at the bottom of my comment:
——
Changes brought out of VII are substantial, not accidental, changes.
Fundamental Error Of Vatican II
Ecumenism
Liturgical Changes Of Vatican II
Doctrinal Error Of Vatican II Overview
Heresy Of Lumen Gentium
Error Of The Decree On Ecumenism
Error Of Religious Liberty
Error Of Collegiality
Evil Disciplines Regarding Ecumenism
False Doctrine And Evil Discipline Regarding Marriage
—
To prepare for further discussion on these things, by means of hearing talks which address the titles listed above, readers may wish to go to the followng link—then scroll to the bottom to find the titles:
http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/BishopSanbornSermonArchives.htm
—
BTW-the bulk of the page to which I linked is filled with Modernism – free sermons & talks, including a Modernism free series on Lent. These talks do not have to be sifted-through to be sure they do not contain hints of the heresy.
Dear de Maria;
There’s nothing to discuss, instead of going into ‘forum’ with you, and tremble….. I will spend some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament….and pray for all of you. What you described, is truly a diabolical propaganda, at it’s best.
I am shaking off the dust from my sandals…..I shake my head and wonder how is it possible that in this darkness……so many think that they are serving God, and yet are blind to the LIGHT!
….we are afflicted but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed…..2 Corinthians 4-8.
Our Father who art in heaven……..and deliver us from evil! Amen
dear John314,
As mentioned in another place, there are no “sv leaders.” Your discrediting attitude, fortunately, is not one held by SSPX priests, Novus Ordo priests, and thousands of faithful with whom sedevacantist bishops and priests engage constantly all over the world. On the contrary, their relaltionships are cordial although they may disagree. So, I suggest that you, as you put it, “get a grip” if only to be capable of intellectual discourse.
—
No, my friend, there is not such thing as an “sv leader.” Bishops and priests who hold that the See is Vacant of the Authority of His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ are true shepherds who in no place teach the heresies embodied in the post-conciliar religion.
Anyone wanting to pray a novena today St. Margaret Mary Alacoque feast day is 17th october.
15 prayers of St Bridget http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Filius/StBrigid.html
John314,
A true pontiff is protected by the Holy Ghost from feeding the sheep anything contrary harmfulto the Faith, including that which is contained within the regular exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium. For God to allow otherwise is to say that God Almighty can contradict Himself through His Bride-Holy Mother Church —which is impossible. Holy Mother Church-the Bride of Christ- is Mater et Magistra- to whose Modest & Chaste garment we Catholics may all cling to Her Truth in full trust and confidence. Does this describe the current ( for over 50 yrs now ) situation in the VII Church? No.
friends,
I take it as proof that we sedevacantists draw thousands to this site— that it has already been pointed out to me by a regular reader this: what I wrote above could be slightly more clear–so it should read as follows:
—
“–BTW-the bulk of the page to which I linked is filled with Modernism- free sermons –” (as in free of Modernism.) And yes, they are also-free of charge !!!—–
—
Proof that even sedevacantists can make mistakes, although that is very, very, very rare indeed. (That’s a joke, folks !! )
FromPoland,
I only asked to meet you in the forum bc Louie has true authority here, it is his site & it’s his request that lengthy discussion on the matter be held there. You see, sedevacantists obey true authority and can discern where & when such authority exists.
—
What you say, FromPoland, is of course all well & good, but we must first and foremost defend Holy Mother Church, She-the Indefectable Bride of Christ. I am not shocked that you, or anyone else, do not want to engage with a sedevacantist- but disappointed.
—
No sedevacantist has any interest whatsoever in defending their position-only, again, to defend The Church-and we will defend Her at sword’s shear and die the death before we would allow anyone to say that She somehow can harbor error.
dear my2cents,
What you are expressing here, to a large degree, would come under the heading of what is called “opinionism.” Opinionism is dangerous to the Catholic-and this expresses why.
—
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=87&catname=10
—
And no, we are not “stuck” with he who is an apostate. There are many who think uniting is a good thing, but no, it can be a disastrous thing. The unity must be the Unity of the True Faith-the only kind of unity that matters.
The truth does not admit of defamation.
Well said, “From Poland”. And your English is excellent too.
A sermon on a Precept of the Church-
Tending to the Perfection of Charity—-Fr. German Fleiss
—
http://mhtseminary.libsyn.com/sermon-the-precept-of-tending-to-the-perfection-of-charity-by-fr-fliess
—
Just over 10 minutes
Thank you, John314, Uncertainty about the definition of universal ordinary magisterium seems to be the main issue that allows some to maintain that a formal finding and declaration of formal heresy on the part of an apparent pope is not necessary for recognising the loss of Office. There’s not much good in repeating the points on this, as has been done over and over by various people for the past 18 months or so. God bless you.
Dear de Maria,
My comment was primarily about “perception” not “opinion”. Bergoglio is perceived by the world to be The Pope. That is not an “opinion”. It is a fact–a sad, unfortunate fact–but still a fact. Bergoglio could not have visited America (or any other country) with such fanfare, if he was not perceived to be The Pope. I am happy for you that you do not feel you are “stuck” with him, but I DO!!!! In any event, I do appreciate your response.
@John314: Do you believe the recently promulgated Motu Proprios regarding annulment are “inside apostolic tradition”, or do they contain an understanding of sacramental marriage that is not fully Catholic?
“Dear from Poland,
I quote: “Before the Sedevacantist armory of arguments many feel helpless…..Ave Maria! The leaders of the Sedevacantist movement have many convincing arguments to demonstrate that the Popes after Pope Pius XII are not true Popes and have fallen from the Catholic faith.Their arguments come from the statements of Saints, Canon Law, Papal Bulls and historical examples to name but a few sources.”
–
JUST STOP THERE!
–
You speak truly. Now consider what you have said:
–
Sedevacantists cleave to the teaching of Holy Mother Church in the teaching of her Saints, Doctors, Popes, Laws and History. Sedevacantists cling to the Deposit of Faith of the Indefectible Church of Christ. Their arguments are convincing because they are Catholic Truth, yet you reject them?
–
Do the Saints, Popes, Doctors, Theologians and Laws of the Catholic Church, before Vatican II, lie?
–
You consider it a waste of time to keep debating Catholic truth, which you class as “stuff”?
—–
Our love of and loyalty to our Catholic Faith makes us sedevacantists proud with an unnatural thirst for forbidden knowledge which is destroying us?
–
Now you speak non- Catholic nonsense!
–
Our Catholic Faith is our Heritage!
–
To know and practice it is our Duty!
–
Knowledge of our Faith is forbidden to no one!
–
The Catholic Truth makes us sedevacantists free!
–
“Where is Peter there is the Church!”
–
You speak truly again. Yet you ignore the Saints, Popes, Doctors, Laws and Theologians of the Church who clearly, emphatically and unambiguously state that a heretic can be neither a Pope, nor even a Member of the Church!
–
Ave Maria….. may Our Lady open your eyes and your Catholic mind!”
–
PS. this lucid comment is courteousy of Dr Peter Lamb.
Dear my2cents,
Of course, yes, you’re right-your comment was mostly about perception. What do you think, dear my2cents, about the fact, as you qualify it, that Bergoglio is also perceived to be Catholic? Wouldn’t that be a natural assumption/perception, if you will-on the part of even atheists? Would you agree that both sedevacantist & sedeplenists alike, perhaps together here, are both more than willing to point out how *no*-the man does not teach that which is actually Catholic? This, IMO, is the entire point of this site. It is what a Catholic must do at that realization that we differ. I was merely pointing out that holding to opinionism is not an option at that point-for the Catholic. (Don’t get me wrong-not that you do-) Thanks, dear
my2cents-I appreciate– as always. Peace be to you.
De Maria ….
Thanks for posting the link
Yes, de Maria, Bergoglio is perceived to be Catholic because, thanks to Vatican II, the world no longer knows what it means to be “Catholic” in the true sense of the word. That is why Bergoglio, the Pope OF the World, is soooo popular. He fits in very nicely into the “Pope” the world wants—–non-judgemental, weak in doctrine (only when it suits him), tolerant of everything and anything, denial of sin, a pope of social causes. I could go on and on. I believe that you and I agree on this. How could the “Pope of the World” not be loved by the world? Everyone loves the easy road. Our faith is not based on “opinion”–it is based on TRUTH according to the Deposit of Faith!!! God bless!
Well, yes, we may cling to holy mother Church, Mater et Magistra, with full trust and confidence, just not the one right now. And don’t you wish that Pius XII had not brought in Bugnini and had him get all the changes in the liturgy started, and allowed the modernists to organize, and made Montini (Paul VI) deputy secretary of state and then kicked him upstairs to be archbishop of Milan, and changed the psalms, and not consecrated Russia properly with all the graces he was given, and…oh well, I guess that’s just wishful thinking, because then we wouldn’t be facing our current situation.
May His Peace abide always, my friend.
dear John314,
you make the point of the sedevacantist (unwittingly ?,)–this is not a challenge-BTW– but, when you say-“just not the one right now”–that which eminates from VII is not the Catholic Church–‘nuf said?
Sedevacantists are the first to point out the poor choices the Supreme Pontiff made in appointments–which as you know are not even limited to those you delineate here–but are actually more numerous. But no, the changes in the liturgy did not start there–
Dear Salvemur,
Be careful, that your ‘zeal’, does not turn into hate, which may destroy your good heart.
When the zeal is holy, then it’s very pleasing to God to use the quotes from the Saints…..etc., but when it is used for satan’s malice to destroy the Faith, it’s pure madness. Please, control your fury, rather, humble yourself, we are not getting any younger…..better yet, would do you, and many, a lot of good to go into the desert……speak to God, He is the greatest listener, and loves a zealous heart, He Knows how to purify and set free a heart that is confused….Love is what He loves…..He cures the blindness. Stop ranting about what you presume, and impose, confuse so many who are weak and in doubt. May those who have ears HEAR!
By no coincidence, I have received an email from a good friend, I will use it, because he says it so much better, then I ever would………….here it is……
Sedes are truthful when informing their unwary listeners how bad the modern popes are, how bad the crisis in the papacy and in the Church. How can we deny what stares us in the face? We have to constantly hold back in denouncing, criticizing and all but condemning these popes. So, in essence, we agree with the Sede position on how the popes of Vatican II lean towards heresy and apostasy and in some cases even foster them.
When it comes to their conclusion, however, (what they call the only loving option) they are 100% unCatholic. None of us have been given the authority, or the grace, or the discernment to make such a weighty judgment that these bad popes are formal heretics and therefore cannot possibly be valid Vicars of Christ. The whole argument is settled right here: God has given none of us the competence or authority to make such a judgment. Only a future pope, or council of cardinals, or Synod of Churchmen can possibly declare any of these popes to have been false popes. Until such time, we have to continue to honor them as popes, to obey them when they command something that is not contrary to Catholic tradition, and battle them with all due reverence for their exalted rank whenever they go against the Faith, or cause injuries to souls or give public scandal by collaboration with the enemies of the Church and Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Only the devil wins whenever a good Catholic succumbs to the error of Sedevacantism. Sedes put forth their viewpoint in public as a virtual dogma of Faith with absolute certainty. This is very dangerous and becomes in itself a terrible public scandal.
It’s for us to pray, pray, pray for the pope, just as we would pray for a bad human father, no matter how bad a person he may be. When Sedes refuse to pray for the pope, they are sinning against Faith, Hope and Charity. It is doubtless the reason why people holding to the Sede position always grow more and more radical in their error, and gradually lose Charity, even giving up the fight for the Faith. Their only crusade soon becomes nothing more than to convince all others that they are right.
If the Church tells us we cannot even inquire, much less judge, the ignorance of non-Catholics, how much less should we formally judge the state of a mind of the reigning pope and strip him of his office in the process? which means that sedevacantists cannot definitively conclude the conciliar popes are not true popes, to do so would make one presumptuous (because we cannot read the popes minds and hearts), they must admit that their conclusion (ultimately their salvation or damnation) rests upon their own private judgment……this is contrary to the spirit of the Catholic Faith and a burden that Christ would never have imposed upon us.
In other words, eventually, their pride destroys them.
St. Robert Bellarmine says it “is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will.” St. Bellarmine reveals how high the ‘notorious’ standard is; even in the case where a Pope is ‘trying to destroy the Church, ‘ notoriety is not presumed, BUT the Pope is recognized as validly holding his office……AMEN!
An apple is still an apple even if rotten and non-edible.
Ps. Salvemur, you may respond, but I will no longer comment…..God Love U!
Danielpan, I promise to pray and work against “disordered pride in a true love of the majesty and the rights of God Himself and in a desire to help souls quit offending Him and His Most Blessed Mother, begging pardon of her Divine Son and of her for the times when our efforts have been disordered and caused more scandal than have been a true help to plant seeds for the eternal good of souls and for the honor and glory of God Himself”, if you will read this link:
–
http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/revised-gates-our-souls
Oops, typical of ‘salvemur’ – got the endless steps and aka’s wrong…from Poland’, but extended to all HTF folks who may have the same sentiments.
– ‘Scuse me Danielpan.
FromPoland, I’m coming out of self-imposed retirement from this com-box because of your comment on sedevacantism. It is just great, and says everything I’ve been wanting to say but couldn’t. Please, please keep fighting for the truth. Don’t let yourself be ridiculed and silenced! Thank you for the best comment in a long, long time. I will pray for you, and the friend who sent you the e-mail.
Barbara I too was thoroughly moved by FromPoland’s words. Thank you so much.
You miss my sarcasm in my “just not the one right now” statement. Here is a relevant letter response by Dr. Carol Byrne regarding what was going on during Pius XII’s reign:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B826_Pius12.html
Cheers,
John.
Most of them probably have an aversion to the Holy Rosary…
That’s a good point BTW – as far as I know, the answer to the 1st Q is no, and I’m following the whole Sin-Nod thing pretty closely…
PS poland and barbara. We never judge interior dispositions. We must judge words and deeds, we are obligated to. The poor philosophy that refuses to take a strong stand for what is cleary good and right is the weak faith that knows something is wrong, but that’s about it. It can see the bad but is blind to where the good is. The heresiarchs of VII are plain, public enemies of the faith you claim to love and live for. Explain how your public witness of being in communion with men who pervert the faith is helping souls, your own included?
Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum: “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.”
–
“Every man is like a tree in the moral order, yiedling a certain kind of fruit. If we wish to form a judgement about him it is enough to wait for and examine his fruits, that is his conduct, deeds and words which will betray his inmost nature; we judge of the cause by its effect.” Fr. Louis Claude Fillion
–
The fruits of your heresiarchs are there for all to know and see and judge.
hi, John314,
Heh, heh- literally–no, I didn’t miss it–I was playing on it-if you will! I might as well say that I’ve come to recognize sarcasm as a reliable indicator of good will on the part of fellow Catholics after begin bludgeoned for decades as a sedevacantist, always by trads-who hold that they love the latin mass & detest those ill-begotten sedevacantists & sedevacantism is out of the question. Not that we mind that.
Anyway–yes, I know what you point to here.
— You know, I’ve read from those who know him well (I knew +Tissier somewhat decades ago – but certainly in no way well) that +Tissier de Mallerais’s personality is reminiscent of the Supreme Pontiff- that being- holding a certain reticence. — (heh-to say the least)
But this is only a combox-although I’d love to continue the discussion-however the format prohibits this-especially re: Louie’s guidelines on going off-topic. That said, I’m sure you already know to excercise caution w/TIA site-although one may find some good-one will also find a lot of pure garbage to which even Vennari would object. (not that the page to which you linked is-I’m not saying that.)
Peace be to you.
hi, Lynda,
there exists no uncertainty in Church teaching on the infallibility inherent in the regular exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium. My I suggest the first third of this audio wherein this very matter is discussed. I hope you enjoy it. Yes, it is 3 hrs.-but the topic is right there-in that very first 1/3.
—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRbDWrSDSY
—
Without saying further, dear Lynda, and with no disrespect-no, it’s not the main issue-no matter how many times people keep harpng on it. And i don’t mean you, Lynda, you know me better than that-at least I hope so.
Dear de Maria, I’m not going to keep repeating myself ad nauseam. The readers know well the differences on what is believed to constitute the ordinary universal magisterium, which allows some persons with an overly broad definition to find the seat is vacant by virtue of manifest error by a pope exercising what they claim to be ordinary universal magisterium (which is infallibly exercised). I’m not going to keep on and on about this. It can be discussed in the Forum by those who wish. I’ve listened to that before, thank you.
dear Lynda,
I think it’s great that you listened & I also appreciate you don’t6 want you discuss anything ad nauseum-as you put it. Who would? But you pressed the point that the following —
“—some persons with an overly broad definition to find the seat is vacant by virtue of manifest error by a pope exercising what they claim to be ordinary universal magisterium (which is infallibly exercised)–“–is , in your words, the main issue. My point is-no, it’s not the main issue. But thank you for your reply.
Dear Lynda and others who wish the Church Militant would stop making you nauseaus (that’s a joke), courteous of Dr Lamb of recent dismissal.
“This is why sedes continue to debate this “stuff”:
–
Again, because it is the solemn duty of the Catholic Church even if no one is listening, even if we should be fed to lions as a result of it. It is the solemn duty of the Catholic Church to expound Catholic doctrine. It is what confirms the faith of Catholics. The Catholic Church can never take into account whether its doctrines will be popular or unpopular. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Church is timeless and ageless, and the truth is eternal. That which loses its connection with eternity and the eternity of truth, goes down the tubes just like every other false religion, every other sect.
–
It is our duty primarily… to merely keep alive the Catholic Faith so that’s its visible to all. We are constantly giving testimony to it even though it’s very unpopular. That’s our job.
–
Una Cum Mass:
=
It’s problematic because Mass with Ratzinger/Bergoglio is then postulated as morally acceptable and if that’s morally acceptable then we should accept Vatican II. The logic goes straight to there. If he’s the pope — and you’re proclaiming him to be the pope in the una cum Mass — then he has all the prerogatives of the papacy. One of those is to alter the liturgy in the way he wants and we must accept it because the Church cannot err in universal disciplines. If that is your message that this man is the pope, if that is your position, your public position, it makes mincemeat out of the Traditional Movement. “