As reported by Vatican News, the German bishops have published guidelines “on sharing Communion” with Protestants that are married to a Catholic.
A statement published on the website of the German Bishops’ Conference declares:
We are concerned to provide spiritual assistance for those addressing questions of conscience in individual cases who receive pastoral care for inter-denominational married couples who have a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.
This one sentence confirms precisely the bottom line that we identified in early May; those favoring so-called “intercommunion” – Jorge Bergoglio chief among them – simply do not believe that the Blessed Sacrament is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
More to the point, they do not believe the very words of Our Lord. As such, the plain, objective reality is that these people simply do not hold the Catholic faith. PERIOD.
Pay close attention to what the German bishops are proposing: Some people have ‘a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.’ Other people, not so much.
What did Our Lord say?
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (John 6:53)
It’s simple, folks: Either one believes in the words of Jesus Christ, who made it perfectly clear that everyone has a grave spiritual need to consume His Body and Blood in the Most Blessed Sacrament (i.e., is Catholic), or one doesn’t (i.e, has no claim to Catholicity).
Let us not lose sight of the fact, however, that Jorge Bergoglio and his merry band of modernists are not so much the revolutionaries as they are a product of the revolution.
During his most recent in-flight presser, His Humbleness opened wide the way for “sharing Communion” with Protestants by pointing to Canon Law; saying that it is up to the local bishop to decide how to proceed:
It [the Code of Canon Law] foresees the competence of the diocesan bishop [in the matter of intercommunion in special cases], but not of the Episcopal Conference. Why? Because something approved in an Episcopal Conference immediately becomes universal.
In this, he is partially correct. Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) places that competence “in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops.” [Emphasis added.]
In this case, I would not be surprised if His Humbleness eventually admits his mistake.
In any event, the 1983 (read, conciliar) Code of Canon Law states that a Protestant (e.g., a grape juice drinking / sourdough bread eating Methodist) can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church if the diocesan bishop approves, and, get this, if he or she “cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it.” (ibid.)
Can’t ask for it?
Think about what you just read: The Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul the Great Ecumenist (a canonized saint, according to some) actually equates the snacks that are handed out in the heretical communities (“it”) with the Most Holy Eucharist!
That said, the 1983 Code, just like Karol Wojtyla, is an outgrowth of the Revolution – the Almighty Council – the same that anointed the heretical communities and their liturgical actions as salvific. (See Unitatis Redintegratio – 3)
It is perfectly obvious to those who are but paying attention that the masquerade has reached midnight and the Catholic masks are coming off; one by one, one after the other.
That’s the beautiful thing about the Bergoglian occupation in general, and the present intercommunion scandal in particular; both are making the grave errors and the false doctrines that were put forth by the Council, and then dutifully disseminated by its enforcers, perfectly plain.
Whereas one could perhaps reasonably claim, in the years immediately following the Council, that the errors enshrined in the text of Vatican II were in some sense lying dormant or not entirely obvious (i.e., they were but “time bombs” as Michael Davies called them); that dog will no longer hunt.
Unbelievers in Catholic costume, like Jorge Bergoglio, are daily revealing their true identity for all to see. Sure, they continue to self-identify as Catholic – the new and improved Catholic, that is – but not all are fooled.
Their assorted heresies and blasphemies are being met with vocal opposition, condemnation, and correction from a growing number of true believers at all levels of the Church; ordinary laymen, theologians, religious, priests, bishops, and even from certain members of the College of Cardinals.
Masks are not falling from Bergolgian faces alone, however, as the blind, the cowardly, and the complicit are revealing their true identities as well.
Unless I was taught incorrectly by the “good Sisters” before V2, only Catholics IN THE STATE OF GRACE may receive Holy Communion. To receive Holy Communion unworthily just adds to the culpability. Has anyone here witnessed the Communion lines in a N.O. parish? It appears to me that everyone sitting in the pews receives holy communion with very rare exception. How is it possible to know if all are Catholic? How is it possible to know if all are Catholics IN THE STATE OF GRACE? Is everyone interviewed? Is there a questionnaire to make sure these conditions are met? What about the papal mega masses? The communion lines are long, but where are the confessional lines? I think the V2 hierarchy is only putting a stamp of approval on what is already taking place. None of this matters if belief in the Real Presence is gone. It’s just a way of sharing a symbolic happy meal. For those who believe the V2 N.O. church is not Catholic, it’s just business as usual and shouldn’t get too depressed over this. The Catholic façade is falling away and that’s a good thing. Hold on to Tradition, pray the Rosary!
A future Pope will have to consider suppressing the Jesuits. So many of the ” .. blind, the cowardly, and the complicit ..” bear the letters S.J. after their names.
Here are two other letters, which I am proud to bear just as Louie does: M.I. Perhaps other readers could look into enrolling in the Militia Immaculatae?
Yes 2 Cents. A few years back JP2 was celebrating Mass inside which was being broadcast over the loud speakers to the throngs. Then priests milled though the crowd handing out Communion to anyone who put their hand out. One reporter looked at the camera and said , “They give you cookies here too.”She popped it in her mouth and said to the camera,”Not bad either.”
No one stated that you must be a Catholic in good standing ,or in the state of Grace with no mortal sins you are aware of, But then, how many even know what a mortal sin is anymore?
TGS below implied that speaking out about the truth concerning what clerics have said, done or are doing is sinful in his previous thread. I believe , “hearing , seeing and speaking no evil” when the truth has or is under your nose is sinful in and of itself.
But then , according to certain posters, silence concerning the problems in the sspx is praiseworthy.
“TGS below implied that speaking out about the truth concerning what clerics have said, done or are doing is sinful in his previous thread.”
I neither said that, nor implied it, so that’s just calumny.
In point of fact, I’ve been blogging on Catholic sites, raging about it all, for about twelve years. Very few have ‘spoken out about the truth’ more than I.
You and your sedevacantist chums have dominated this blog for far too long, turning into a cess-pit. You’ve got some competition now, so get used to it.
How is it possible that the Pope, who is supposed to be The Vicar of Christ, celebrate these Mega-Masses and not be horrified that Our Lord’s Body and Blood are manhandled, abused and desecrated in any and every way possible? A Real Pope would only allow Spiritual Communion in order to protect the Holy Eucharist. At least Communion on the tongue would minimize these outrages. Watching these papal mega-masses on TV proved to me that the faith is lost. sweep, during my association with the SSPX, I have met a number of holy, dedicated, hardworking priests who spoke out very loudly and clearly concerning the errors of V2. Sadly, they have commented that they have been gagged. Let us pray that the upcoming General Election will ungag them. Truth is Truth and must never be suppressed.
Gay people could have organised a celebrant, a venue and reception long before gay “marriage” was legalised. But it wasn’t good enough for them. They needed it to be officially legalised and force society to accept. I believe it’s the same with non-Carholics. Sure they could have lined ap at the NO cue and received their memorial wafer but they want to do it on an official basis and force all NO clergy (not forgetting super-extraordinary ministers) to give it to them.
TGS–I believe Louie is a neo-sede (so to speak) as he does not believe Francis is a True Pope.
Bella Dodd stated that they planned to infiltrate every Catholic group and had great success doing so with the Holy Name Society.
No group is totally immune from evil.
We pray the Rosary daily . Yet I know we must be ever watchful.
You or Poland lady who has ,”the gift of discernment from God”, smeared me as being “prideful”. So sir , you are not free from error because your have several initials of pride after your “Stalin” moniker . In fact, I would think that the moniker “Great Stalin” itself is offensive to Our Holy Mother.Or maybe I missed something in the irony of it all, when you prosthelytize for the SSPX?
if so, I agree with Louie on this. McCarrick admitted at Villanova Borgolio was lobbied for .
I agree with your point but not who did it. It was not the Protestant man in the pew who demanded Holy Communion. It was the reigning hierarchs who provided an answer to a question that wasn’t being asked. They themselves want to bring down Christianity, rend it, distort it, break it, and this is the way they are doing it. One cannot fall back-assward into this amount of destruction, one must be intentional. They are. They are sodomites, and they are destroyers. They have been, and will continue, to seek out many answers to questions that were never asked, and we see it everywhere. It is their design, they claim to hear the questions, and then they answer them, with heresy and sacrilege. There is no “correction” possible for these men, save Divine. But we can make it less comfortable for them while they are proceeding merrily along their course.
2 Cents there are good and evil people in every strata of society. I never would say a priest is holy because I do not know the state of anyone’s soul .Only Our Lord does. That said ,I am not here to condemn anyone for their opinion . But expect the same respect.
To attack me for stating the truth of those I knew heard and saw in the Society is akin to idolatry.
I heard an sspx priest from the pulpit praise Hitler as having saved Catholic Art when in fact he and his SS were stealing Art for themselves. I saw an sspx priest tell a little girl to get out of his confessional because he was only listening to the confessions of males. I witnesses women of the sspx as false pious staunch
abolitionists run up to an elderly couple blocking their way into Church because the old lady was wearing a pantsuit and was unveiled and God help the children what I saw and heard first hand at a girls summer camp was just bazaar lunacy.
Too bad if Stalin or the Specially God Gifted Polish woman , It is the TRUTH.
I hate the word “tolerance”, having heard it so often and seeing it so misused, but I do think we in Catholic blogs need to practice it more often. The combox is a great place to get together with fellow Catholics, something we all really need today. What is the point of turning it into just another place to fight? We can disagree, but let’s do it without resorting to name-calling and insults? Debate ideas, avoid personal attacks? We can do better, really we’re called to do better.
I think we just have to face the fact that the majority of clerics and Prelates just do not care enough who is a True Believer or who isn’t. They do not care if children are defiled by their own, only if they are caught as evidenced by the boy who was molested in the minor seminary right on Vatican grounds where they go and also serve as altar servers for the Vatican. They knew who did the molesting and went on to Ordain him anyway.
It appears to be all about numbers of people to fill the baskets.
@Sweep: John 10:12 –
“But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep”
I did tell the truth about what I saw and heard in the SSPX chapels. I do not like being attacked for telling the truth of any of our travels or personal experiences. But yet certain “catholics” who belong to certain “sects” go berserk trying to shut one down for doing so.
Bishop Williamson the Holocaust denier was run out of Canada for his preaching and Fr Angles, who is just as bad remains in the SSPX as Bishop Fellay’s Canon Law advisor. Fr Angles who said his parents were close to Hitler’s filmographer and who bragged they bought Hitler’s mercedes at auction which was another lie to add to his list of fake relics he donated to the SSPX college, which included the skull of St Thomas More which was listed on their “Angelus” website.
TGS said my posts were “strange” yet he must know all of this all too well. Thomas Case did an excellent job of investigating and reporting on the same for “Fidelity Magazine” and much more while in St Mary’s , Kansas.
TGS would have us believe that was all in the past in the eighties when they had some troubles and one prideful priest who formed the “Resistance”. Let’s see who could that one priest be? Was it Williamson, Chazal, Pfieffer, Hewko, Scott , Ensey, Roberts or someone else? Maybe fr Angles?
No he is still one of the admired big whigs in the Society!
Can you imagine how I felt when my daughter was being heavily courted by one family whose son was “interested” in getting to know her when, at their home ,I see a book on the coffee table that denied the entire Anne Frank account? Somebody sure died in the Holocaust and it wasn’t just ArchBshop LeFebvre’s parents for which we have yet to see an official record. A family I knew who stayed in St Mary’s Kansas for three or four weeks ,returned to tell us they,”……. just stepped out of the Twilight Zone” and when they tried to take a photo of the main street before they left a resident a
block away jumped off his front porch and came running at them in the street repeatedly screaming, “No pictures!!!!”, at which point they jumped in their car and took off never to return.
A more recent case in the sspx Post Falls, Idaho populated town, where a very sick man who was asked to leave the SSPX seminary ( after trying to remove his own foreskin from his penis) was employed as a camp counselor and finally arrested for having molested sspx parishioner’s boys.
” Much of his abuse was committed “on the road” with children. Apparently that is the abuse that was reported to the priests, so…. again… after the reports of abuse he did away from “the church and summer camp” and after reports of his self-cricumcision, why was he allowed around children at the church and summer camp?
The reasonable interpretation consistent with BOTH the SSPX statement and the statements of “several” who reported the abuse is: “We ignored the reports because the reported abuse didn’t happen at the church or summer camp. We also thought it was just fine to put parish children with a nut who attempted to circumcise himself at the seminary.”
So no this group as a whole are neither “holy” or “perfect”. They do have the TLM ,but as for anything else? Caution should be advised at the very least , especially if you have younger impressionable children and I would be leery of any sect’s member who posts they have special gifts from God in discernment and can tell who is being truthful or lying .
I post here because as my moniker implies, I want to see the perverts who are sodomizing and raping children eliminated from the priesthood wherever they may hide and I want to caution Faithful Catholics as to the who what and where’s these vile crimes occur.
Too dang bad if it happens in anyone particular sect’s sacred space.
Stalin, you have your own “cess pit” within the Society
so roter rooter that out before you attack Catholics for having a different point of view than yours.
St Cyprian, we need real Shepherds , albeit less in number.
You do miss the irony of it, yes.
If he’s not a true Pope, Then he’s an anti-Pope. That is possible, but either way he IS some kind of Pope, isn’t he? He has the office and the authority. I don’t see any other candidates, whatever Ratzinger or Gorgeous George say about a split Papacy.
But there’s no mechanism for testing the theory or for bringing a process of clarification to a conclusion, is there? So.we are stuck with Bergoglio.
The dubia Cardinals had no balls, that’s evident.
To be fair, canon 844 requires danger of death or other grave necessity, and profession of Catholic faith.
Which does not mention an explicit belief in the Pope , correct?
TGS gives the same response to clerical pedophiles below as most of the Bishops have.
blah blah blah……….
St Cyprian ,which again brings up a good point that Vox mentioned.
“I know what Donatism is. It is not a question of the priest’s sanctity, it is the intention at ordination. If a marriage can be declared null because the person lied or had malicious intent why not ordination?”
They could sure save quite a bit of pew people donations if our monies did not go to support all those found as credible pervs whose victims were paid off with silence clauses. These sex offenders never even have to register on a sex offender list like the rest of the” populace”! No wonder they find the clerical state so attractive !
You sure do like to throw the accusation of “CALUMNY” around , like Francis and his bishops have done.
The problem is that when faced with the truth you remain silent . i.e. the links to Post Falls story and St Mary’s, Kansas by Thomas Case. Statute of Limitations?
“That happened days, months or years ago but it was all cleared up?”Nothing to see , move on.
If all you have to offer is an anti church thesis that sometimes it is the church and sometimes it isnt the church (see TGS’s Alien analogy), I would say we do not have any serious competition, just more amusement.
“One individual who feared for his life has said, according to the newspaper report, that the SSPX has “begun resembling a cult in the past several years.” The article noted that “Members of the breakaway group want to start their own church and school. They say the Pius X Order doesn’t want them to do that.” One woman interviewed has said that “They are after utter, total control of everything in our lives. They won’t let us go.” “Reports that came in from St. Mary’s have told of a verbal harangue by Fr. Angles toward Fr. Rizzo’s twin brother Joseph. During the half hour to forty-five minute tirade, reportedly in front of other priests and deacons, Fr. Angles apparently made an offhand threat to Joe. In view of the climate of vandalism and violence occurring at St. Mary’s Joe took the threat seriously and called the cops. It is understood that Fr. Angles went in for questioning which lasted for three or four hours.
I think that more strange and bizarre behavior can be expected on the part of the Society and / or its supporters in the future. As if to support that belief Fr. Hewko some time later allegedly said to students at St. Mary’s that they must learn to hate those who are opposed to Fr. Angles and what he is trying to do at St. Mary’s.”
“I’ve been told that according to the SSPX, the Knights of the Precious Blood (KPB) at St. Mary’s had to promise perfect (that is, absolute) submission (obedience) not to the Church, but to the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. The SSPX has told us that outside the Society you will lose your faith and your soul. What they are saying is that outside the Society, rather than the Church, there is no salvation. The Society, it appears, is claiming to be the Church.”
“Always Changing In cults it will usually be found that their values, precepts, rules, methods, ideas, plans, and even mores can change over time – characteristics noted by those who have fled the Society.”
Does it ever end??
“Is this tongue not that of a viper? It is surely very fierce, for it kills three victims with single sting.”
Saint Bernard, ora pro nobis!
I said it once. That’s throwing something around? Grow up.
You don’t appear to be laughing, Tom.
Yes, the sedevacantists are silent at this point. All hot air and conflict and controversy for their own sakes.
Pathetic. Blather, hatred of the Church and more blather. Nothing else. One.doesn’t see any charity in them – just like the Modernist revolutionaries. Funny, that.
Sweepoutthefilth should start with herself.
My remark was addressed to this paragraph in the original post:
“In any event, the 1983 (read, conciliar) Code of Canon Law states that a Protestant (e.g., a grape juice drinking / sourdough bread eating Methodist) can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church if the diocesan bishop approves, and, get this, if he or she “cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it.” (ibid.)
@My2cents is absolutely correct, if one is in a state of mortal sin one cannot receive Holy Communion. But I am encouraged however because I attended NO Mass for Corpus Christi and the priest made this ruling clear. He mentioned the species of bread and wine too. It was refreshing to hear all of this being spoken about during his homily. It is important that our priest reiterate age old church teaching about practice and observance.
I would never contemplate receiving Holy Communion in state of mortal sin. I simply could not do so.
So an anti-pope is a “sort” of pope? Are you insane?
Here is Louie’s blog piece on his views on Francis and Sedevacantism. Those who wish to attack the sedevacantist posters here and call Louie’s combox a “cess-pit” because he allows them to post here should probably read this:
Yes, he is sometimes the pope of the Catholic Church and sometimes the pope of the Anti-Church. YWIA.
Yes thank you, I looked it up and was not surprised.
“catholic” in ecumenical speak, does not mean a church with a pope.
Dear Polish woman in vainglory who self attests ,” with the Gift of Discernment from God” , I did not write this.
Rather, it was from others who explained what they experienced in the SSPX , which to the shock of a family who went to the same chapel we did and exited , confirmed it was very much the same as their own experiences there also .
So I assume you consider anyone who leaves the SSPX and talks about their time spent in the Society is a “viper”?
That smacks of a “cult” mindset to me.
mparks12 says: “To be fair, canon 844 requires danger of death or other grave necessity, and profession of Catholic faith.”
Here is Canon 844, Section 4 of the JPII Code of Canon Law:
“If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
(1) Still, the bishops get to decide what constitutes a “grave necessity”. Leaves the door wide open. So, what Louie said still holds true: if the bishop approves it.
(2) This is not a formal profession of the Catholic Faith, not a formal conversion to the Catholic Faith which was always required by the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican II (see the 1917 Code of Canon Law). Also, this so-called profession required in the JPII Code only pertains to the Sacrament, not to any other Catholic teaching. In other words, the person receiving the Sacrament is still not a Catholic.
It’s like being “kinda pregnant”. Either you are or you aren’t.
SSPX has it’s own “cess pit.”
“This time, it reveals that on the issue of clerical sex abuse of minors, the SSPX has a mindset that dangerously lags decades behind the rest of the Catholic Church. As Inés San Martín reported yesterday, the program cites both victims of three abusive SSPX priests and the response of its bishops, as evidence that the abusers were never dealt with as Catholic Church guidelines in developed countries have long required.
They were shuffled between parishes, apparently never reported to the civil authorities, and given prayer-and-penance punishments that – in one case at least – was never enforced.
Two of the abusers joined Williamson’s faction. They are in active ministry in England.”
“The fact that Fellay himself allowed one of the abusive priests to organize camping trips for children suggests that the culture of omertà which has caused havoc in the Catholic Church in the past reaches right to the top of the SSPX.
Almost as shocking is the revelation that the Vatican knew about these cases yet did not – apparently – ask the SSPX to alert the police and civil authorities in the relevant countries. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has long urged Catholic bishops to do this as a matter of course.”
So the self described “competition” here to recruit for SSPX, offers one charismatic woman From Poland who has claimed in a previous post on this blog she ,”…has the Gift of Discernment from God.” Along with Stalin who considers all problems with the Society happened in the eighties with one man.
Why would anyone consider this the sole voice of Catholic Tradition when they have clerical child perverts in their ranks and more importantly shelter, transfer them and cover up their crimes just like the NO Bishops have done?
Before suppressing any one Order ,the future Pope should purge the Church of sodomites and all pederasts including Bishops and before embracing the SSPX.
“Pope Francis should delay SSPX agreement pending abuse probe”
My 2 Cents, That has been exactly my response to so many emails on this same subject.
Irregardless of any of our positions about the state of the abuses in the Church we have all endured for the past fifty some years I believe we can all agree nothing will improve as long as these perverts are protected, concealed and recruited into seminaries .
It has to be cleaned up and out from the top down. No more excuses for this because their numbers are just overwhelming and now they feel empowered by the likes of James Martin and others.
We all need to be praying the rosary daily .
Calm down Rich!
“A sort of a Pope” simply means that even as an anti-Pope, (which he isn’t) he does seem to be the only game in town, doesn’t he?
Why is it so hard to accept that Bergolio is the Pope? He may well in God’s eyes be outside the Church. He may well have been a heretic for many years before his election. He is certainly an appalling man, a tin-pot despot over what is increasingly showing itself as an institution to be a homosexual banana republic.
But that’s clearly not enough.
I don’t see any other Pope around holding office in Rome of whom Bergoglio would be the ‘Anti”. I am not aware of a second Bishop of that diocese. I don’t see any juridicial process to oust him. I don’t see any movement of Cardinals or Bishops to break ranks with him. He is accepted as Pope by the overwhelming majority of Catholics.
So he is the Pope, the worst and most dangerous in history, yes. But the Pope.
Thanks 2Vermont for posting that link. I read it before but have now done so again.
You’ll be surprised maybe to read that I agree with much of it, certainly with Louie’s warning to follow Bergoglio at one’s own risk.
My position differs from his. I will only follow Bergoglio when I see him teaching what I know to be the authentic Catholic Faith. Otherwise I won’t.
Another point of difference (this one is actually in your favour): the thousands, tens of thousands, maybe many more than that, of laity who have written to the Popes since Paul VI warning about the effects of Vatican II and begging for a restoration of the Faith in its fullness, may well constitute the first and second warnings that Louie only accepts for Bergoglio but doesn’t address for the others.
In the end, the ground upon which I stand is that (a) there will always be a Church; (b) that Church has to have a Pope.
What you and Tom, Rich and the others have to show me is where is the Church now, and where is the Head of that Church? Tom cannot answer. Can you? Because a lack of a definite answer on this point ipso facto means that there IS no Church, and that cannot be.
My own answer to my question is obviously the one I gave on the previous thread: that the Church is where she’s always been, visible in the institution that is called the Catholic Church – or, at the very least, in those members of that institution who still hold to the integral Catholic Faith handed down by the Apostles, however few they may be.
What would I say if this or a subsequent Pope formally sought to change the teaching of the Church on faith or morals (and not “merely” by adjusting “praxis”, which is the Argie’s approach)?
I genuinely don’t know. The implications are too great and I shrink from the question.
Let us try to be accurate.
“TGS would have us believe that was all in the past in the eighties when they had some troubles …”
That was Tom, not me.
The point of my posting that blog piece was to show you that your attacks on sedevacantism and sedevacantists is in sharp contrast to how Louie treats the position and those that follow it. Until I see a change in how you treat both in the combox, I am not sure why I should bother answering any of your questions.
Besides, I have been very clear on what I believe in this combox with respect to matters related to sedevacantism. With respect to the visibility of the Church I also made it clear in the other blog piece that just because the Church is not readily recognizable/can’t be seen doesn’t mean She doesn’t exist. Otherwise, there was no Church to thousands of people when it was first constituted in the Upper Room.
I have ideas on where the Church is, but I am still working on that. I prefer not to comment about something until I am sure of what I say. In the mean time, I see nothing wrong with Tom or anyone else saying “I don’t know where the Church is” in this time of confusion and Crisis. It shows humility and it certainly does not mean the Church no longer exists ….as I already explained.
Explaining and clarifying church teaching is vital , Louie does an excellent job where that is concerned. Mrs Engel has done a great service with all her wearying investigative work to which I am most grateful, unfortunately the comment section of this site has become a place where every thing has been torn to shreds, constant attacks against SSPX ,Cardinal Burke etc…there are souls who frequent this site for encouragement as well as clarification on the church teachings and these endless stories serve no purpose. Our Divine Savior is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament in the NO parishes, SSPX parishes and wherever the priest follows the rubrics. We are all too aware of the evils in the church….it has been there since Judas. In your charity try to remember those who are in need of encouragement ….be very cautious that you who are so eager to tell all don’t cause a soul to fall in despair!
Yes let’s do be accurate. You belong to a cult and are angry because I am ere pointing out the cult like and predatory character of some members of that cult. Furthermore, you and the polish woman use name calling and childlike expressions in your posts when anyone posts factual truth about said cult.
Aside from 2 Cents and maybe wrong here, i was raised in the Traditional Catholic Church .
I also took a sojourn in the SSPX and was asked by several priests to teach at a girls summer camp in Ridgefield, Connecticut.
What I witnessed from the pulpit and while speaking with priests and employees of the Society bot in their chapels and while dining with them ,was anything but the Traditional Catholic Church I was raised in and educated in for a good part of my life.
What’s wrong with this letter?
Regardless. “Irregardless” is ghetto-speak.
Theresa, there is nothing more charitable than giving someone the truth even if it offends and disturbs. There are myraid theological problems with SSPX, Burke, NO sacraments, etc. It is time Catholics seek the truth rather than cling to their convenient imaginary constructs. To pretend all is basically well except for the sodomite clergy and a liberal pope is to put your head in the sand. Modernism has introduced a new religion posing as the Catholic faith. Don’t despair, do your own research and make the logical conclusions intead of emotional panaceas that perserve the facade.
Every comment section on every Catholic site is now a sad testament to the confusion wrought by the Judas Council. Just imagine what the robed hirelings will have to suffer in hell for what they’ve done.
Yesterday we visited one of the missions established in the 1850’s among the Indians by the great Fr. De Smet. Pictures of him were there. Such a serious man. Much gravity. None of the fey frivolity displayed by today’s feculent fays. Very refreshing. How he would have hated the Judas Council and its prancing wolves.
“.be very cautious that you who are so eager to tell all don’t cause a soul to fall in despair!”
Theresa, souls fall into despair while searching for a solution to this mess.
The informed person at least has a fighting chance, especially if they are a parent with children. I personally have seen countless Catholic families who home school their children and are desperate for like minded Catholic socialization with other children and adults.
If one chooses to attend an SSPX Mass that is one thing, but there needs to be a word of caution for those parents who join the society and send their children off to the Society camps retreats and excursions.
The Society has within it an element of militancy that is borne from Nazi politics and sadly certain prelates have chosen that form of militancy which has no relation to Gospels of Christ, to whip up a strange type of fervor in the youth that is identical to what was used the Hitler Youth
groups prior to WW2. ( see documentaries of Hitler Youth on PBS)
Some of the parents pushed to accompany the boys on these excursions with the priests and came back disillusioned that their boys were being told to ignore the posted regulations and signs of warning in state parks.
One priest started a huge bonfire in a state park and when the female park guard came and ordered him to extinguish it per the regs clearly posted , he told his group she ,”must be a lesbian”. On another occasion he urged the children to step over a warning sign and continue on a clearly marked trail that was deemed dangerous at that time of year.His rationale was ,”We follow God’s Law not that of the state!”
So many children have died attending these functions that the SSPX began using forms parents had to sign pre absolving both priests and employees of the of any liability INCLUDING DEATH BEFORE they could register their children.
Four or five boys who could not swim were sent off to cross the English Channel in a plastic dinghy by one Fr Cottard SSPX .They drowned .
Two boys drowned in the Missouri River at an SSPX summer camp,
Boys were airlifted off a New England mountain with priest due to being lost and suffering hypothermia. Over one hundred little girls collapsed in a field in France in the hot sun dressed in layered clothing to cover their “immodest” arms.
If you are single and have no children b all means attend these chapels if you believe this is what Traditional Catholicism was, but be forewarned Tradition is not fascism.
I guess the “pride filled ” “viper” comes from a ghetto?
But is was indeed at least Traditional Catholic ghetto where common sense Traditional Catholicism once reigned.
Use tactics that have worked in the past.
Consider the following:
The principle that’s being applied in this instance is the same as that which a minority of US bishops invoked decades ago to solve three pastoral “problems.” They did not want:
– to change the discipline of “no meat on Fridays”;
-to have Vigil Mass on Saturday to anticipate Sunday Mass; and,
-to transfer most of the Church’s Holy Days of Obligation to the following Sunday.
Of course, the majority of US bishops very much desired those changes but couldn’t prevail so that uniformity reigned supreme across the fruited plain.
Why? As pastors, they wanted to make things more convenient for Catholics, appeasing the vocal faithful who were grumbling, griping, and complaining. Then, when explaining their decisions to make those changes in weekly columns in their diocesan newspapers, that majority of bishops suggested those pastoral solutions–lightening the burden of being a practicing Catholic–would encourage Catholics to enjoy more the essential practice of their faith…and, it was thought, would also build a larger, more vibrant Catholic Church across the fruited plain.
Forget about the “problem” raised by treating the reception of Holy Communion as similar to the “problems” of Church discipline that caused Catholics to express dissatisfaction because they happened to be inconvenienced. After all, consider how many were asking “Why don’t non-Catholics have to put up with all of those ‘man-made laws’ and can still go to Heaven? Isn’t this unfair?”
That principal–invoked by the majority of local bishops across the fruited plain for their particular dioceses to lighten the burden of Catholic practice that was weighing down upon the shoulders of the faithful–really worked, hasn’t it?
Perhaps the real problem is that the masses of faithful today–not just Catholics–have decided to relegate the practice of religion to the status of a pleasure that’s to be exploited whenever one wants feel good rather than a serious and disciplined way of life that, when practiced, strengthens the will to do the good.
It might be asked: “Is a religion whose practice is dictated by convenience a religion at all?
–The Motley Monk
To be fair, the definition of “other grave necessity” is not defined, purposefully, so that any interpretation whatsoever can be used to allow anyone to partake in what is in actuality, simply a communal meal.
The Great Stalin wrote “Why is it so hard to accept that Bergolio is the Pope? He may well in God’s eyes be outside the Church. He may well have been a heretic for many years before his election.”
In only 3 short sentences you managed to contradict Pope Paul IV, Doctor of the Church and Saint Robert Bellarmine as well as the first Vatican Council.
It would appear you are innocently unaware of what you do not know.
You have posted much recently presenting a 101 version of the Recognize and Resist position concocted and made famous principally by the SSPX.
I, and others here, understand the position well as some of us once thought the R&R position correct. In other words, many have heard all of this before.
Below is a link to an excellent video. It is highly recommended that you, and others seduced by the R&R mythology, watch it at least once.
You will learn how the R&R position is in opposition to Church teaching and thus is simply not Catholic.
A bare bones nutshell summary is all I have space for. It goes something like this. The R&R adherents point out that the Vatican II sect says and does many things that it should not.
But here is the distinction the R&R position misses. The Catholic Church not only should not, but could not, do what the Conciliar Church does. Holy Mother Church simply isn’t capable of such errors. For the Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Ghost.
I will provide no supporting evidence in my own words. You will find the truth of the matter as taught by the Church, with supporting evidence, laid out in the video.
I hope you and others find it helpful.
It appears to me there are two types of ‘pride” on display in these com boxes. One has to do with personal spiritual pride i.e. “God has given me the gift of discernment” and another has to do with the hard questions about who is right or wrong about what exactly is Tradition.
While quoting Popes and Saints is laudable for direction we still have to fall back on the Scriptures and the changing interpretations that morph to meet societal situations.
The primary Situation is…….. we are faced with sexual perversions even among Christ’s Ministers and they have infiltrated even those groups that offer the TLM Mass.
Clearly this should be of utmost concern since the Scriptures stress this is an Abomination before God and He destroyed peoples and cities who ascribed to these vile perversions.
If the entire world accepts this as a norm or “alternative lifestyle”. Catholics who practice the Traditional Faith and remain silent while their pastors and bishops look the other way and shuffle these perps around , are doomed too. Denial because you have a favorite group whose status you want to protect as being perfect , is still denial any which way you justify it. it is half past the hour to demand accountability from those Bishops who have fallen down on their responsibility to protect and shepherd the innocent to Jesus Christ in whatever Order, Diocese or Trad Group they belong to and it should be demanded from the man who currently sits on Peter’s throne.
The Rosary is our only weapon along with shining the light on the Truth.
The Great Stalin: Obviously, the rise and reign of the Antichrist is going to be so easy and so effortless
when “a majority of Catholics” actually believe what you believe: that Christ’s Church, instituted to go forth into the whole world and teach and preach the Good News of Jesus Christ, could instead morph into a church going forth into the whole world to teach and preach the false gospel of Satan.
No one with any intellectual honesty or common sense can deny the church in Rome is teaching and preaching the false gospel of Satan.
And how do you know that Bergoglio, who you believe to be pope, hasn’t actually been inspired by the Holy Spirit to change whatever you think is “the integral Catholic Faith handed down by the Apostles”? He certainly thinks he has as did the Vatican II council members who voted to abandon Christ and follow Satan. How can you trust any past teaching if a true pope could teach and preach, speak and act as he does?
Your answer is to “shrink from the question” which is exactly the hope of Satan and his demons. Don’t think, even if you are led to eternal damnation.
Katherine, your response is perfect. The Church (as established by Christ) is the Bride of Christ. The Bride of Christ can NEVER be Ugly. Thank you for your comment.
I would just like to briefly chime in here and point out that I was the first to raise the issue of Canon 844 and its relevance to the AL debates.
I did so for only one reason. That there would nobody left standing who could pretend to uphold the other conciliar Popes but deny Pope Francis.
I did my job well and the anti-Francis movement is all but dead now.
“Every comment section on every Catholic site is now a sad testament to the confusion wrought by the Judas Council. Just imagine what the robed hirelings will have to suffer in hell for what they’ve done.”
So true Alphonsus, so true.
While I agree with you Tom, I can also appreciate Theresa’s sentiments. We can and should give the truth even if it offends and disturbs, but we should always be careful of our choice of words and tone. And I say that while fully admitting that I do much better in this regard when I sense the other person is being respectful of my position.
Alphonse , I must have a problem with logic that no one else here has.
You see it makes perfect sense to me that Marxist homosexuals assigned to enter seminaries and become clerics and rise to the highest career position they can attain before turning their own conservative image on it’s head would bring about Vatican Two. It also stands to reason some would participate in a controlled opposition to foment schism and the confusion we seem to be in.
Everyone thinks it is all about the Mass , the Popes , the Council, the language . No it is about moral perverts who pervert everything else when they run the show.
I get it, I get it !!!
Double negative, the bane of my existence .
My old friend Ganganelli. I have to admit (and Im not the sharpest tool in the shed) that I STILL, after all of these years on this blog talking to you, do not fully know what you are about.
From reading Gang’s postings it sounds like he was disenchanted with the type of “Tradition” he experienced in SSPX . He said he was married in the SSPX………so he attended one of their chapels.
and they got the Pope they wanted.
Your next step is to renounce the wretched Novus Ordo disservice altogether. Then start this reading sequence:
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre
The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron
One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council, by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud
Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio
He actually makes some very good points, but I wish I knew exactly where he stood in all of this craziness.
A refusal to answer a question generally denotes that you haven’t got an answer. However, as you say you’re still working on it, fair enough. Let us have the answer when you’ve thought it through.
Louie gives space here to you when no-one else will – that’s kind of him. But it’s the tone, always the tone …. whether it’s NOW or HFM — the sedevacantist tone is the giveaway.
You have a responsibility to the many readers who don’t comment. I am very fearful for the damage done to them.
You haven;t understood a single word I wrote on the previous thread, so your comment here is so much hot air.
You write, ” … Christ’s Church … could instead morph into a church going forth into the whole world to teach and preach the false gospel of Satan.”
No, Christ’s Church has NOT morphed into anything at all. She remains, spotless, indefectible, faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The thing doing the gospel of Satan stuff is the ANTI-CHURCH, which is most of the time BUT NOT ALWAYS, NOT EVERYWHERE AND NOT ALL THE TIME, appears to be indistinguishable from the Church.
I readily grant that as events appear to be coming to a head, the congruence of the two appears to be almost total. But nevertheless, they are entirely different entities, chalk and cheese, oil and water.
Where are they? The Anti-Church is in much plainer view as hell’s legions sense their time has come and they emerge from under their stones.
And the Church? Where is it?
Among the sedevacanstists here, 2Cents and Tom are either still working on it or cannot tell me.
Among the Catholics, I have given an analogy familiar to most people which hits the mark almost exactly I think. I have also made the point that the dividing line between the two is SPIRITUAL and not primarily institutional, for the line between good and evil, to use Solzhensitsyn’s immortal phrase, runs through every human heart.
What I must totally reject, because it rejects Christ’s own words, is that the Catholic Church no longer exists. This is what your post above says very clearly, and so does the sedevacantist position generally. It cannot be, therefore the thesis is wrong.
A cult, good Lord! Let’s hope that Bishop Fellay doesn’t drag us all off to a jungle in Guyana and force us all to drink cyanide!
Do get a hold of yourself. Your hatred of the SSPX is not only misplaced, it makes you a laughing stock.
Where do you get this idea that we sede’s believe that our Catholic Church no longer exists? What sede has ever said that? During every true interregnum all Catholics, for that week or so, are sedevecantists. Its not some sort of “looney” concept. When ratzinger dies before bergoglio (as is likely to happen), most who post here will become sedevacantists, if they werent already. This is a “francis is not a pope” blog. You keep promoting your argentinian piece of excrement….most of us here arent that ignorant anymore.
Sweep, the perverts are the symptom of bad dogma, doctrine, and practices. It is not sodomites who ruined the Church, its modernists. Modernist theology allowed sodomites to “coexist” inside the Church since without dogmas, the Church lost its authority to comdemn sodomites. You are absolutely correct in denouncing the filthy perverts but you come across to others as believing that if we just got rid of the filthy perverts, the Church will be great again. That is addressing only one symptom. The root cause is modernism as manifested in V2 and the NO. If you could magically remove every sodomite from the priesthood tomorrow, the ones left would be just as dangerous to our souls since they are all modernists. In some ways the sodomites can only harm and abuse the flesh, but the modernist do much worse, they destroy our faith.
Does anyone have info about the SSPX employing a high-end European marketing firm to change their image from warriors to nice guys?
Rich: I have decided that TGS is of bad will towards sedes. Period. If he were of good will then he would acknowledge that not knowing or “seeing” where the Church is does not equate with it not existing. I have explained how this is by referring back to the beginning of the Church when thousands of people did not know or see the Church … and yet the Church existed. I have now said it at least three times and he never acknowledges this. As you say, no sedevacantist believes the Church is gone but anti-sedes repeatedly say so in the hopes of scaring others away from the position…which is the only reason why TGS is here.
I have read a lot about “where the Church is” and no one (including TGS although he thinks he’s gotten this all figured out) has an answer that completely resolves the question of where the Church is in this Crisis. Yes, we traditional Catholics are part of that visible Church, but the real question is where is the authority. What I do know with certainty is that the men that appear to be Church authority these days can not possibly be the Church because they believe that Vatican II is a true, Catholic Council…and that includes Novus Ordo darlings such as Burke and Schneider who talk much and do little. Until they condemn the Council for what it was and convert to Catholicism as it was and always will be before the Council, they are frauds too.
My understanding (and I have been here for far less time than you) is that he is Novus Ordo (although he may attend a diocesan or indult TLM). I think his main point is that those who point fingers at Francis (and not the other conciliar popes) are inconsistent. I’m pretty sure that he was the one who said for that reason he has more respect for the sedevacantists…because we are consistent.
I find that most of the Catholics who are up in arms these days are only up in arms because they see Francis attacking Church teachings on morals…specifically sexual morals…adultery, homosexuality, abortion, etc. I am fairly certain that none of these things were attacked at Vatican II.
TGS, the sede thesis says the Chair is empty. It says nothing about the existence of the Church. It says nothing about any other issue in the Church. It states one thing and one thing only. Through heresy, the conciliar popes could not have been Popes, ergo the See is Vacant. It is not dogmatic, it is simply a pragmatic thesis to explain what we all see coming from Rome. Sedes differ on issues like validity of orders and sacraments, but that will all have to wait till a real Pope settles the issues. Some sedes stay home, some go to sspx chapels, some are dogmatic about it and some are not. If you are going to give counter argumets against sedevacatism it would be wise if you correctly understood it, instead of constantly misrepresenting it.
I do. Could you please explain?
Tom the timing of Dodd’s seeding of the seminaries was about 1920 . The instructions were to rise as far in a clerical career as possible more or less as a conservative and then when reaching a prelate status turn your positions around .I rec’d the a copy of the notarized document from TX around 2003 by a couple who heard her speak. A post it note attached “Alice wants you to know Dodd said only homosexual communist party members took these assignments.” Alice , being von Hildebrand.
I believe these men were a big part of V2.
“Modernism” was a banner for communists.
My b-i-l, growing up in a communist country expressed that to me when we visited . statues , ugly apartments and art all became “Modernist” during the communist governing rule which stood in stark contrast to the Hapsburg era architecture.
Modernism grew out of the so called age of Enlightenment which was Freemasonry. Marxist Freemasonry and modernism are synonymous with the outgrowth of communist thought.
“The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church”
Following the so called “Age of Enlightenment”Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”was produced.”Near the end of the Manifesto, the authors call for “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”, which served as the justification for all communist revolutions around the world.”
Pope Pius X was no slouch in rightly seeing the whole!
“That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man. ”
Diabolical pollution of social thought dubbed the “Enlightenment” and later “Marxism “all flowed naturally into what Pascendi called “modernism”. The primary target was Catholic Dogma.
The abscess reached it’s bursting point with Vatican Two and poisoned the church institution from within.
We now have it’s crowning glory in the present visible occupant of the Chair.
I think it no coincidence that PP6th was himself a homosexual.
Mark a timeline for all these eras and see for yourself.
My 2 Cents, You may find your answers here or in the links they provide near the end of the article.
At risk of being labeled “prideful” and/ or “viper” I provide this link .
I lived in Russia for over a decade. I speak Russian, my wife is Russian. After finally leaving the place, I created TGS solely as a means of writing comments taking the piss out of Russia and all things Russian. But nowadays the comedy has passed and he’s used for much more serious stuff. But I like him. Usually he appears with a particular Stalin picture from an old Soviet poster but that’s not possible as faras I am aware with WordPress.
My 2 Cents , you may also find some answers here.
Sorry Tom I cannot reply in the right place, but WordPress doesn’t put a “reply” button under every post.
You wrote, “TGS, the sede thesis says the Chair is empty. It says nothing about the existence of the Church.”
Sure, that’s the starting point. But there are logical consequences to saying that there is no Pope, to whit, the disappearance of the Church.
Firstly, where are we now, sixty years since the death of Pope Pius XII? You don’t accept any Pope after him. But the Papacy is an integral part, the lynch-pin, of the earthly governance of the Church. With every month that passes, the sedevacantist thesis is faced with a greater problem – how to explain the ever-lengthening time Christ is allowing His Church to drift leaderless through time?
Secondly, and apologies if I am wrong, but you don’t accept the validity of either the current Sacrament of Ordination nor the order of service for the consecration of a Bishop. That means more or less that there must be very, very few Bishops or priests left in the world who were validly ordained / consecrated, which again ipso facto means that the Church has failed.
On neither account therefore can your thesis stand.
Thirdly, sedevacantists are mostly I think hostile to Fatima. Our LAdy there said that her Immaculate Heart would triumph. But for that, Russia needs to be consecrated in the way Our Lady requested. For that, one needs a valid Pope. But there isn’t one, according to you; and if the Apostolic Succession fails, then there cannot be one.
Well, if one applies Occam’s Razor, I believe that my own position is much more likely to be correct. That is, that the Church is assailed in this horrible era by the full force of hell, all seems lost and she seems totally obscured.
But she is still there, under all the filth of the homosexuals and all the muck of the swirl of heresies. She HAS to be there, or Christ is a liar.
The problem is modernism not sodomites.
Here’s more on this topic:
This is where I take issue with the canonical statement:
The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that a Protestant can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church if the diocesan bishop approves, and ***if he or she cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it.***
Notice the church is assuming that Protestant grape juice and sourdough bread is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, Catholic Holy Eucharist. The Canon Law doesn’t state any requirement for prior conversion to the Catholic faith before this is allowed either.
Modernism predates communism.
And nowhere the Sacrament of Confession is mentioned. So Protestants can receive Holy Communion without confession? What if they “believe in the Catholic Sacraments” and want to go to Confession, will this be possible/encouraged/discouraged? Such confusion again …
I very much appreciate your contributions, and your description of the current situation as that of the Church and Anti-Church co-existing seems right. Please stick around.
“Catholics are not Catholicism. The errors, apathies, shortcomings and slumbers of Catholics do not involve Catholicism. Catholicism is not obliged to provide an alibi for the failures of Catholics. The best apologetic does not consist in justifying Catholics or making excuses for them when they are in the wrong, but on the contrary in emphasizing their errors and pointing out that, far from affecting the substance of Catholicism, they serve only the better to display the virtue of a religion which is still a living force in spite of them. The Church is a mystery, her head is hidden in the sky, her visibility does not adequately manifest her nature. The great glory of the Church is to be holy with sinful members!”
(Jacques Maritain, 1931)
“The Catholic Church is Universal (because it includes the substance of all truth), as is no other Christian society. Of all the influences that have molded European civilization, the Church is incontestably the greatest (in spite of the snares of Satan and his hirelings….my emphasis), She made ‘Europe.’ What other religious body has such a roll of illustrious thinkers, great mystics, saints, martyrs, heroes and heroines of the spiritual life?……the claim to infallibility, the claim that when she speaks authoritatively upon a question of religion or morals, she is divinely safeguarded from error……”
“She is the oldest institution in the world today, and yet as young in spirit, as active and alert, as if created only yesterday. In her long history she has faced every kind of formidable opposition +++ the power of imperial Rome, the barbarians, the Mohammedians, the Hohenstaufen, the religious rebels of the 16th century, the French Revolution, Napoleon, Bismarck (Communism, Modernism)…..SHE HAS NEVER BEEN VANQUISHED! Over and over again she has faced crises so severe that her enemies have celebrated her inevitable demise and thanked whatever deities they had that she at last was done for. Chesterton has an essay on ‘The Five Deaths of the Faith.” But in every crisis the Church has pulled herself together, renewed her strength, and come forth rejuvenated and reinvigorated from what ought, humanly speaking, to have killed her. The tremendous political and intellectual revolutions of the past century and a half, the fierce onslaughts directed upon her by modern ‘Liberalism,’ ‘Anticlericalism,’ rationalism, and infidelity have only demonstrated anew that storms and perils galvanize the Church into new life. Today, when almost everything around her is quaking, tottering, or collapsing, she stands firm…..”
To Catholics there seems to be only one explanation commensurate with facts. It is that the Catholic Church is something absolutely ‘sui generis’ in her nature, her claims, her strength, her vitality, because she is the only society on earth that has had God for its founder and because He has granted to her an authority and an unfailing guidance and support that were never promised to any other institution. It is because, though not unmixed with human elements and human imperfections, the Church is essentially a divine society, THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.
“To Catholics the Church is, above all, in St. Paul’s phrase, ‘THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST,’ in which and through which through all the centuries since His Ascension He has lived and worked upon earth; when she speaks on the subjects committed to her they recognize in her voice His voice; her cause is His cause, her losses are His losses, and her victories His Triumphs.”
(“Treasury of Catholic Thinking”, ‘A Church with God-Given Vitality’ by the Rev. Robert Howard Lord, 1934).
“She preserves through all the whirlpools of the times all that is of true value and of divine origin.” (Dietrich von Hildebrand, 1948).
“Guard against profitless grumbling, and from calumny withhold your tongues; for a stealthy utterance does not go unpunished.” (Wis. 1:1)
From Poland …to whom as self proclaimed, God has given the gift of discernment……..
You quote Dietrich von Hildebrand . Can you tell us why neither he or more specifically his wife never joined the SSPX that you defend with so much vigor ?
From Poland, the ONLY “stealthy utterances” are coming from your posts. You sound like a Scientologist or someone who belonged to the Legion of Christ defending their perverted Founder !
My 2 Cents has every right to look into this group and does any Catholic .
People like yourself is why others wonder if the SSPX has something bigger to hide.
Or perhaps she moved to the Eastern Catholic Church so easily put out of the Roman mind ?
“They attract people that are from the fringes of society and generally those who need a job, hand out, have mental issues, bad marriages or who need to have someone tell them how to think or act [Jim Jones type faithful]. They prey on the weak of mind and only hire those into their organization who swear allegiance to them and not the real Catholic Church.”
I saw plenty of women like yourself in the SSPX. In fact , here is one lady from the sspx chapel in Eddystone, PA .After she joined the same sspx chapel she divorced her husband of many years . Very sad for her six children. we were surprised to see her on television.
After being on tv she posted her picture on a modeling and talent website using her news spot begging for food donation as an experience for acting ! We also met a woman from PA who said she was hoping the SSPX will straighten their drug addicted daughter out because she blamed the NO church.
What this man stated is true.
Yes, they have stayed with the Novus Ordo, and joined the Fraternity of St. Peter……
“……..Such people are so scandalized by the unfortunate new missal and especially by the elimination of the Tridentine Mass that they think that they no longer have the duty of attending Sunday Mass if it is in the Novus Ordo. But contrary is true: necessary as it is to recognize and suffer under the spirit and the tendency which is at the basis of these changes in the liturgy…..” (Devastated Vineyard, Dietrich von Hildebrand)……
Sadly, he did advocate attendance in the Novus Ordo. Is there a wonder, why they did not follow the SSPX?
Hope you sleep well at night.
May God bless you with ‘joy’, for you sound miserable!
From Poland–I assume your comment was directed at the SSPX priest in this video. Do you think he was lying? Is it possible he knows more than you do? Just askin’……..
From Poland , No there is no wonder they did not join the SSPX . One huge reason is because it attracts kooks as stated above.
We knew one woman who called another at SSPX to chastise her for not covering her arms to the wrist in Church. Elbow length sleeves were just to immodest on a hot summer day! The same sspx complainer woman would come to social events at the roller skating rink with her children wearing her pajamas and bedroom slippers because she said she had arthritis !!
“Stealthy utterances”? No, my dear,
Avoidance of kooks.
As I said before, My2Cents, If you want to attend for Mass and Sacraments ,that’s your choice but caution is advised in getting any more deeply involved.
‘How does a ‘kook’ recognize a ‘kook’? You’re too funny, but I am not laughing. You need lots of prayers……You gnash your teeth, and hound others, as though you had authority from above…..slow down, go outside and smell the flowers, for your own good.
“I have decided that TGS is of bad will towards sedes. Period. If he were of good will then he would acknowledge that not knowing or “seeing” where the Church is does not equate with it not existing. I have explained how this is by referring back to the beginning of the Church when thousands of people did not know or see the Church … and yet the Church existed. ”
One doesn’t know whether one should laugh or cry.
Vermont2, bluntly, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The whereabouts of the Church was known to all the early Christians:
1. Our Lord Jesus Christ said His Church would be “the light of the world.” The light of the world, Vermont2, ain’t hidden but shines out, doesn’t it?
2. Our Lord then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. As it was then – it is now also.
3. St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, written before the end of the First Century:
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest.
— Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.”
— Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8
No, Vermont2, Tom and all other sedevacantists: you are held (like Muslims) by the very thick iron bars of your ideological prison cell. You must open the door to that cell, as they must. Sadly, unlike Muslims born into their false religion, you have put yourself into yours voluntarily.
The Church must be visible. Our Lord says so.
From Poland, Here’s how………you posted on this blog a few blog posts ago ,that you could see I was “prideful” concerning the people I knew and spoke about here in conversation.
Your credentials for calling me a liar and “prideful” were as follows: “I have been given the Gift of Discernment from God.”
No educated Catholic would ever claim such a thing especially on a public forum !
What Saint or Blessed who truly were Gifted by God bragged about said graces especially in an effort to discredit someone else?
Humility and Truth indicate real virtue. Apparently you know of neither.
Polish Lady, I read “Devastated Vineyard” decades ago and met with Dr Bill Marra (RIP) in our hotel room in Mannassas ,VA in 1994 . He invited me twice to join the Von Hildebrand’s “Roman Forum” both there and in another letter he sent me. Absolutely nothing you quote or anything you have said is new to me.
I do not lie , I have just been around the block seeking the Truth a few more times, places and years than you.
There’d been some SSPX related discussion here, so I thought I’d toss this in.
Apparently the SSPX’s recent softer approach to the Vatican and the controversies coming out day after day is due to the advice of a marketing firm???
Apparently they’ve been advised, in much the same way as the Vatican II establishment, that if they soften their language and just emphasize the Mass and Sacraments that they’ll attract more people… So they need to stop fighting and just let the natural course of the auto-demolition of the Novus Ordo continue as the natural solution.
If this is true, then Oy Vey… it’s stupidity at its finest and the SSPX have lost the plot, and no doubt a substantial sum of money for this stupid advice.
The (re)branding of the SSPX
“So they organize the meeting in Menzingen, and Father Wegner told me that the man went there and asked one hundred and fifty questions to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay answered all of these questions, and it lasted six hours! For six hours! And, at the end, that man said: “Okay, I will take the contract of the Society, and I will do your branding.”
So I don’t know exactly how long this took… A few months… And I don’t know how much it cost, but… I talked with some people, and they think it was a bundle of money, and I wish they would have given it to us, so we could have a nice church by now! And afterwards he gave the conclusion to Father Wegner and to Bishop Fellay, the conclusion of the whole survey of the branding, and he said to Father and Bishop Fellay: “Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it’s like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel… or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”
And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art…”
If you were my neighbour, I would invite you to come for a good visit to my house, we would go on Sunday to Mass to the SSPX, for this is where I go to Mass. Drive for about one hour, we’d have plenty of time to pray the Rosary together, then talk about God and His love for you and me, especially, for the SSPX,……..I promise you, your heart would be filled with such joy and love for your neighbour, for we’re our brothers keepers!
Then, coming back to my house, I would offer you some coffee, and a homemade plum cake, that is an old recipe from my grandmother from Poland, the taste of it would tickle your throat, for it’s really delicious…..I would even offer to teach you how to bake it.
“Earth, how vile you appear to me when I contemplate heaven? (Ignatius of Antioch)
Lots of “maybe”, “I heard that ..”, “I don’t know any details but”.
But let’s say it was true for a moment.
Readers, choose one of the alternatives below and show us what sort of catholic you are:
a) Sod your re-branding, they are all totally evil, we will have nothing to do with them, ooops we’re excommunicated again, we can’t hear Confessions and our marriages have been declared illicit. No-one new is coming to us, Tradition is set back fifty years.
b) Hmm, ok, we’ll give it a try. Perhaps a less confrontational approach will over time moderate any excesses shown by Society priests, many people will be greatly edified, so many more Novus Ordo Catholics are discovering the Old Mass and all the theology and beauty of the pre-Vatican II Church, our numbers of laity and clergy are growing, Tradition marches forward.
A no-brainer, really, isn’t it?
In short, I think one can trust the highly-intelligent, simple and holy Bishop Fellay more than any US Marine-style Traditonalist hotheads, who have done so much damage to the Traditonalist Movement over the years.
And if anyone screams, “It’s Bishop Fellay’s job to call out Bergoglio, what a coward!” – no it bloody well isn’t.
It’s primary job is to protect the formation of Traditional priests and the Mass, and his secondary consequent aim is to protect the Society, everything that has been built up, the 1,000 or so religious he is responsible for and the million plus laymen and women who assist at Society Masses.
Burke, Sarah, Brandmuller, Muller et al have the primary responsibility to accuse Bergoglio to his face.
In short, I think one can trust the highly-intelligent, simple and holy Bishop Fellay more than any US Marine-style Traditonalist hotheads, who have done so much damage to the Traditonalist Movement over the years.
And if anyone screams, “It’s Bishop Fellay’s job to call out Bergoglio, what a coward!” – no it bloody well isn’t.
His primary job is to protect the formation of Traditional priests and the Mass, and his secondary consequent aim is to protect the Society, everything that has been built up, the 1,000 or so religious he is responsible for and the million plus laymen and women who assist at Society Masses.
Burke, Sarah, Brandmuller, Muller et al have the primary responsibility to accuse Bergoglio to his face.
“Modernism predates Communism”.
What were the Levellers? Ever heard of them? 1640’s.
What about the Lollards? 15th Century.
How about the Cathars, the Apostolics, the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, the Hussites, the Moravians?
All of them Communistic and pre-dating Marxism by many centuries.
TGS, on your first point. The lynch pin of the Church is its unified dogmas and doctrines, ie. the Faith. The Pope is the guardian of that faith. Second, valid or invalid ordinations have nothing to do with sedevacantism. While most sedes doubt the validity of NO ordinations, the sede thesis is irrelevant to the See being vacant. Thirdly, Apostolic Succession also continues as long as Bishops are validly ordained. Yet again, even when it has been pointed out to you many times, no one is denying the existence of the Church. It is you who are putting your own standards of existence and defectibility into the equation and telling God what can and cannot be. You have totally rejected the Catholic teaching on the Papacy in order to preserve a heretic as Pope. Again, I ask of you and all resisters out there, “why do we need a Pope if we can totally ignore him from time to time when we think he isn’t being Catholic?” The Pope is the rule of faith in the church and all questions as to what the faith means are settled by the Pope. This charlatan you call Francis, is telling you how to interpret the Gospel and what is necessary to be a good Catholic. Yet you continue to defy him, ridicule him, and contradict everything he says because you think you know better than your Pope. If Bergolio is Pope, the yes Christ is a liar for giving us snakes when we ask for bread. If Bergolio is Pope and Vatican 2 is from the Holy Spotless Bride of Christ, then the Church is a whore who prostituted herself to the world. That is blasphemy “comrade.”
The Lord also says He will keep the Church free of error and heresy.
‘In short, I think one can trust the highly-intelligent, simple and holy Bishop Fellay more than any US Marine-style Traditonalist hotheads, who have done so much damage to the Traditonalist Movement over the years…….’
What a harvest for the ‘sedevacantists’ and ‘schismatics!!!’…….Miserere!
Thank you for your invitation but no thanks.
Before I would enter another SSPX chapel I would want to be sure they swept out the filth….and the kooks.
Modernism is a synthesis of all heresies is it not?
Just curious……..how did Alice von Hildebrand, survive in the Novus Ordo and Fraternity of St. Peter? Has the ‘homosexuality within’ stopped them from being Catholic and practice their Faith, until……. ‘ they swept out the filth….and the kooks?’
Have they become ‘sedevacantists’, or ‘schismatics’?
Also, why are you not with the FSSP, then?
New ‘Holy League of Nations’ launching worldwide spiritual battle;
From Poland ,
You might find this of interest also. This is exactly what happens when uneducated priests give Spiritual Direction. I can understand Bishop Fellay’s need to be under the jurisdiction of the Vatican from a protection stand point. Too many uneducated and perverted priests to deal with alone.It’s costly without backup.
Awards Post Falls man $800K in damages
“POST FALLS — A Kootenai County jury on Thursday found an ultra-conservative Catholic church liable for slandering a former parishioner.
Jurors unanimously awarded Anthony J. Ferro $200,000 in compensatory and $600,000 in punitive damages after an eight-day civil trial in 1st District Court.
Ferro, a Coeur d’Alene wine distributor filed suit against the Post Falls Immaculate Conception Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X in August 2003, claiming a former priest interfered with his marriage and slandered him in front of the congregation.
“It’s enough to get me out of trouble and set the record straight,” said Ferro.
“It’s close to what we asked for,” said Ferro’s lawyer, Jed Manwaring.
He asked jurors in his closing to award $250,000 compensatory and $750,000 punitive.
Manwaring told 1st District Judge Charles Hosack he would submit a judgment form for his signature within a day.
Lawyers for the church had no comment on the verdict.
Ferro claimed the Rev. James H. Doran “abused his office as spiritual director for his parishioners” when he counseled his now-ex-wife without his consent and outside his presence. He also claimed Doran “ordered” him to undergo psychiatric evaluations, then published libelous statements about his mental condition to other church members.
The suit named Doran, the Post Falls priory, as well as the entire religious order as defendants.
The jury went into deliberations late Wednesday morning and returned with the verdict shortly after noon Thursday.
The jury found Doran inflicted intentional emotional distress upon Ferro. For that, they awarded the $200,000.
They also found that the Rev. Peter Scott, as the agent for the society, approved Doran’s conduct toward Ferro.
Ferro claimed following Doran’s arrival in Post Falls in 1992, the priest “began to engage in a host of inappropriate actions during his term as parish priest.”
He said Doran began to take private horse riding lessons from his wife which were “hurtful and shameful” because they “unjustly provided Mrs. Ferro greater standing with the parish priest than her husband.”
Ferro also claimed Doran engaged in private counseling sessions outside his presence and against his wishes, despite assurances by Doran the sessions would involve both spouses.
Those sessions, Ferro said, “were inappropriate, held in bad faith and caused great harm” to the marriage.
The couple eventually split in a reportedly messy divorce.
Ferro said Doran ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination. The results, Ferro said, concluded he suffered from “no mental defects, imbalances, instabilities, disorders or other illnesses.”
But on Christmas Eve 1993, Ferro alleged, Doran sent a letter to about a dozen people which contained “false, malicious and defamatory statements.”
Ferro claimed in the letter, included in the court filing, Doran suggested the psychiatrist was not to be believed. Ferro said it caused “great division within (his) family.”
Ferro also claimed Doran, in a sermon given in March 1996 to more than 450 parishioners, defamed him by questioning his adequacy as a father, alleging disobedience to Doran’s orders and that he was impossible to deal with. The sermon also allegedly instructed parishioners to have no social or business dealings with Ferro.
Ferro and his wife, who was at one time married to actor David Soul, split in 1994 and underwent a two-year-long legal battle for custody of their daughter. Doran’s letter was used as ammunition during that fray.
The filing also claims Doran said in his sermon he ordered the couple to divorce, resulting in Ferro being “ostracized by a large percentage of the parishioners.”
Ferro also claimed Doran formed an “honor guard” to protect him and members of that guard ridiculed him and even went so far as to pantomime assaults upon him.
Doran left Post Falls in 1996.
In 1999, Ferro published “The Assault of Catholic Fatherhood in Post Falls Idaho,” a lengthy recitation of his battle with Doran and church hierarchy.
Ferro said the actions of the priests became so severe it prevented him from attending Mass at the church, and he was threatened he would be arrested for trespassing if he came to the church.
There was no word if the church planned to appeal the verdict.
Dave Turner can be reached at 664-8176, ext. 2009 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.”
(Divorced and remarried are allowed in sspx???) woman was on second marriage.
Except visibility wrt church teaching doesn’t just mean that the church is visible to Catholics. It means that all bodies can easily recognize where the Church is. This was clearly not the case when the Church began in the upper room.
In no way is the Church easily recognizable today. You can not say that and at the same time claim the Church and an anti Church are for all intents and purposes intertwined.
I am more inclined to believe that the visible Church is comprised of the traditional Catholics and the trad clergy…including Sedes of course. Those who profess the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican 2 is the key.
I asked you a simple question…….
You sound like a broken record, so sad, for it speaks volumes, how ‘hate’ is consuming you……snap out of it!!!
So said Pope St. Pius X, that’s right.
Your main fault Vermont is that you imagine the modern Church to be entirely evil. That’s your basic premise and it is entirely false.
“Yet again, even when it has been pointed out to [The Great Stalin] many times, no one is denying the existence of the Church.”
Yes, TGS continues to mischaracterize the sedevacantist position.
Not evil, heretical. And yes, the “modern Church” claims that Vatican II is a valid Catholic Council….including the so-called “traditional” Burke and Schneider.
You do not persuade.
It seems to me Tom that the sedevacantist is really no different from the Year Zero progressive “Catholics” of the New Springtime.
You both want the utter destruction of whatever remains of the Church so that you can build anew.
In that sense, you are worse than the Novus Ordo Bergoglian fanatic, for without a Pope your New Church will arise from the ashes like some pheonix by way of ….. errm … you don’t know. At least they have a plan. You denigrate even your allies.
Isn’t it much more likely that the victory will come either from the remaining healthy forces of the Church winning out over the revolutionaries; or, just as likely, the Modernistic Anti-Church withering away, allowing Tradition to step back in?
In either case, a Pope is needed.
You are so wedded to the dogmas of sedevacantism, you can no longer see objective reality.
“A heretic as pope”= the Gates of Hell have prevailed
“I am more inclined to believe that the visible Church is comprised of the traditional Catholics and the trad clergy…including Sedes of course. Those who profess the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican 2 is the key.”
I will now astonish you. I can accept that definition of the visible Church.
I do think that right now it is a lot wider than that definition, but it does look like it may very well end up that way within a foreseeable time. And I am very sorry to say that for the moment, Bergoglio, heretic as he is, has possession of the office.
Think of it this way. God can (and many times has to) bring good out of evil. Seen in that light, even Bergoglio is playing his part in Salvation History.
A Pope is always needed.
TGS: “You both [TomA and 2Vermont] want the utter destruction of whatever remains of the Church so that you can build anew….you denigrate even your allies.”
You’re so wedded to your dogmatic anti-sedevacantism that you can’t help but make false accusations against Catholics who take the sedevacantist position.
A true pope is needed. Not an impostor heretic “pope”.
Peter denied Christ three times. The Church failed pretty early on then …..
WordPress is useless.
“A true pope is needed. Not an impostor heretic “pope”.”
I would rather say we need an orthodox and holy Pope.
But for the moment we are stuck with Bergoglio, aren’t we; and there doesn’t seem to be any move to get rid of him. So patience and prayer are needed.
Father James Doran has left the SSPX. He has joined the Marionites (New Order) establishment.
As I said to you before. I hate no one .
The Faithful just as anyone have a right to know all sides before they jump into any situation.
It would be irresponsible to recommend anything else.
You identified what you are what kind of a catholic you are when you posted ,”God gave me the Gift of Discernment.” Then proceeded to slander me as “prideful”.
Why would I respond to such a stupid question so as to give you the personal preference of church of worship of another well respected Catholic ?
How off the proverbial wall are you? How far holier than thou do you believe yourself to be? You represent everything and everyone that caused my family and so many other Catholics to run from the SSPX !
Yes he cost them too much money! He needed more oversight which is why Bishop Fellay sought to reunite with the Vatican !
The SSPX is blending with the V2 N.O. “church”. When you mix pure unadulterated orange juice with orangeade the end result is orangeade.
So be it…..clever you are……so you think, and therefore in the hands of God.
May the Holy Spirit guide you, the Virgin Mary protect you, and St. Michael defend you!
So it gathers pace.
A Kraut Bishop is inviting all proddy spouses to come to Holy Communion, no questions asked, no “emergency situation”, not even any Bergoglian “discernment”.
I wonder when the tipping point will come, when Our Lord finally stops this insanity? He is infinite in all regards, including His Divine patience. It may be quite a time yet.
Peter’s denial happened before the beginning of the Church in the Upper Room…before he was pope.
TomA: TGS, the sede thesis says the Chair is empty. It says nothing about the existence of the Church. It says nothing about any other issue in the Church. It states one thing and one thing only”.
Tom, what you don’t realize is that what you say about the recent popes (that they were false popes), logically and necessarily says things about the Church itself.
The Church is a visible, hierarchical institution. It is NOT simply “those who are baptized and profess the true faith”. It is an infallible, indefectible and visible INSTITUTION with four marks. If the institution followed a series of false popes for 60 years and morphed into a new Church, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, period. That’s all you need to know to have infallible certainty that the sedevacantist position is false.
By divine institution, the Church has and will always have a teaching office, which consists of bishops with divine authority. Because bishops only receive their authority when they are appointed by the pope, if the Chair of Peter has been empty since the death of Pius XII, it would mean none of the bishops today have authority. This would mean there is no longer a teaching office, which the Church must always possess.
So you see, what you explicitly affirm about the Chair of Peter, implicitly yet necessarily says something about the Church – namely, that the gates of hell have prevailed against it. And this necessary implication of your error concerning the Chair of Peter is confirmed by the fact that you were unable to tell TGS where the Church exists today.
TomA: “Thirdly, Apostolic Succession also continues as long as Bishops are validly ordained.”
Only a material succession of bishops continues by valid ordination, not formal apostolic succession. Formal apostolic succession requires bishops WITH AUTHORITY, and bishops only receive their authority from the pope, as Pius XII teaches.
The only Church today that even claims to have a succession of bishops who received their authority from the Pope is the Catholic Church, that is, the Church that recognizes Francis as pope.
@TGS: That is so much hand waving by someone who has had the teaching of the Popes brought to his attention and yet refuses to process them. You are no Pope. Your substitute teachings are irrelevant. Here are the teachings of Popes that have already been brought to your attention, and additional teachings by Popes for your further acquaintance. Please conform yourself to their teachings:
These have already been brought to your attention:
Pope Innocent III taught this:
“With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Leo XIII taught this:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Additional teachings now brought to your attention:
Pope Leo XIII taught this in Satis Cognitum:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Pope Pius XII taught this in Mystici Corporus Christi:
“40. * * * For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam;  and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE VISIBLE HEAD, BROKEN THE VISIBLE BONDS OF UNITY AND LEFT THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER SO OBSCURED AND SO MAIMED, THAT THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT.” [Emphasis added]
* * *
“69. * * * As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community.”
Here it is for all those out there like so-called “Catholic” Thinker who have argued that a heretic preserves the visibility of the Church! Like those schismatics who rend the mystical body of Christ by their refusal to submit to the Vicar of Christ, the apostates in the hierarchy likewise rend the body of Christ by refusing to elevate a faithful Catholic to the papal seat. Does not the words of Pope Pius XII repeated here apply equally to this latter situation?:
“THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE VISIBLE HEAD, BROKEN THE VISIBLE BONDS OF UNITY AND LEFT THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER SO OBSCURED AND SO MAIMED, THAT THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT.”
Of course, this will be ignored by you since you believe that your self-admitted heretic “Pope Francis” can rule the Church despite what Pope Leo XIII taught!
When I first became associated with the SSPX (around 1999), I was told by numerous priests in private conversations and from the pulpit, that there should be absolutely no association with the Vatican II church. I was told many, many times that if I could not get to the TLM in my travels, I should stay home, pray the rosary and do the readings for the day from my missal. All of that changed drastically around 2012. Many parishioners were also wondering what happened. Was the SSPX mistaken or did the V2 church all of a sudden become acceptable? I think the mystery is now solved. The SSPX, under Bishop Fellay, has changed course. However, along with many other parishioners, I have not changed course. Was I instructed too well? The chapel I attended has lost over 100 parishioners. I guess the re-branding backfired.
My 2 Cents,
Back in the late nineties, one of my dearest friends was asked in the confessional by Fr Hewko ( now Resistance) why her older daughters did not come back to the SSPX. She said they go to a local Diocesan Church. He told her he rather see them at a Black Mass . That was it for her.
That type of rhetoric does not help their cause.
I do not think myself particularly clever nor do I hate anyone.
May the Holy Ghost guide you too !
Pray the Rosary daily and the prayers to St Michael.
I will remember you in mine.
“Talking of every idle thing, / prattling ‘round the clock, / gazing first this way, then that, / racing from street to street, / nosing into any novelty / O pious one and lost!… Oh, yes, the nasty thing loves to talk! / she cannot shut her mouth! / bad talk, grumbling, babbling / Her one sole business!”
-St. Louis de Montfort, Hymn 23,
“Wisdom of Silence”
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? “Romans 2: 1-3
I would like to address the Sedevacantists here with a genuine question, speaking as a Catholic convert and a relatively new Traditionalist who is basically, for present, in the R&R camp.
Sedevacantists present solid grounds for their position, but are there not also solid grounds justifying a resistance position?
i) St Paul says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).
He is saying we should resist even an angel in those circumstances. (I don’t know whether an angel outranks the Pope.)
ii) In the First Vatican Council’s definition of papal infallibility there is the following declaration: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, cap. 4).
Does this not say that the Pope must not make some new doctrine, while implying that he could, theoretically, do so (illicitly, rejecting the Holy Ghost’s assistance)?
iii) St Thomas Aquinas writes:
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects…. The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth…. The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: ‘I spoke to Cephas,’ that is, Peter, ‘before everyone,’ since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4).
By establishing the SSPX, did not Archbishop Lefebvre publicly and manifestly reprehend the Pope in order to preserve the Gospel truth?
The SV thesis appears prima facie to be very strong. I baulk at accepting it, though, since its fruit is a position of absurdity. There is no visible head of the church and, which is even tougher to accept, hardly any valid priests or sacraments. If that’s the case, we might as well give up and do something else.
And remember Pascendi, there isn’t just one sedevacantist position, but many (see Lenny’s posts in the previous thread). They are at each other’s throats half the time – hardly a sign that the thesis is correct. Please don’t fall for it – it will lead you into a small locked room and you’ll forget where is the key to get out.
It helps greatly to avoid the labels, including the old “R & R” chestnut. Think of yourself simply as a Catholic and nothing else, assist at Holy Mass, go to Confession regularly, say your prayers and voila, you’ll be alright.
It is possible that Father Hewko was referring to the manhandling, desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Personally, I never heard that kind of rhetoric. We were told the N.O. mass was not a source of Grace.
Ignatio, thank you very much for that excellent post.
Good advice, TGS.
(i) Let him be anathema. In other words, out of the Church. The Resistance does not claim that Francis is out of the Church. That Gospel reading is more applicable to the SV position.
(ii) But the SV position is not saying that Francis etal made new (Catholic) doctrine. It is saying that their teachings contradict old doctrines.
(iii) Paul rebuked Peter for sin, not heresy. Read any Catholic commentary on that particular bible verse.
(iv) Yes, he did. I don’t think anyone is saying he did not. I’m not sure what this has to do with the SV position.
There are not MANY sedevacantist positions. All sedevacantists agree on the Chair being empty. What sedevacantists disagree on are other theological matters that relate to the Crisis knowing the Chair is vacant. LennyB agrees with the Cassiciacum Thesis, but he still believes that these men were not true popes. For example, Bishop Sanborn agrees with the CT, but Father Cekada does not. Regardless, they are not at each others’ throats. They work alongside each other. Any disagreements (between sedes or between any group of Catholics) are the direct result of the fact that there is no pope to unify Catholics in these matters. We are all out there trying to figure things out without him.
Pascendi, please do not take the bait of the rabid anti-sedevacantists that appear in this combox.
Re your questions above – one other point.
“St. Paul says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).”
Does this not predicate that those will come who WILL preach a new Gospel?
I think that the sedevacantists just can’t imagine the existence of sin in the Church. They cannot separate the pure, spotless Bride of Christ – which exists not only in this world but supernaturally so in the Just in Heaven and those in Purgatory – from the weak, subject-to-Original Sin members of that Bride here on earth.
Did you see Ignatius’ post further up this thread where he discusses the question of authority and why this shows that the sedevacantist position cannot be true? He explains it much better than I have done.
Thanks for replying 2Vermont. I can’t argue with your answers, but there still remains the issue of a church with hardly any priests or sacraments.
I came upon Tradition almost by accident, primarily by discovering the talks given by the late canonist Fr Gregory Hesse (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5YQm5CNAWMKlY98c68qqesRL4LPm_wz9).
The case he made against changing the Mass was unarguable.
He supported the SSPX and maintained that VII was a new religion. He also stressed how changing the Mass would (was intended to) change Catholic belief (lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi). This has clearly happened to a large extent.
The enemies of the Church are hell-bent on destroying the true Mass and the priesthood, on replacing the Catholic Church with “the ecumenical movement” (as PF described it on his recent flight back from Geneva).
I think Traditionalists of all stripes (SSPX, FSSP, Sedes…) urgently need to focus first and centre on defending and restoring the objects of our enemies’ attack.
As I’m sure you’ll agree, the differences we have with them are far greater than those we have with each other.
To do what needs to be done we trads need a Pope. Without one we are sheep who are scattered because the shepherd was struck. What ever you decide Pascendi, there is one thing you will do not matter what happens. You will not follow Bergolio. So now you have to find a way to justify disobeying the heretic. R&R crowd says you can disobey a Pope who teaches error even though never has the Church ever taught such a concept. Or as a sede you simply refuse to recognize Bergolio’s claim to the Papacy. The sede position has many examples of historical precedent and even authoritative Papal teaching to back its position.
Know this Paschendi–Sedes have left the Barque of Peter, therefore are not Catholic.
It is Protestantism of the worst kind.
To be fair that was just the icing on the cake When he used another parishioners home phone to call his “good friend” fr Urrutigoity to set up an overnight meet in a parishioner’s empty Pocono cabin and told the homeowners he was planning on joining his friends in Shohola . They knew SSPX was not where any of them belonged. . fr Hewko said and did many things that were just plain out of line and continues to do so with the quality of so called priests he invites into his so called Resistance . Caution is warranted.
As for Bishop Fellay , pragmatically speaking , with the number of costly incidents within the SSPX, I think he probably feels he can fight for and maintain Tradition under the Vatican easier . Lawsuits name Bishops now and no doubt Superiors.
“I resisted him to his face” St. Paul tells us.
If sedevacantism was correct, then St. Paul should have written, “I didn’t resist him to his face because Pope Peter was already out of the Church by then, he’d lost his office and …. erm … well, something has to happen now doesn’t it but what …. erm …. I know, I’ll just retreat to some mental prison of my own making, scream and shout at people to leave the Church, leave the Sacraments because Peter and therefore all who come after him are false Popes and erm ….”.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Pascendi, do not give them a single inch: they will take you 10,000 miles, and in a direction away from Jesus Christ.
Ignatio, then why do you resist the teaching authority of the new church?
Not following your Pope is protestant. Waiting for a real Pope is Catholic.
To TomA below–
Clever wording Tom, (as usual) but void of content…the epitome of sedevacantism.
Dear Fleur de Lis,
Save yourself from ‘dialoging’ with the sedevacantists’….just pray for them, for there’s no convincing them, only God can interfere…….it’s a dead end position.
…..click on the below link, please read the exchange of comments between ‘sede’ vs ‘Catholic thinker’ (he is with the SSPX)…….you’ll understand;
Keep the faith!
So St Vincent Ferrer left the Barque of Peter when he did not submit to the Pope but submitted to an anti-pope? Again, if Bergolio is your Pope why are you so interested in Tradition? Your church has adapted to modern times, you are stuck in the past. The new magesterium has given you a new gospel. You already have your new “mass”, new devitions, new cathecism, new canon laws, and new saints. What is it going to take before you get with the V2 popes? Why are you holding out?
That’s a boatload of tripe there, Tom.
But you never answer the question. How do you disobey Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Christ gave Bergolio (according to you) the Authority to teach you about the faith, yet you tell Frankie (Christ’s Vicar according yo you) he’s full of manure. Nice.
Get some sleep Tom.
“Your church …”
And there we have it. Tom places himself outside the Catholic Church (which is not his – he says it himself).
It’s not the Church that has given us the things you list Tom, but the Anti-Church.
Difficult to see where one starts and the other ends these days, that’s granted. But they are separate things and always will be. Once you grasp this, your difficulties will come to an end.
The True Head of the Catholic Church is Christ–The Invisible Head. His Vicar on Earth is the Pope–The Visible Head. When the Visible Head is not in conformity with the Invisible Head, he loses authority. Francis has relinquished all authority. Therefore, he is an impostor.
@the neo-gallican horde: more stuff I made up. The first paragraph quoted below concerns my erroneous response to Cajetan’s thesis regarding the pope-heretic remaining Pope; and the second paragraph has to do with my similarly erroneous survey of the ancient Church fathers on the related matter of loss of jurisdiction. /s:
“Against this argument: either the total disposition [the disposition of the Pope, i.e., the Pope must have the faith to remain as Pope], constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary ‘simpliciter’, or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition ‘simpliciter’ necessary, for the disposition ‘simpliciter’ necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary ‘ad bene esse,’ and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also THE POPE HERETIC CEASES TO BE POPE BY HIMSELF, WITHOUT ANY DEPOSITION.
FINALLY, THE HOLY FATHERS TEACH UNANIMOUSLY NOT ONLY THAT HERETICS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, BUT ALSO THEY ARE ‘IPSO FACTO’ DEPRIVED OF ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.” [emphasis added]
As is clear from the sarcasm sign, I did not “make this stuff up”; rather it is the work of St. Robert Bellarmine, a noted doctor of the Church. When the neo-gallican horde attack lowly so-called “sedes” what they don’t realize is that they are setting themselves against the Church fathers, noted Doctors of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine and even Popes!
Pope Pius XII didn’t treat the approach of St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the question of whether a manifest heretic is a member of the Church, and if not a member, how the heretic exits the Church as so much “sede drivel”, rather he incorporated St. Robert’s approach in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi”!:
“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SO UNFORTUNATE AS TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF THE BODY, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. FOR NOT EVERY SIN, HOWEVER GRAVE IT MAY BE, IS SUCH AS OF ITS OWN NATURE TO SEVER A MAN FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, AS DOES SCHISM OR HERESY OR APOSTASTY.” [emphasis added]
There it is – hundreds of years after St. Robert Bellarmine wrote his opus on the Pope, Pope Pius XII adopted his approach regarding the membership and exit of heretics, apostates and schismatics from the Church: by committing the sin of heresy manifestly, manifest heretics, e.g., cast themselves out of the Church WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION BY THE CHURCH.
There is no prudential reason of sufficient gravity that justifies the mischaracterization of the Church’s teaching on these subjects by those advocating for the R&R (i.e., the neo-Gallican) position. You are simply practicing deception on the untutored faithful who are interested in these topics.
Here is a Catholic commentary on Paul’s “resistance” to Peter:
Note that Peter is merely guilty of venial sin. Paul did not resist Peter for doctrinal errors.
Which is why we rely on our traditional (Catholic) clergy…true priests and true sacraments ….until the Crisis is over.
And she still hasn’t answered the question. Another rabid anti sede.
Most certainly 2VT. I always hear this argument that those who see things as we do have “given up” on the Church. NO, not at all. We HAVENT given up on the Church and THAT is the point….and that is why we have to be sedevacantists. That is how I see things.
That’s condescending and not fruitful at all. Tom A has asked this same question here MANY times…and it is valid every single time he asks it. How do you verbally abuse the Vicar of Christ? How?
But it’s not your, or my, or anyone’s place to make that judgement, is it? As has been explained on another thread, there’s even a Canon of an Ecumenical Council forbidding what you and other sedevacantists have done!
It’s not Bergoglio who (yet) is outside the Church, but you lot.
TGS–Was your comment addressed to me? If so, do you think Bergoglio has authority when he speaks against the teachings of Christ? I used the name Francis. You called the Pope by his given name Bergoglio. I thought only sedes used the name Bergoglio. BTW, I have never declared myself to be a sede. I just think the Catholic Church would be better without him.
I could easily judge all of the R&R as schismatics because they do not submit to the man they consider a true pope. They “resist” his doctrine and discipline when it is not Catholic to resist a true pope in these matters. They point to St Paul as their proof that this is allowed, but St Paul NEVER resisted Peter for false doctrine (see Catholic commentary I posted above).
The R&R’s resist the pope based on their own personal judgment of what is Catholic doctrine and what is not. They say he is a true pope, but their actions speak louder than their words. Their actions are schismatic. However, generally speaking, I think good-willed Catholics (ie. those who hold and profess the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican II and trying to make the best of a terrible situation) should always be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their membership in the Catholic Church.
Pascendi: “I think Traditionalists of all stripes (SSPX, FSSP, Sedes…) urgently need to focus first and centre on defending and restoring the objects of our enemies’ attack. As I’m sure you’ll agree, the differences we have with them are far greater than those we have with each other.”
I would agree with you, but our ability (especially the laity’s ability) to do any of this is limited without a true pope to unify the Church.
@The Great Stalin: You really are a funny, comical person; a welcome source of humor in these confusing times. You illustrate by your effective parodies of the typical R&R zealot how dishonestly the typical R&R zealot operates.
For example, you well illustrate in your parody responses the calculated decisions of R&R zealots of who to argue with (e.g., those who don’t include citations to authority in their responses to the R&R zealot) – the R&R zealot wants to give the impression that so-called “sedes” have made up their approach to the current situation OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. Sedes want to be seen by the R&R zealot as making up an entirely new doctrine as if the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Popes have not spoken on these matters. God forbid that the unsuspecting untutored faithful ever figure out that the apparent “beef” – the argument – that the R&R zealot has isn’t just with the lowly so-called “sede” – but really with effective superiors to them – the R&R zealot doesn’t like how Church fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Popes have spoken and taught on these topics.
For example, in your most recent parody response of today you claim that so-called “Pope Francis” is not yet outside of the Church EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE CALLED HIM A HERETIC! You imply that so-called “Pope Francis” is still inside the Church! Your parody response shows precisely how unhinged R&R zealots behave – you push them far enough in exchanges like this THEY WILL EVEN CONTRADICT POPES! It has been brought to your attention while I thought you were serious in your replies that heretics are not in the Church. Pope Innocent III, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII all clearly taught this in their writings. Pope Pius XII also added the teaching that heretics – by public profession of an alien belief – cast themselves out of the Church without any juridical action on the part of the Church. Yet, in the typical manner of the R&R zealot you ignore this. It seems that at the end of the day R&R zealots apparently not only have problems with illegitimate Church authority like so-called “Pope Francis” but also with legitimate Church authority for they take positions that contradict Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and even Popes!
A typical R&R cheerleader is Michael Matt. You apparently were a frequent commenter on his website. Although Matt does not actively participate in the arguments – he delegates them to amateur R&R commentators like Salza and Siscoe – he apparently adopts the erroneous and ever-changing conclusions of these R&R zealots as “gospel”. For example, he apparently believes that Pope Francis is still in the Church even though he has advocated heresy. Yet, in other public pronouncements Michael Matt declares that other Catholics besides the Pope are no longer Catholic for the sole reason that they have publicly advocated heresy! For example, he has stated that Nancy Pelosi is not a Catholic because of her public profession of heresy. Thus, Michael Matt is perfectly capable of applying the teachings of Pope Innocent III, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII to all Catholics except the Pope. When it comes to the Pope, though, Matt stumbles. Matt can’t seem to bring himself to call the Pope a heretic. Why is that? Does he know that his semi-traditional and/or semi-faithful subscribers to the Remnant will drop their subscriptions if he “goes out on a limb” and states that the Pope is a heretic? One wonders.
If I have misread you, and your responses are not parody responses, I ask in the future that you please refrain from the typical behaviors of the R&R zealots set forth here. Those who adopt the sede position are not “protestants” and have not cast themselves out of the Church for the sole reason that they have withdrawn their obedience from the Pope. In this regard TGS THEY ARE EXACTLY LIKE YOU. What meaningful difference is there between the faithful of the R&R camp and the Sede camp? Members of neither camp accept the teachings of Pope Francis. So what is the beef between the so-called “sedes” and the R&R really about? I hope it isn’t mainly about money and prestige.
Dear Cyprian, you make up for a lack of arguments with sheer volume, much of it cut and pasted.
I can’t be bothered to answer, really. It would be like drowning in quicksand. I’ll just say that you sedevacantists do not recognise the Church, therefore you aren’t members of it. You’ve gone far too far and find yourselves out in the dark, but I hope you find a way back.
And so back to the football, where England are about to win (I hope) over Johnny Foreigner.
Why do you ask that question? You LIsten to.absolutely nothing. I have already said that as he is the Pope, when Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith, I am bound to listen to him. When he doesn’t, I am bound not to listen to him. It’s not this or that theologian who tells me this, but Holy Scripture.
TGS-Is referring to Pope Francis as “Bergoglio” disrespectful?
Hey two can play that judgmental game. You don’t recognize the Church either if you believe a manifest heretic can possibly be the Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ.
@The Great Stalin: Another great parody response! You’re more concerned about sports!?! than the weighty matters of the faith! At the very least a serious Catholic as opposed to a one-issue zealot would have used this opportunity to practice the spiritual works of mercy by instructing the ignorant or admonishing the sinner! In both cases that would be little old me, but awful spergy, nerdy sedes can be dismissed out of hand, can’t they? Well played!
I also like how you phrase it “I can’t be bothered to respond to you” just like the typical R&R zealot can’t be bothered to educate themselves properly on these matters. I also chuckled when you dismissed the teachings of the Popes and doctors of the Church brought to your attention as so much “cut and pasting” as if these teachings are merely a collage assembled by a kindergartner!
If it isn’t a parody response than it was in the nature of TMI – too much information – for we now know exactly how serious you are in your pursuit of these matters. You’re sort of a dilettante, aren’t you?
Duh…he still has his picture in the vestibule of his chapel!
Another admirable reply to the wailers and gnashers, TGS!
@Fleur de Lis: The Great Stalin’s charade would not be complete without a sock puppet, would it Lamb Chop?
Yes, 2Vermont, I forgot about that. Thank you for correcting me! There is a chasm of difference between the two camps! Having a picture of “Pope Francis” in the vestibule of your Chapel is the crucial distinction between sedes and R&R types. You can reject the teachings of a Pope, reject his disciplines, and even avoid those who attend services at the Pope’s churches, but as long as you have his picture in the vestibule you’re not in schism!
These things are pretty straight-forward at the end of the day.
If I am a member of a football* team but during a match, because I say the Coach is not the Coach, I pick up the ball and start running with it, seeking to score a try (because I unilaterally say we are now a Rugby Club), I can’t expect to remain a member of the football club for long.
The Coach may be rubbish, the worst ever. But it’s still a football, not a rugby club.
* soccer, for our oval-balled American cousins.
Sorry, but didn’t the coach change the rules to resemble rugby, so some players realised that he was no longer a football coach but has become a rugby coach? Those players only want to continue to play football (remain Catholic).
FromPoland: “Dear Fleur de Lis, save yourself from ‘dialoging’ with the sedevacantists’…”
LOL. Is that what you call Fleur’s worthless responses?
Awesome. Sports analogies. /s
We won 2-0. Time for a Maggie Thatcher-like “Rejoice!” and all round Imperial jingoism.
The ability of Coach Bergoglio to change the rules directly is beyond him: FIFA (aka the Holy Spirit) won’t let him. Hence the pathetic footnotes and general deceit and deviousness, all of which can be quickly reversed by an orthodox Pope.
Dear Lord you are beyond lost. Dont compare our Catholic Faith to a stupid sport. Souls are likely going to hell in the multitudes every day because of the false teachings of the vatican 2 revolution, and you want to make a joke analogy??
Analogies (including sports) be helpful to a certain extent.
@TGS: Are you saying that since Vatican II Catholics were asked to follow the same rules as existed in the previous centuries? Where the changes not earth-shattering? Would someone who died as recently as 1960 even recognise the Conciliar Church as Catholic?
“Joke” analogies, folksy metaphors – they are a refreshment I would imagine after months of the turgid splutterings from you and your fellow sedevacantists, none of whom seem to have a humourous cell in their bodies.
More like tumourous.
Anyway, I would never seek to remotely compare my analogies with His, but Our Lord used home-spun wisdom to teach the Apostles and disciples, didn’t He? So get stuffed.
You reject the Church’s visibility and its Divinely-ordained constitution, and are therefore ipso facto not Catholics: it’s not up to me to listen to your lectures. I will warn others from doing so, that’s certain. I do not know any sedevacantists personally, so I don’t have a stake in this from any personal animus. I am certain that you are wrong and others need to know why.
Ursula: your questions are of course fair and just.
1. “Are you saying that since Vatican II Catholics were asked to follow the same rules as existed in the previous centuries?”
What do you mean by “rules”? If you mean dogma and doctrine, nothing whatever has been changed officially. Rome is undoubtedly in the hands of men who DO hold views entirely contrary to the Faith (ecumenism as we see it in practice; conciliarism – Schonborn for instance on women priests – the question of religious tolerance; the question of the Jews and other non-Catholic religions). Yet the Church has yet to officially deny any of the truths taught before. Rather, they overlay them with new teaching, liberal-Protestant, Masonic and Talmudic in nature, mostly in the form of speculative theology (and now quasi-theology and footnotes from the Argie). It is this patina of error that we now see, rather than the truths which still remain underneath.
One has to understand the true nature of the crisis. Traditionalists in general do see this. But not sedevacantists, who have simply gone overboard. I do feel sympathy for them – but only up to a point.
2. “Where the changes not earth-shattering?”
Yes, they were, and catastrophically so. My own family was gravely affected by it all from the middle 1960s onwards.
“Would someone who died as recently as 1960 even recognise the Conciliar Church as Catholic?”
Yes, if they were prepared to look hard. And I agree, they would have to look hard. But even among the Novus Ordo clergy one can easily find pearls of orthodoxy, and maybe not without looking too hard. I readily accept the fact that with the Novus Ordo they are fighting with one arm tied behind their backs.
Perhaps in England we were luckier during the dark Ages of the 1970s – 2000s. We had many dreadful priests, useless, liberal Bishops and the usual crop of bossy, interfering “active’ lay people who didn’t (and don’t) know their arses from their elbows, but in general we escaped the worst of the excesses seen in the USA, Canada and other places.
Anyway, I stick with the SSPX, with whom I feel very comfortable. Sane, calm, educated, pastorally aware, eyes front fixed on Our Lord.
I lived in England for many years, and I agree the Church is not in as bad a shape as in other places.
Just some examples regarding “rules” Catholics of past generations wouldn’t recognize:
1) Requirement to accept a “Mass” that is man centered and emphasizes community meal over Sacrifice
2) Abolition of Friday fast and almost every other fast
3) Abolition of Holy Days of Obligations, Vigils, Octaves and even liturgical Seasons (Septuagesima, Pentecost)
4) Abolition of certain Saints’ feast days and a total change of the liturgical calendar.
These changed rules alone altered how people lived their lives as Catholics.
5) Altar girls – and I have seen myself an adult woman altar server at Birmingham Cathedral and couldn’t believe my eyes.
6) Female readers
7) Lay Eucharistic Ministers incl women
8) Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling often ridiculed and almost always discouraged
9) Encouragement of irreverence
10) Heresies in Church documents and the catechism such as “Muslims worship the same merciful God”, “salvific elements” existing in other religions etc etc etc
And then innumerable scandals of the current papal pretender:
A “pope” who said “Christ made himself the Devil for us” (Francis I, 4/4/17) and who released a number of heretical apostolic exhortations and encyclicals.
And importantly, the Argentine Bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia made it into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and so has become official Church teaching allowing public adulterers access to the Most Holy Eucharist.
The Friday Fast has been re-introduced, but apart from that I don’t have much of a quibble with your list. In fact, I could very easily add to it. How about, just off my head:
1. Saying that Bishop’s Conferences (which have no canonical status whatsoever and are certainly not part of the Magisterium) can decide doctrine locally? This obviously leads to national Churches like the Eastern Orthodox.
2. Laity preaching at Mass – forbidden by the rubrics.
3. Women teaching – forbidden by St. Paul .
One could go on all day.
All this is accepted, and I totally understand why some people cannot anymore see the Church, the Spotless Bride of Christ, under this garbage.
But She is there. IF SHE ISN’T, THEN THE CHURCH HAS FAILED AND CHRIST IS A LIAR.
Christ does not lie.
How easily even the Elect can be led astray. Where is the faith that the sedevacantists continually bemoan to be lost in others?
I will say this: I do accept that things are ratcheting up to the point where Our Lord will have to step in to put things right, because humanly-speaking there isn’t be much hope at all.
If we all prayed for the Church during the time we spent on epherema, how much closer would we be to a solution? Maybe an inch or two, a week or two, who knows? (Yes, I am as bad as everyone else.)
The Church must follow Christ in his Passion, and by now we could be at the time of Holy Saturday; of course I’m not sure about that, but there is consolation in the fact that God is in control. And there is definitely hope.
One last thing:
When Bergoglio said that “Christ made himself the Devil”, he told the world (most explicitly) whose vicar he is. The vicar of the Devil cannot be the Vicar of Christ.
Cyprian: “R&R zealot wants to give the impression that so-called “sedes” have made up their approach to the current situation OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. Sedes want to be seen by the R&R zealot as making up an entirely new doctrine as if the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and Popes have not spoken on these matters.”
I’m still waiting for one of you sede zealots to provide a single quotation from any Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, or Popes saying if Catholics personally believe a pope has fallen into heresy, he can judge the pope to be a heretic and then declare he is no longer pope. Or a quotations saying it is permitted for a Catholic to declare that a pope who was elected by the Cardinals is not a real pope due to alleged pre-election heresy, of which he personally judges him to be guilty.
In truth, the Popes, doctors and councils have spoken on these matters, and everyone has condemned the sedevacantist position described above. The eight general council forbids anyone to separating from communion with his Partriarch before the Church renders a judgment, and excommunicated any lay person who would violate this teaching.
Pope Hadrian, Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault,’ and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently THIS HOLY AND UNIVERSAL SYNOD JUSTLY AND FITTINGLY DECLARES AND LAYS DOWN THAT NO LAY PERSON OR MONK OR CLERIC SHOULD SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM COMMUNION WITH HIS OWN PATRIARCH BEFORE A CAREFUL INQUIRY AND JUDGMENT IN SYNOD, EVEN IF HE ALLEGES THAT HE KNOWS OF SOME CRIME PERPETRATED BY HIS PATRIARCH, AND HE MUST NOT REFUSE TO INCLUDE HIS PATRIARCH’S NAME DURING THE DIVINE MYSTERIES OR OFFICES. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be cut off from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”
You and your fellow sede zealots have separated from communion with the Patriarch of the West – the Pope – before a council rendered a judgment, and your heretical priests and bishops “refuse to include his name during the divine mysteries,” in direct defiance to an infallible decree of a general council.
The same general council decreed, in Canon 21, that it is forbidden to “compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges,” which you and your fellow heretics do continuously in order to defend doing precisely what canon 10 condemned – namely, separating from communion with the pope before the Church has rendered a judgment. Canon 21 also attached an anathema to any secular authority who would attempt “to expel the aforesaid pope from the apostolic see,” which, practically speaking, is no different than what you and your fellow sede zealots (who have no authority), do by claiming he is not the pope. No wonder none of your fellow sede zealots have been able to produce a SINGLE quotation to support your ACTIONS.
Cyprian: “For example, in your most recent parody response of today you claim that so-called “Pope Francis” is not yet outside of the Church EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE CALLED HIM A HERETIC! You imply that so-called “Pope Francis” is still inside the Church! Your parody response shows precisely how unhinged R&R zealots behave…
It is not TGS who is unhinged but you and your fellow sede zealots, who defy the canons of a general council of the Church. And what you are clearly unable to grasp is that while TGS might personally believe Francis is a heretic, as many others do, he realizes that his personal judgment does not suggest that Francis is out of the Church.
St. Thomas teaches that heretics remain in the Church secundum quid (in a qualified way), and Bellarmine says heretics remain in the Church simplicitur (absolutely and without qualification), unless they are manifest heretics WHO LEAVE THE CHURCH – not just “manifest heretics,” mind you, but only manifest heretics WHO LEAVE THE CHURCH are no longer united to the Catholic Church, according to St. Robert.
In his book, On the Church Militant, Bellarmine says manifest heretics “are in the body of the Church while they are joined to the faithful in the bond of profession and obedience.” And by “the bond of profession,” St. Robert does not mean explicitly professing each DOCTRINE of the Catholic faith (which would be nearly impossible), but professing oneself TO BE a Catholic and a member of the Church. That is what the “profession of the Catholic faith” means. The doctor of the Church explains this in the same book when commenting on a teaching of Pope Nicholas.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “Thus we come to those words of Pope Nicholas, ‘The Church is a gathering of Catholics.’ We are necessarily compelled to say that they are called Catholics who profess the Catholic faith, irrespective of their internal faith. … it is plain that gatherings of Catholics cannot otherwise happen than by calling into one place all of those that are said to be Catholic – i.e., those who publicly profess that they are Catholics.”
Professing oneself to be a Catholic and member of the Church is what the “profession of the true faith” means.
Those who are joined to the faithful in the bonds “of profession” (professing to be a Catholic and member of the Church) and “of obedience” (to the pope and lawful bishops) are united to the Church. This includes all the recent popes before (and after) their elections, but, needless to say, excludes you and the members of your heretical sect, who lack BOTH of these bonds (it is not enough to claim the NAME Catholic, if you publicly reject the Catholic Church, as you do).
Hopefully you recover from your errors and heresies before it’s too late, since “outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation,” and “it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Both bonds are necessary for salvation, and you have neither. See what happens when you defy the infallible canons of a general council of the Church and separate from your Patriarch before the Church has rendered a judgment?
The thing for me was the statement that even atheists can go to Heaven if they do natural good works.
The whole point of the Gospel is that we have to put off the natural man (even an atheist feeds and clothes his own children) and put on the spiritual man, in other words put on Christ, which can only be done through prayer and the Sacraments.
Our Lord Himself said that we can only enter Heaven through the laver of regeneration (water baptism) and by eating His Body and drinking His blood. So without Baptism and Holy Communion (only to be found within His Church), which atheists obviously are not going to have, then Bergoglio seems here to be directly contradicting dogma.
However, even if I do think he’s a heretic, I know it’s not for me to say it: the man is such a verbal bungler that he may have had an idea in his head when he spoke about the man who has never heard of Christ living according to natural law, which that man deems in his heart to be right (because Christ brings in His Elect through the lights He can give that soul directly). Who knows what he was thinking about? I don’t, nor does any sedevacantist. God knows, and will judge accordingly.
More than this, Pius IX forbade anyone from speculating. We should not do so.
One clarification – even if I should not judge, because as Ignatio has shown a Council has forbidden me the authority to do so, that does not prevent prudential judgement and it is in that realm that I say I will follow Bergoglio as Pope when he teaches clear Catholic doctrine, but will not when he doesn’t. As most of his deliverances are gobbledegook, it’s not difficult to ignore him most of the time.
I could go further and say that I am in favour of direct action — I would love to see 100,000 Traditionalists descend on Rome and call for him to answer the dubia, to clarify AL and a whole host of other areas. But that’s dreamland. It was once tried, in Paul VI’s time, and he reacted by leaving for Castel Gandolfo.
Ignatio: Do you assist at Masses offered by the SSPX?
Im actually a very funny guy. I simply dont think that something as serious as the vatican 2 takeover of the Catholic Church is a laughing matter.
The Great Stalin says, “In that sense, my biggest problem with Bergoglian eco-leftism is not his concern for the earth that God has given to us – any fool can see that we all need to do what’s possible to keep it in good nick – but the fact that it tries to hold up or stop the plan that God Himself has foreseen for Mankind and showed to St. John in his great vision on Patmos 1,900-ish years ago.” So, he is anxious to see Apocalypse 8 unfold? A bit odd. He also says, “I will say this: I do accept that things are ratcheting up to the point where our Lord will have to step in to put things right because humanly-speaking there isn’t be much hope at all.” Excuse me, but there is a Freemason pretending to be the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and pretending that the Roman Catholic Church is now Freemasonry and we should abandon all hope and pray for the Lord’s direct intervention? I was initially fooled by Blunderbuss and now The Great Stalin too. Shady characters. I’m not praying for the Fatima meteor. I’m praying that our Lady’s beloved Clergy will pluck up their courage, go into conclave and elect a Pope to lead Christ’s Church for just a bit longer. Apocalypse 8 will happen eventually w/or without our prayers.
Melanie, very oddly, says:
“Excuse me, but there is a Freemason pretending to be the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and pretending that the Roman Catholic Church is now Freemasonry and we should abandon all hope and pray for the Lord’s direct intervention?”
I wouldn;t want a trial by jury involving you lot.
1. What proof do you have that Bergoglio is a Freemason? You will probably cite that he once visited the Buenos Aires Rotary Club? That’s not proof, but an item on a schedule. You won’t cite his comments, I am sure, as reported by the recipient, to Burke about getting the Masons out of the Knights of Malta.
2. In what way exactly is Bergoglio pretending to be the Pope when he IS the Pope?!
3. You seem to be claiming that Bergoglio is passing off the Catholic Church as Freemasonry (if I understand you correctly?). Again, the level of assumptions made is simply astonishing.
4. You don’t WANT Our Lord’s direct intervention? Well, news for you, Melanie: you’re going to get it whether you want it or not.
John Paul II, in 1976 in Philadelphia:
“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and THE ANTI-CHURCH, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.
We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is POSSIBLE TO MITIGATE THIS CHASTISEMENT, BUT IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO AVERT IT . . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.”
I want whatever Our Lord Jesus Christ wants. Period.
The confusion on display from commentators here is almost total and complete. WAKE UP.
No, wide circles of American society wouldn’t realize this fully because Freemasons are sneaky little bastards. But we’re WAKING UP, now.
It’s like talking to a bucket of smashed crabs.
@The Great Stalin: Pope Pius XII instructing your ignorance:
You said this a few comments back:
“All this is accepted, and I totally understand why some people cannot anymore see the Church, the Spotless Bride of Christ, under this garbage.
But She is there. IF SHE ISN’T, THEN THE CHURCH HAS FAILED AND CHRIST IS A LIAR.”
You seem to be under the impression that the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., the Church, cannot be wounded in ways that may appear to contradict the teachings of the Church about Her Nature. That is because you forget that the Mystical Body of Christ is made up in part of sinners. It is sinners that wound the Mystical Body of Christ and detract from Her Nature to the extent they can.
It would be instructive for you to read Mystici Corporis Christi in its entirety since it will clarify a great many things for you.
For instance, R&R zealots like Ignatio would have you believe that the Mystical Body of Christ cannot be wounded in ways that make Her less visible in the world. Thus he rejects sede arguments out of hand because, according to him, they would make the Church less visible, and that is impossible. Those familiar with scripture, mystics and apparitions find such arguments puzzling because scripture prophesies that faith will wain and unbelief wax and and apparitions prophesy that the Church will be obscured (e.g., in Eclipse).
Well, Pope Pius XII instructs us that we don’t have to wait until the end times to see the visibility of the Church obscured – it has already happened. It happens each time schismatics reject the Roman pontiff:
“They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”
No one will deny that there have been schismatics long before so-called “sedes”. Thus Pope Pius XIII teaches that the visibility of the Church has already been obscured. This isn’t surprising for there have been almost from the beginning of the Church schismatic churches and heretical sects that claim to be Christian that lead those seeking eternal salvation away from the Church.
Now I expect you to say St. Cyprian it is exactly types like you that are doing this – wounding the Mystical Body of Christ by rejecting the Roman Pontiff. I don’t reject the Roman Pontiff, I reject a person – a non-Catholic – masquerading as the Roman pontiff who wounds the Mystical Body of Christ by his attacks on the Faith. St. Augustine teaches: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.” What does schism do – lead the faithful away from the safe haven of the Church. Schism is not unique in this regard! Heresy and apostasy do the very same thing!
By attacking the faithful like me you are ignoring the admonition of St. Pius XII about exactly where we are to lay blame:
“66. AND IF AT TIMES THERE APPEARS IN THE CHURCH SOMETHING THAT INDICATES THE WEAKNESS OF OUR HUMAN NATURE, IT SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO HER JURIDICAL CONSTITUTION, BUT RATHER TO THAT REGRETTABLE INCLINATION TO EVIL FOUND IN EACH INDIVIDUAL, WHICH ITS DIVINE FOUNDER PERMITS EVEN AT TIMES IN THE MOST EXALTED MEMBERS OF HIS MYSTICAL BODY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING THE VIRTUE OF THE SHEPHERDS NO LESS THAN OF THE FLOCKS, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. BUT IT CANNOT BE LAID TO HER CHARGE IF SOME MEMBERS FALL, WEAK OR WOUNDED. In their name she prays to God daily: “Forgive us our trespasses;” and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ “mystical,” the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: ‘Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member.'”
In essence you only partially follow the admonition of Pope Pius XII – you correctly don’t question the juridical constitution of the Church when the Church appears to be wounded in a way that seems to contradict the teaching of the Church about Herself but instead of assigning blame to the malefactor causing the wound to the Church as taught by Pius XII you shoot the messenger – e.g., the so-called “sedes” – who identify the attacks on the Church and exactly who are mounting the attacks.
Regarding the incompetency of the faithful to judge heresy alleged by Ignatio, Pope Leo XIII had this to say, quoting St. Augustine:
“‘When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? IN VAIN DO HERETICS RAGE AROUND IT; THEY ARE CONDEMNED PARTLY BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, PARTLY BY THE WEIGHT OF COUNCILS, PARTLY BY THE SPLENDID EVIDENCE OF MIRACLES. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?'”
Now one may argue that it is clear that Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine must have meant something different from a juridical decision when St. Augustine said that heretics are condemned in part “by the judgment of the people themselves”, but isn’t this uncertainty exactly what R&R zealots like Ignatio play on when speaking to the unsuspecting? According to Ignatio, all sedes who make a judgment about some teaching must be arrogating the authority of the Church to themselves and making a juridical decision about the matter!
I find that it’s like talking to a dishonest person. I don’t believe you do stick with the SSPX, with whom you feel very comfortable. A Catholic who attends SSPX wouldn’t be quoting JPII prophecy.
Really? Apart from the awful Assissi events, and one or two other examples of his taste for drama, I am unaware of anyone in the Society who didn’t think he was Pope, nor fails to give him credit where credit’s due. The Archbishop certainly treated him as the Sovereign Pontiff.
Apart from that, don’t accuse me of lying ever again.
Waiting for your answers to my questions. No answers (coherent ones, that is)? What a surprise.
TGS: “All this is accepted, and I totally understand why some people cannot anymore see the Church, the Spotless Bride of Christ, under this garbage. But She is there. IF SHE ISN’T, THEN THE CHURCH HAS FAILED AND CHRIST IS A LIAR.”
TGS, this is the same as when Tom A states (and others state) “he doesn’t know” where the Church is. He knows it exists but he can not see it. As you say here, I totally understand a Catholic thinking that way in this confusion. For me, as we discussed days ago, I tend to believe that the Traditional Catholics and the valid Traditional Clergy are the visible Church (although I am not well versed in that belief at this time).
I really wonder whether the only difference between you and I (and other sedes) is the matter of the pope. Whereas you see a manifest heretic as the Vicar of Christ, the Visible Head of the Church, sedevacantists can not and will not. Then again, I don’t know that I believe that you truly believe that a manifest heretic can be the Vicar of Christ. I think you just say you do.
My2cents: “When the Visible Head is not in conformity with the Invisible Head, he loses authority. Francis has relinquished all authority. Therefore, he is an impostor.:
Where do you sede heretics get this nonsense? A pope does not lose his authority for being “out of conformity with Christ,” whatever that means. If a pope lives a life of sin (which is not in conformity with Christ), he retains his authority; if he teaches errors (as many popes have done), or if he commands things which ought not be done, he is not to be obeyed IN THOSE THINGS, but he retains his authority, as such, as must be obeyed in all licit commands. This is basic Catholic doctrine.
Torquemada: “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that THE POPE CAN ERR AT TIMES, AND COMMAND THINGS WHICH MUST NOT BE DONE, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man;’ therefore, WERE THE POPE TO COMMAND ANYTHING AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, OR THE ARTICLES OF FAITH, OR THE TRUTH OF THE SACRAMENTS, OR THE COMMANDS OF THE NATURAL OR DIVINE LAW, HE OUGHT NOT TO BE OBEYED, BUT IN SUCH COMMANDS, TO BE PASSED OVER. … Thus it is that Pope Innocent states (in De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but SHOULD HE GO AGAINST THE UNIVERSAL CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH, HE OUGHT NOT TO BE OBEYED…” (Summa De Ecclesia).
Suarez: “IF THE POPE GIVES AN ORDER CONTRARY TO GOOD CUSTOMS, HE SHOULD NOT BE OBEYED; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
Pope Paul IV: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that THE ROMAN PONTIFF, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, MAY NONETHELESS BE CONTRADICTED IF HE BE FOUND TO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH.”
Bellarmine: ““I respond: firstly … no authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself … rather authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, IT IS LAWFUL TO RESIST HIM, BY NOT DOING WHAT HE COMMANDS, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata.” (De Romano Pontifice, bk. 2, ch. XXIX)
A pope only loses his authority, as such, when he dies, resigns, or is legitimately declared not to be pope by the Church, as Bellarmine himself teaches.
Archbishop Lefebvre was also very critical of JPII’s Theology of the Body and was, to say the least, perplexed about him going on and on about this subject.
The Assisi meetings constituted a major offense against the First Commandment, and the same applies to JPII kissing the Koran and accepting a “blessing” from a pagan priestess/goddess (Mark of Shiva if I remember correctly).
So no, the SSPX were not impressed with JPII or any of the post Vatican II popes, but they accept all of them, including Francis I, as valid popes.
TomA: “Ignatio, then why do you resist the teaching authority of the new church?”
There’s not a new Church. The Church under Francis is the same Church that recognized Pius XII as pope. And I accept its authority to teach, but that doesn’t mean I am required to accept every teaching of a pope, regardless of how far it deviates from Tradition. For example, accept the papacy of Pope John XXII (14th Century), but I reject his public false teaching that the souls will not possess the beatific vision before the final judgment – a heresy that Bellarmine said John XXII attempted to define, but died before he was able to do so. (John XXII’s immediate predecessor defined the exact opposite of what John XXII taught).
I accept the papacy and authority of Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence, but today I reject the council’s teaching that the “traditional instruments” are part of the matter of priestly ordination (which was a common teaching of that day), since Pius XII (and other popes) taught that they ARE NOT part of the matter.
I accept the authority of Pope Gregory VII, and accept his canonization, but I do not accept his teaching that Catholic worship the same God as Muslims. Do you? Here is what “your Pope” wrote to a Muslim King Anazir:
Pope St. Gregory VII: “This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because WE WORSHIP AND CONFESS THE SAME GOD though in diverse forms and daily praises and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’” (E. Emerton, The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, New York; Oxford: Columbia University Press, 1932, p. 94.)
Do you accept that teaching of YOUR pope, or do you reject his authority to teach? According to members of your heretical sect, it has to be one or the other. Tertiam non datur.
2VT, if someone like Francis came right after Pius XII, the entire Catholic world would reject his claim and toss the imposter out of the Vatican. But the enemies of the Church were smart and knew it would be better to boil the frog slowly. The RR camp knows and admits that Francis is a heretic. But they also know that if they toss Francis aside for heresy, then the next logical step would be to toss all the conciliar popes aside. This is too upsetting for them and they are unable to believe such a thing can happen to their Church. Their emotions rule over their reason so they have no option but to maintain the facade. This time of Great Apostasy has deceived and tested us all. Only those who have the gift of an extraordinary reason over emotional trait can see through this deception. For their remains only one objective for us, Truth. It is what motivates our investigations into this obvious apostasy in Rome. We are not wedded to institutions, apparitions, liturgical preferences, societies, or any other side issue. We only care about the Catholic Faith as taught for centuries. Anything that contradicts that Faith is a lie and not from God. That is the dividing line between us and the RR crowd. They have vested interests in human institutions, though they will never admit it. It is useless discussing this with them. They do not seek Truth but only to defend their preconcieved constructs. I was in that RR camp for a shirt time, but could not live the obvious contradiction that comes with their position. When we hear the voice of a true Pope again, we will submit to the Roman Pontiff, but until that day we can have nothing to do with this imposter false evil sect and their fake popes.
Get your facts straight Ignatio, Pope Gregory VII wrote we both believe in One God but in different ways. He never said “same” God. The John 22 stuff has been tried many times, his view was not yet defined and he never intended to teach it to the Church. The other issue isnt even a matter of faith and morals. The crazier Bergolio gets the more you must resort to deception and even falsehoods of history to keep your heretical pope. Pitiful.
“O stupid, stupid sedes…”
How is it you are unable to seperate deeds from the office?
Sin from the sinner?
Truth from (your own) lies?
The baby from the bathwater?!?
Earth to Iggy, True or False Pope was debunked a couple years ago. So desperate are you that you dusted off your old copy?
How is it you can believe the Church can teach you evil doctrines?
The proof that Bergoglio is a Freemason is in the Freemasonic doctrine that he propagates with his stolen and false authority. The proof his religion is Freemasonry and not Catholicism is that Freemasonry rejects Christ and embraces man as our savior. The Catholic Church treasures the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and many martyrs have died protecting the Holy Eucharist from desecration but not Freemasonry. Freemasonry mocks the Holy Eucharist and encourages the desecration of the Body and Blood of Christ. And you are a liar.
I wasn’t accusing Ursula of lying even though my comment appeared under hers. I was accusing The Great Stalin of lying again. Catholics attending SSPX may believe that JPII was really a Pope but there is no way the go around quoting his prophecies. Not a chance. I will now ignore The Great Stalin’s comments as well as I did Blunderbuss because he is a liar. So, I will only say this one more time ever. You are a liar.
Pope Francis, a very faithful ‘pupil’ of his predecessors…….NO WONDER, WE HAVE POPE FRANCIS!
….excerpts from “Peter, Lovest Thou Me?” by
Abbe Daniel Le Roux
“On May 19, 1964, Paul VI officially launched
a Secretariat for the non-Christians, confiding it to the presidency of Cardinal
Marella. This Secretariat played an important role during the last two sessions
of the Council, favouring false ecumenism, especially concerning Judaism.” Some
months later, Msgr. Wojtyła (future JPII), declared to Fr. Malinski his interest in this
“Nostalgia for the unity of Christians makes common cause with that of
unity for the whole human race. The new concept of a ‘People of God’ has made
us revise the old truth about the possibility of redemption outside the limits
of the Catholic Church. This gives rise to the attitude of the Church towards
the other religions, which is based on the recognition of their spiritual
values, humans and Christians together, reaching out to such religions as Islam,
Buddhism, Hinduism…..The Church wishes to undertake dialogue with the
representatives of these religions. And here, Judaism occupies a very special
In India JPII said:
“Collaboration between all religious is necessary for the good of mankind. Today as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jainists, Parsis and Christians, we unite to PROCLAIM THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN, especially to defend human rights eliminate hunger, poverty, ignorance, persecution…..the discrimination based on race, colour, creed, sex or ethnic origin are radically incompatible with human dignity.” (La Croix, February 4, 1986).
John Paul II (RIP) has been exposed to the errors of Husserl, Kierkegaard, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Scheler, Rudolf Steiner, and indeed, Pope Paul VI himself. With these teachers, how could the formation of Karol Wojtyła be flawless? Pope Pius XI who stated: “ignorant philosophers can never become good theologians.”
Saint Dominic: “My God, my God, what is to become of poor sinners?”
Melanie, I don’t think it is fair to accuse TGS of lying. I believe that he attends the SSPX, and what he said about the SSPX Bristol corresponds to the impression I got of them when I once did a retreat there. The priests of the Bristol SSPX do not talk much about politics. Also, TGS seems to travel a lot and he spent a long time in Russia. Maybe he didn’t attend SSPX during the JPII pontificate. Maybe he doesn’t read SSPX publications enough to know that they would be unlikely to quote JPII favourably, prophesy or otherwise.
I don’t like to deal with idiots, but one learns to be charitable.
But I do draw the line at schoolchildren.
Hi Ursula, that was aimed at the fatuous Melanie, not you of course.
The SSPX were not in Russia when I was there. Nice to meet someone who knows St. Saviour’s in Bristol. Fr. Pazat is the Prior now, a great man.
The SSPX might not customarily cite JPII, but the laity there has NO problem doing so. Bergoglio puts everything into perspective.
Don’t you two ever take a break?
It’s like a stuck record.
Not the Church but the Anti-Church.
Incoherent as I knew it would be.
Just another sedevacantist. Sad.
Yes I know Fr. Pazat! He and Fr. Vandendaele led our Ignatian retreat at St. Saviour’s in Bristol during Lent last year. Both were excellent. And I’ve also met great SSPX priests in other places. Let’s pray for the SSPX who are now meeting to elect their new Leader.
TGS: “Don’t you two ever take a break?”
I was hoping to actually get a decent reply from you for this last post of mine. Silly me.
Unlike you Melanie, I am not surprised that someone who attends SSPX would quote JPII. As time marches on, I think we will see more of it. The SSPX is on the road to being just another indult group.
After all, JP2 has to be a Saint if Bergolio is their Pope.
Tom A: “Get your facts straight Ignatio, Pope Gregory VII wrote we both believe in One God but in different ways. HE NEVER SAID “SAME” GOD.”
He didn’t? Try reading the quote again. Pope St. Gregory VII did NOT say to the Muslim, “we both believe in one God.” He said “we worship and confess the SAME God.” The book from which the quote was taken is available online. Google it and read the entire letter for yourself.
TomA: “The John 22 stuff has been tried many times,  his view was not yet defined and  he never intended to teach it to the Church.”
 Catholics are required to believe all that the Church teaches, not just doctrines that have been solemnly defined, and the doctrine that souls enter heaven before the resurrection of the body has been a teaching of the Church from the beginning. Fifty years before Pope John XXII divided the Church by TEACHING his error publicly, the council of Lyons taught the following:
“Council of Lyons, 1274: “Those souls who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, or have been cleansed [in purgatory], as we have said above, ARE RECEIVED IMMEDIATELY INTO HEAVEN.” (Denz 464).
And whoever told you John XXII didn’t try to teach his error to the Church was lying. He taught it publicly as part of his magisterium.
Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, MANY THEOLOGIANS, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, EVEN CALLING HIS VIEW HERETICAL.”
It is true that John XXII didn’t propose his error as binding the universal Church, but he definitely TAUGHT it as part of his magisterium – “he who hears you, hears me, etc.”
Now, since you mistakenly believe it is necessary for Catholics to either (a) accept every teaching of a pope, regardless of how far it departs from tradition, or (b) declare that the pope whose teaching you reject is a false pope (tertium non datur), which of the two would you have chosen if you lived during the Pontificate of John XXII? Would you have ACCEPTED his grievous error, or would you have REJECTED his papacy.
Lastly, you say John XXII’s error was not qualified as heresy (just like many today say the errors of the recent popes are not actual heresies), but, as the Catholic encyclopedia explains, “many theologians” at the time believed it was, and they publicly declared his teaching to be heretical. Some went even further.
The stiff necked and rebellious William of Ockham, and who the Catholic encyclopedia calls “the first Protestant,” taught at the time that John XXII was a false pope. He claims to have found, not merely one error in John XXII’s writings, but “a great many things that were heretical, erroneous, silly, ridiculous, fantastic, insane, and defamatory, contrary and likewise plainly adverse to orthodox faith, good morals, natural reason, certain experience, and fraternal charity” (A Letter to the Friars Minor’ and Other Writings). Because of this William of Ockham, whose own writings were condemned by the Church, and who himself barely escaped being personally condemned as a heretic, declared that John XXII lost his office for heresy. See if any of this sounds familiar:
William of Ockham: “Because of the errors and the HERESIES mentioned above and countless others, I turn away from the obedience of the false Pope … For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors AND HERESIES the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, without need of further sentence… In proof thereof several volumes have been published. And with my own hand and in all my slight ability of mind, I myself wrote on these same errors AND HERESIES and on all that is connected with them, fifty sexterns (12 pages) of the ordinary size of paper, and in addition have yet to write forty more. For against the errors of this pseudo-pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock. … If anyone should like to recall me to his obedience … let him try to defend his constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture … or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him” (Tractatus de Successivis)
Sounds like it was written by a sedevacantist heretic of today, doesn’t it? Can you imagine if William of Ockham had a website in the 14th Century, where he could expose all the “heretical, erroneous, silly, ridiculous, fantastic, insane, and … adverse to orthodox faith” writings of the “notorious heretic” John XXII? How many TomA’s of that day would have been cheering him on in the combox for “speaking the truth” about the “false pope”? Yet the reality is that William of Ockham was just as wrong about the legitimacy of John XXII’s Pontificate as you and your fellow zealots are about that of Francis and his predecessors.
Well, nobody that I know who attends SSPX including the Priest would ever quote JPII. This is only from 2014. They don’t believe he is a Saint nor a Prophet. I doubt many even believe Jorge is the pope, so I keep them in my prayers that they do the right thing. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/dilemma-canonizing-pope-john-paul-ii-3298
There’s more hard evidence that John XXIII, Paul VI, and Pope Pius IX (yes Pope Pius IX) were Freemasons, than there is for Francis. And remember, according to the Alta Vendita, the goal of the Masons wasn’t to put one of their own on the Chair of Peter, but instead to plant their errors like seeds in the seminaries, in the hope that a generation of clergy would eventually emerge that was more or less imbued with their Liberal doctrines, eventually resulting in the election of a pope who was not a Mason, but who thought like one.
But even if Francis is a card carrying Freemason, that would not prevent him from being pope. He is the pope, whether you like it or not, and he possesses the authority of the pope.
Ignatio, I don’t care if he carries a card or not. I am Catholic, not Luciferian. Whatever method they chose to impersonate the Catholic Church, they have failed because I recognize them as Freemasons. I will remain Catholic and you can follow them if you choose but I don’t know why you would when Jesus Christ died and rose for us and man only brought us the fall. Jorge is a fake pope heading a fake religion and I will have nothing to do with it.
Again Ignatio, like all R&R types used sources from the Churches enemies to justify his heretical Pope blasphemy. Most likely you came across that Pope Gregory VII letter from JP2’s reference to it being in Nostra Aetate. So its either rehased Gallicanism, protestants, and now the V2 NO ecumenists you consult. When will you actually consult CATHOLIC sources? It seems you RR types are on some quest to find a heretical Pope. And now you want to besmirch the memory of one of our greatest Popes in order to save the marxist Bergolio. Sad.
OH! Gregory VII the heretic, how about St. Peter the heretic? These people make no effort to convince anyone that Bergoglio is the Pope, berating him daily, but go to considerable effort to convince us that the Catholic Church was never true to begin with. How about, none of the Popes taught heresy, they safeguarded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from error with the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost and Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, that’s what I’m going with. Ignatio and The Great Stalin and Bergoglio and all the sodomites on earth will not convince me that the Church was a lie beginning with St. Peter. I don’t know how anyone can tell such a very bad lie.
Melanie, it is easier to believe a lie than to believe that you were decieved by a lie. This is why these R&Rers must prop up Bergolio at any cost. I trusted the conciliar church my whole life and it was all a lie. By God’s Grace I found the Faith that my ancestors held. You will never find that Faith in any NO V2 sect church. What you will find there is man centered masonic naturalistic heresy.
Fr. Vandendaele is based in Preston now, in the north of England. Also a really good man. When was your Ignatian Retreat at St. Saviour’s? I was on the Men’s Retreat in 2016 I think it was.
“The SSPX is on the road to being just another indult group.”
Further denigrating the SSPX as a body because I, TGS, happen to quote JPII, a Pope the SSPX most certainly recognise was the Pope (even if it and I too share serious misgivings about some of his actions – and inactions): do you now see how ludicrous that is?
I am a layman, not a priest, who happens to assist at SSPX Masses whenever possible, while the SSPX is a Priestly Society – my thoughts, and my choices about which Pope to cite, are my own, not theirs.
If Traditionalists want to be taken seriously by the readership of this and other sites, the vast majority of whom do not comment, AND PERSUADE THEM, then they need to very seriously up their game in this Comments Section. The vast number of statements made are backed by no proof whatever; the lack of sources given for statements made is another issue. We really should try harder to do better.
Melanie’s posts are a case in point: she has absolutely no proof at all that Bergoglio is a Freemason. One could certainly point out how the Anti-Church approximates to Masonry, but making definitive statements about Bergoglio’s personal membership is unhelpful without proof.
It was both decent and wise. You cannot maintain error without this incessant intensity – it will only break you in the end, you know that, don’t you? Lighten up, take a walk, read a novel.
TGS: “It was both decent and wise. You cannot maintain error without this incessant intensity – it will only break you in the end, you know that, don’t you? Lighten up, take a walk, read a novel.”
LOL…riiiight. You post just as often, so you should take your own advice. Having said that, I am trying to post less. I was on vacation so I had a lot more down time this past week or so.
You know what cracks me up about R&Rers like Ignatio? If you were to point out the heresy in a magesterial document like those of Vatican 2, they would claim that it was pastoral and not dogmatic. But to prove that Popes of the past were heretics, they find obscure letters of questionable veracity. If you were to point out this glaring contradiction to them, it would do no good. There minds are fixed and intellects clouded. When a false pope speaks heresy, they are quick to rationalize it away, but when they think a true Pope uttered something questionable, they are ready to call him a heretic and promote a defectible Church.
It was March 2017, 6-day Ignatian retreat for women. Thanks for letting me know that Fr Vandendaele is now in Preston. (Bristol is much nicer, though.)
Melanie: “These people make no effort to convince anyone that Bergoglio is the Pope, berating him daily, but go to considerable effort to convince us that the Catholic Church was never true to begin with. How about, none of the Popes taught heresy, they safeguarded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church from error with the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost and Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, that’s what I’m going with.”
If that’s what you are going with, you are living in fantasy land and will end by losing the faith.
The quickest way to lose the faith today is to believe in a Catholic Church that has never existed – a Church in which God prevents the popes from ever erring in the faith, and where he always inspires them to defend it valiantly! That is the make-believe “Catholic Church” of sedevacantist fantasy land that has never existed in reality and does not exist today. This explains, not only why the sede heretics believe the Catholic Church today is a false Church, but it also explains why they are unable to point to where the true Church is. The “Church” of their imagination has never, and will never, correspond to the Church of reality – at least no in this world.
The real Catholic Church is made up of sinner and saints, of good popes and bad popes; of popes who defended the faith, of a pope who was condemned as heretic by the REAL Church for not defending the faith (and for agreeing with the heretics of his day), and of a pope who offered incense to the idols. Could a real pope of the Church of your imagination offer incense to idols and remain a true pope? Would “the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost” permit such a public act of apostasy by a real pope in the Catholic Church of your imagination? I seriously doubt it.
But it is certain that a pope of the REAL Catholic Church could commit this public act of apostasy and remain pope, SINCE IT HAPPENED, and none of the bishops who lived at the time believed this public act of apostasy caused the pope to lose his office – and neither did Bellarmine.
The reason for mentioning these examples (and there are many others) is not to discredit the REAL Catholic Church, but to prove that false Church dreamed up by sedevacantists has never existed.
Melanie: “Ignatio and The Great Stalin and Bergoglio and all the sodomites on earth will not convince me that the Church was a lie beginning with St. Peter.”
You will not end by believing “the Church was a lie” if you believe in the REAL Catholic Church and have a correct understanding of papal infallibility, but you will almost certainly end by believe “the Church was a lie” if you accept the false “Church” of sedevacantism.
TomA: “You know what cracks me up about R&Rers like Ignatio? If you were to point out the heresy in a magesterial document like those of Vatican 2, they would claim that it was pastoral and not dogmatic. But to prove that Popes of the past were heretics, they find obscure letters of questionable veracity. If you were to point out this glaring contradiction to them, it would do no good.”
If you are referring to the quote from Gregory VII, I didn’t provide it to prove he was a heretic. I quoted it because YOU claim the SAME statement found in Vatican II is heretical, and then say this proves Paul VI was not the pope. Yet when you learn that Pope SAINT Gregory VII said the same, you don’t draw the same conclusion. Why such inconsistency? And in case you don’t know, Vatican II footnoted the letter from Gregory when it repeated his teaching.
So, if you don’t believe Pope St. Gregory VII was a heretic for saying Catholics and Muslims worship the SAME God, why do you believe Vatican II was heretical for saying the same? Please explain.
Ignatio, I do not believe your story about a “pope who offered incense to the idols” and neither did St. Augustine. Is Saint Augustine a saint in your church or only in the Church of my imagination? I’m not reading your comments any more either. You do understand you are telling me that the Catholic Church is something I made up in my imagination; that is such a really bad thing to say. I hope you reflect a bit upon this.
You need to cut it out with the intellectual dishonesty. The original quote by Gregory VII is “unum Deum, licet diverso modo”. Do you really believe “unum” can honestly be translated as “same”? If so, then you probably also think “pro multis” can honestly be translated as “for all’! Finally, Pope Gregory VII was actually agreeing to Anazir‟s request that he send a bishop to minister to the Catholics who fell under the jurisdiction of the Muslim leader. Can you imagine that happening today? I can’t.
Even if the pope wrote that, you are equating a private letter with an Ecumenical Council that teaches this to the Universal Church. Do you not see the obvious difference there? I’m guessing not. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be bringing the letter up in the first place.
Melanie, Ignatio again relies on enemies of the Church for his information about Popes being condemned as heretics. He knows full well that the Pope he is talking about was condemned as a heretic by a Council, but the Pope at the time changed that portion to only a comdemnation of negligence. He knows this but phrased his remarks to leave others with the notion that there were heretical Popes before Vatican 2. Its an old lie told by protestants, gallicans, and now the R&R crowd. See the company he keeps.
Ignatio again relying on enemy sources to besmirch a Holy Pope to justify his apostate anti-pope.
So, the Catholic Church and the Anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical, and juridical space? Assuming your answer is “yes”, then how do you deal with the fact that Anti-Church, in collaboration with secular powers, law and media browbeats the Church into submission? How should a lay Catholic deal with that? Go along to get along? hide out in the Trad ghettos of the SSPX or in the FSSP TLM offered on Sundays at 4 pm? Who will fight to extirpate Anti-Church within the spaces once wholly owned by the One, Holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church? I think for that to happen a toppling of the leader of Antichurch would be necessary, and for that to happen the Sede of Peter would have to be Vacante.
The scenario of TGS reminds me of when Jesus was being questioned by Pharisees and they claimed that Jesus casted out demonsx in the name of Satan himself. Jesus went on to tell them that their explanation was asinine and that a house divided against itself could not stand. The Pharisees were so stubborn in recognizing the Holy miracles of Jesus that they resorted to all sorts of convoluted explanations to deny the Divinity of Jesus. Likewise, the R&R crowd is forced to invent convoluted constructs and even lies to keep their heretical pope on the throne.
I know Tom A. I’ve never seen a more illustrative example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Confronted w/a raging rampaging apostate scandalizing the WORLD, instead of routing him, they say, hey guys, wait now, the Church has always been apostate and heretical. This apostate is just like all of our apostate Popes. But, you should totally join us and give us $$$ for our randomly chosen super difficult version of a church that everyone is making up in their imaginations and enjoy how much it sucks to be weird for absolutely no reason at all. It’s completely insane. For crying out loud, if you really believe this clown is the Pope than why don’t you go to Church with the normal people down the road. And the whole point of Bergoglio’s entire fake Pontificate is it doesn’t matter what the heck you believe, so why on earth do these people argue with anyone about anything when it’s ALL true and not true, Church and Anti-Church, yin and yang. And you think this is all bc they’re embarrassed to have believed a lie? Boys, the embarrassment will pass, don’t be crazy.
Tom A: That is an excellent comment. The same thought came to my mind when I was reading Mystici Corporis Christi again, and focusing on its teachings on the visibility of the Church. If as Pope Pius XII taught that wounds to the visible bonds of the Churh (e.g., faith) obscure the Church to those seeking salvation, how can a “Pope-heretic” be the visible head of the Church? He is making it visible and less visible depending on what he is saying? Especially if he is supposed to be one with Christ and acting as Christ’s visible Vicar?
Some quotes from New Advent on schism:
“Before him St. Cyprian had said: ‘It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop’ (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: ‘Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church’ (Smyrnæans 8.2).”
Following St. Cyprian, if you are in the same place with respect to the Church as your bishop if you submit to him – but your bishop is outside the Church – where does that place you?
” … then how do you deal with the fact that Anti-Church, in collaboration with secular powers, law and media browbeats the Church into submission?”
Lenny, I truly expected a better quality question from you. This one is stupid. You know the answer very well yourself.
Science, technology, the theory of evolution, sociology and all the other -ologies have chipped away at the faith of not only the laity but, earlier than them by at least sixty years, the clergy.
“Raze the bastions” meant just that. And they were razed. No mkore discipline, no mortification, no sense of sin, a totally missplaced optimism in ‘Man’ and his science.
Then there is the effect of the Shoah and the destruction of the two World Wars – these elements nearly always get forgotten, but are crucial.
By the way, it is a terrible mistake to think that the Church has been triumphant and all-powerful always, and in a strong moral state. For instance, the moral condition of the clergy in the 10th Century was atrocious while the North African Church was wiped out in seventy years from 633 AD, when the rag-heads started marching and riding West.
The Church is at the moment prostrate before the Anti-Church because of the great power of the devil in this age, and because the faith of both the clergy and laity has grown cold.
That is pure blasphemy. Holy Mother Church bows down before no one but Jesus Her Bridegroom. These blasphemies about Holy Mother Church spew from you like heresies spew from Bergolio. You are showing your true colors.
Tom, you are totally off your head, bonkers I’m afraid. If it was from a Catholic, I would be greatly offended, but as it’s from a sedevacantist, count yourself forgiven. When you have broken the chains of your new religion, you’ll have a better understanding.
Melanie: “Ignatio, I do not believe your story about a ‘pope who offered incense to the idols’…”
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, ch. 8: “The Tenth is Pope Marcellinus, who sacrificed to idols, AS IS CERTAIN from the Pontifical of Damasus, the Council of Sinvessanus, and from the epistle of Nicholas I to the Emperor Michael.” De Romano Pontifice, bk IV, ch. VIII.
Bellarmine went on to say he does not believe Marcellinus was truly a heretic, nor that he lost his office due to his public act of apostasy. He addresses the case of Marcellinus again in De Ecclesia Militante:
Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, book 2, chapter XIX: “The example of Marcellinus, who in the Council of Sinvessana was condemned by the Bishops and deposed. I respond: a) Marcellinus was accused of an act of infidelity, in which case a Council can discuss the case of a Pope and if they were to discover that he really was an infidel, the Council can declare him outside the Church and thus condemn him.”
I could quote many more authorities, but these quotes from Bellarmine should suffice.
Melanie, truth is defined as “the adequation of the intellect and reality,” which means a person possess the truth when what they think about something corresponds to objective reality of what the thing is. Right now, your idea of the Church does not correspond to reality. That’s why you thought I was lying to you about Pope Marcellinus. You have the same false idea of the Church as the sedevacantists heretics, which is why you left the Church instead of remaining within and finding a good traditional parish near you. You believe in a Church that has never existed and does not exist, and this is almost certainly due to the heretical understanding of papal infallibility that you learned from the sedevacantists.
There is no salvation outside the Church, and that includes during good times and bad – times in which the Church is flourishing and times when it is enduring a crisis. If you want to save your soul, the first thing you need to do is correcting the false ideas you have about THE POPE AND THE HUMAN ELEMENT OF THE CHURCH, so that the Church existing in your mind is in conformity with the Church of reality.
@Ignatio: You said this:
“This explains, not only why the sede heretics believe the Catholic Church today is a false Church, but it also explains why they are unable to point to where the true Church is.”
Are sedes heretics, schismatics or both, according to you? If you consider sedes heretics, what dogmas of the Church do they deny?