Back in May, I suggested that the Evil One seems to be stirring dissension among the ranks of those once united in the cause of so-called “traditional Catholicism” – most notably as it concerns Fatima.
Not entirely new, the discord that I had in mind was magnified by the now well-known address given by Cardinal Burke at the Roman Life Forum – a speech that contained some truths that he once rejected, but one that also promoted dangerous falsehoods that are utterly irreconcilable with Our Lady’s message.
Obviously, there is disagreement among those with a voice in traditional Catholic media as for how one should treat such things as these that are laced with more than a little leaven (poison).
Some (erstwhile) Fatima supporters, as I wrote at the time, have adopted an “Ecumenical Mindset” – pleased to celebrate points of agreement while deliberately downplaying or ignoring altogether that which is false and even deadly.
In June, with this in mind, I made note of a discernible “softening” that is taking place in certain traditional circles; one that we can only hope reverses course before it becomes a bona fide trend.
Well, it hasn’t reversed course; indeed, it has only gotten worse.
As Cornelia Ferreira pointed out in her most recent post:
…a synthesis between many traditionalists and conservatives [is] taking place in front of our eyes. A new entity has arisen: Conservative-Traditionalism.
Prominent traditionalists who have recently been collaborating with conservatives for the sake of a “common good” (the Consecration of Russia, in this case) have effectively opened the windows to errors and heretical ideas.
In response to this, one of our longtime readers and supporters, Alphonsus Jr., commented:
Name names. Who exactly are these former traditionalists who have descended to “conservative-traditionalism”? For the good of souls, we should be told exactly who they are so we can avoid them. For example, is the Remnant newspaper part of this new camp?
Though I take no pleasure in responding to his request, I have to admit that he’s right.
Up until now, both Cornelia and I have chosen to refer to such persons and their outlets in vague, general terms, but this day has been coming for some time now, and for the simple reason that Alphonsus Jr. gave – for the good of souls.
Let me repeat that – for the good of souls.
Answering the call to “name names” has nothing whatsoever to do with attacking persons; accusing them of ill-will or evil intent. Rather, it concerns pointing out the danger that is present in their approach.
The truth is the truth; the good of souls demands that it be told, and that means identifying those sources of “traditional” Catholic commentary that have been synthesized by conservatism to the point of misleading the innocent.
Alphonsus Jr. asked a question; one to which he, and I presume any number of other readers of this space, already know the answer:
Is the Remnant newspaper part of this new camp?
Perhaps the best way I can answer this question is to quote Michael Matt, who in an interview with Edward Pentin just a few weeks ago asked:
I don’t know if you identify quote-unquote as a “traditionalist” or not, but what do you think are the chances, given the situation now where things are really going from bad to worse, that some of the partisan politics and the, you know, the internecine squabbling could be set aside, and those who believe in the Church and want to defend the Church and want to do the right thing by the Church and serve Christ and everything could come together in a way moving forward; maybe obviously maintaining their autonomy, but able to see the bigger picture? Do you think there’s any hope for that in the future?
If questioned, I am fairly certain that Michael would confirm that the “internecine squabbling” to which he refers concerns that between so-called “traditionalists” and neo-conservatives who, though dedicated to the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and its very own “saints” (John XXIII and JPII chief among them) are beginning to see for themselves that things are “going from bad to worse.”
I don’t doubt for a moment that Michael genuinely believes that the Church and her faithful will be well served by “setting aside” these matters as if they are mere “squabbles” in order to “come together in a way moving forward,” but surely this sort of thinking is not only foolish, it’s dangerous.
There is no “bigger picture.” There is no “autonomy.” This is precisely the ecumenical mindset previously mentioned.
Presumably it is Michael’s sincere desire to affect a certain coming together with neo-conservatives that motivated him to anoint Cardinal’s Burke’s Roman Life Forum address a “total vindication” of Fr. Nicholas Gruner.
And this in spite of the fact that Cardinal Burke’s talk paid homage to the pontificate of John Paul II, the almighty Council, and the New Evangelization – as if these things are in perfect harmony with the message of Fatima!
As I said, this situation isn’t entirely new.
I became personally aware of the problem back in February 2016 when Michael took to Facebook to accuse me of acting like Fr. Paul Nicholson, who viciously denigrated the memory of Fr. Gruner following his death.
My crime was pointing out that Justice Antonin Scalia’s jurisprudence was not an example of the “devout traditional Catholicism” with which he was being anointed, but rather a perfect example of Americanism.
The Remnant, for its part, chose to honor the memory of Antonin Scalia by rerunning a praise piece they had published on him two years earlier wherein it was stated without any criticism whatsoever:
When he dons his robe as a Justice of the US Supreme Court, the basis of his decisions must be what the Constitution requires, and if abortion or the death penalty is permitted by the state under its law, then despite his Catholic belief it is the vox populi who are sovereign in these matters.
If one doesn’t see the danger in these sorts of things, I am afraid that nothing I write here is going to help.
Sadly, I must also report to you that the Fatima Center – the life’s work of Fr. Nicholas Gruner and a place staffed by persons I consider friends – appears to have lost its way.
On the homepage of its website one finds:
The Fatima Center rejoices at Cardinal Raymond Burke’s call for the proper consecration of Russia…
This isn’t the place to rehash all of the problems with Cardinal Burke’s “call,” but suffice it to say that he largely claimed recourse for his call to the authority of John Paul II and the utterly shameful homily that he delivered at Fatima in 1982, wherein the Polish pope dared to dictate to the Blessed Virgin the terms of her request.
For instance, he repeatedly twisted Our Lady’s words, referring no less than five times to “the consecration of the world” to her Immaculate Heart, as if this is what she had requested at Fatima; even going so far as to say of the consecration done by Pope Pius XII:
“Was not that consecration his response to the evangelical eloquence of the call of Fatima?”
It was as if JPII was telling Our Lady that she ought to be satisfied, if not by what Pius XII did, then by what her Son did:
“By the power of the redemption, the world and man have been consecrated.”
In spite of Cardinal Burke’s claim of recourse to this disgusting homily; delivered by the pope who singlehandedly bears more responsibility than any other for burying (nay, deceiving the faithful about) Our Lady’s message, the newly empowered brain trust of the Fatima Center is rejoicing?
Cardinal Burke claimed in his address (the same one that supposedly amounted to a “total vindication” of Fr. Gruner):
“The pontificate of Pope Saint John Paul II, in fact, may be rightly described as a tireless call to recognize the Church’s challenge to be faithful to her divinely given mission…”
It is to vomit!
Incidentally, you may be interested in knowing that Cornelia Ferreira, who has been closely allied with Fr. Gruner’s efforts for decades, sent a message to the Fatima Center shortly after Cardinal Burke’s address was published cautioning that it is not a cause for rejoicing, but rather a serious diabolical deception.
And yet the newly empowered brain trust of the Fatima Center, rather than defending the reputation of Fr. Gruner to whom Cardinal Burke owes a substantial apology, rejoices.
Back in June, I published a post calling attention to the ludicrous idea that Ronald Reagan was a disciple of Fatima – a notion put forth in an article published by Crisis Magazine.
I wrote:
It’s bad enough that an unsuspecting seeker of truth might encounter such garbage on the pages of Crisis Magazine and believe it, but it is far worse still that such an article should be given even a hint of credence by those who are charged with the privilege of spreading and defending the Fatima message.
In this, I was referring to a review written by Chris Ferrara (who, for those who as yet may be confused, is of no relation to Cornelia Ferreira – NB: the different spelling) entitled, “The Gipper” and Fatima, and published on the Fatima Center website.
“If only Catholic churchmen would take Fatima as seriously as ‘the Gipper’ did,” Mr. Ferrara opined, as if this would be useful in leading the Church out of the present crisis!
This is the same “Gipper” – Protestant American that he was – who said in a speech to which Mr. Ferrara linked:
“We know there will always be answers if we trust in the people, if we go to them, give them the facts, and rely on them to make the right decisions.”
Right – like that vox populi to which Antonin Scalia would have been pleased to concede had it demanded abortion rights.
Given that there is no room in this form of governance for the Social Kingship of Christ, I’d say that our churchmen-of-the-Council, Francis chief among them and Cardinal Burke included, already take Fatima about as seriously as Ronald Reagan did.
Lest anyone think that Mr. Ferrara’s commentary is harmless, I will repeat what I suggested back in June:
Imagine a sincere seeker of truth being moved, in this centenary year of the Fatima apparitions, to explore the topic more deeply; even going so far as to look beyond the confines of the Holy See and the neo-conservative shills who simply parrot the Vatican’s “official” position (Crisis Magazine among them).
What better place for that person to go than the website of the Fatima Center. Right?
Not so fast…
There he will find a highly positive exposition on the Crisis Magazine article, offered without any qualifications or warnings whatsoever, written by a man who has a reputation for being a staunch supporter of the Fatima message.
In other words, the poor ill-informed seeker of truth concerning Fatima will find himself just a convenient click away from the pages of Crisis Magazine (hyperlinked by Mr. Ferrara for the reader’s convenience) – and given the wonderful things he just read about their article, why wouldn’t he click – where, if he investigates further, he will soon find himself once again victimized by such deception and misinformation as:
“According to Sister Lucia, one of the Fatima children, Pope St. John Paul the Great accomplished this [the consecration of Russia] on March 25, 1984. The Soviet Union folded a few years later.” (Crisis Magazine article proposing that the conversion of Russia is already taking place!)
If that’s not bad enough, the poor seeker may decide to explore still other articles written by Mr. Ferrara, where in addition to many good things he will find even more praise for Cardinal Burke and his “leaven” loaded Roman Life Forum presentation.
As regular readers of this space know, in her inaugural article for akaCatholic, Cornelia Ferreira masterfully set the record straight on the dangers associated with Cardinal Burke’s presentation.
What hasn’t been made known until now, however, is that she initially proposed to pen that article for Catholic Family News. Her proposal, however, was rejected in favor of publishing (in the June edition) an article that reported on Cardinal Burke’s talk in a positive light without any warnings or corrections.
As I’ve noted in this space a number of times, even the SSPX is showing a lack of zeal of late; most notably in its kid glove treatment of Francis and his assorted blasphemies and heresies.
They too have chosen to refrain from criticizing the dangers present in Cardinal Burke’s “consecration call” speech; choosing instead to republish the shoddy report produced by LifeSite News.
Even Bishop Richard Williamson saw fit to praise “the brave Cardinal Burke who is entering the fray on behalf of Our Lady of Fatima” without any mention of his attachment to precisely those things that Our Lady came to warn us about.
So, what exactly is at stake in all of this?
Simply put, the presumably good intentions of individual persons aside, the entire message of Our Lady of Fatima is at stake!
Either we are squarely focused on disseminating and protecting the full and complete message of Fatima as best we know it, and that includes pointing to the crisis of faith about which Our Lady warned, or we are not.
If indeed we are, half-truths and confusing or deceptive treatments of Fatima can only be exposed and condemned wherever they are discovered.
My friends, with the deaths of Fr. Gruner and John Vennari, and the emergence of those “conservative-traditionalists” of whom Cornelia Ferreira wrote, there are fewer and fewer commentators left who are willing to speak the truth plainly and pay the consequences; whatever they may be.
Having “named names,” I have little doubt that I’ll be denounced by some for convening the so-called “circular firing squad.” Others may even try to use this post as a marketing tool for the advancement of their own “franchise.”
I also have little doubt that I’ll probably lose supporters along the way as well; making it even more difficult still to keep this effort going.
Even so, akaCatholic and its contributors – yours truly, Fr. Jose Miguel Marques Campo, Randy Engel, Cornelia Ferreira, Dr. Peter Chojnowski, our other contributors and our many fine commentators – will not compromise.
The news, however, is not all bad.
Just a couple of days ago, I received an unexpected note of encouragement from a “full communion” bishop who reads the blog, saying, “Keep up the good work.”
His Excellency went on to say, “You have so many good things to say. Just try to approach it diplomatically.”
It is my hope that I have done so in this post.
If you believe that I have, please offer your support so that all of us may do more of the same in the weeks, months and, God willing, years ahead.
Many of us have a fairly long history with both The Remnant and Catholic Family News. There was a day when I believed they would both be with the Catholic Church until the end. I know longer do.
About 6 months ago I had a run-in with Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara online regarding an issue that I believed was simply not true Catholic teaching. Not only did they refuse to allow me to post my comment, they engaged in a back and forth with me and told me I was a “troublemaker” and to to do my “trolling” elsewhere. Quite honestly, that is absolutely not my style.
Nevertheless, while I was honestly perplexed over the dismissive way a serious Catholic issue was being given short shrift by The Remnant, I decided not to pursue it walk away quietly thinking my experience was an exception. However, while I will continue with the Catholic Family News (I so miss John Vennari, may he rest in peace), I determined at that time that I would not be renewing my subscription to The Remnant.
Very recently, however, I read where other Catholics have experience similar treatment––one, interestingly enough, almost identical. But now, after reading your column, I am now convinced me that it wasn’t just me being unnecessarily critical, but others are recognizing that Michael Matt appears to be “evolving”––much like your “friend” Michael Voris evolved.
Since I’ve been following AKA Catholic I have never once been disappointed––either with anything you have written, or the responses from your incredible followers. Quite honestly, every one of them are so knowledgable about the Catholic faith that I’m often almost too intimidated to throw in my two cents. Nevertheless, it is truly an instructive experience for me every time I click on AKA Catholic. I assure you, I will be going nowhere.
Thank you for it all, and may God bless you and your family.
Dear Louie,
I hope you don’t lose any viewers but you can be sure you won’t lose me or my support. Cardinal Burke speaks with forked tongue and the Great St. JPII ain’t so great. For 28 years he ruled the Church and it did nothing but go downhill. Those who adhere to Vatican II are to be rejected. If you ask me, it was Satan’s crowning achievement. Satan aimed for the heart of the Church, the mass , and hit the bulls eye. Now we have clown masses, balloon masses, etc. everything except the Catholic mass .
Keep up the great work and remain fearless. God is with you.
Ditto Louie. Because you flush out the real story, like a good Confessor does, we the lambs can go away restored, safe in the knowledge that you profess The Truth.
Problem with V11 clergy is after 40- 50 years none of them can eat their humble pie. The fruits of V11 are rotting that’s no secret; it’s just the silence of the shepherd’s as we are circled by wolves. Some don’t wear sheep clothing so emboldened they present. Picture an orchard or vineyard where the harvester did not harvest a diabolocal waste of produce/ seed even. Stalked by pigs stuffing themselves with fruit on the ground. No wine in the press no body or blood in their memorial meals. That’s where it’s at these days. Save for a Remnant those who love Christ and His Mother. Our Lady of Fatima ora pro nobis. Don’t look back Louie. Lots wife recall departing the cities on the plains.
I must admit that it is not very often that I find myself in agreement with every word that Louie Verrecchio has written but this article scores 10/10 – Well said Louie.
Keep up the good fight Louie! My family would love to have you over for dinner anytime you are in DC.
For the record I never trusted Burke.
This would never have happened with John Vennari at the helm!
For those who admired, were led to Tradition by him, or those who knew him and loved him, I have started a new practice: He died on April 4th, so I am trying to encourage people to make the 4th of each month a day dedicated to the soul of my friend John Vennari. Tomorrow is August 4th. I encourage all to commemorate him and the riches he brought to the Church by praying at least a Rosary for him.
Father Gabrielle Amorth (RIP) is another’s one that’s being promoted but whose name I think could be added to the list of those guilty of “half-truths, confusing and deceptive treatments of Fatima.” So many “red flags” but here’s just one of many that’s pretty obvious that something just ain’t right: https://youtu.be/G0y89TmlQh0
Father Amorth asked devil why he was so scared of John Paul II. Devil responded “because he disrupted my plans” and “pulled so many young people from my hands. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/
“pulled so many young people from my hands” yea, I’m sure it happened during all those JPII world youth “day” sleepover weeks, right?http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_020br_WorldYouthDay.htm
During this time of extreme confusion and horrendous crisis within the Church, I have always considered the SSPX and those named in this article as a “safety net”–a source of comfort and support. As Louie as pointed out, this safety net appears to be shredding and it is very disheartening. My greatest disappointment is the lack of militancy in the SSPX. Have they lost their vision? Heaven, help us!
Class act, Louie. Once again you’ve shown complete respect to Our Lady. I am inspired by your courage and amazed at your tact. You’ve said what, unfortunately, needs to be said, tough as it may be. Truth is Truth. The road has split once again. I can’t help but remember your miraculous recovery from that terrible illness you had, which you informed your readers of about a year ago. That was not for nothing. What else are you here for at this time in history if not to share the Truth through your God given talent, writing. I will pray for your perseverance. Who else out there, with the power of the pen, can still see clearly? Anyone better known than you?
Also, I can’t help but wonder why anyone would still quote the fake Lucey. I DO believe many very good men have been deceived by her. Why are so many that can see though, afraid to call out THAT elephant banging around in the room. I mean, come on, what the heck is wrong with everyone’s eyes? I guess that’s all part of diabolical deception. But, still I wonder, why so few mention this obvious fat lie placed down our throats? Perhaps it is too blatantly wretched that we just can’t face this reality in the eyeballs. Perhaps some still can’t imagine those who work for the devil would conjure up such corruption. Perhaps some fear that those who state this obvious deception would be labeled as “cuckoo” for sure. I just get that sense. Perhaps MY eyes have been deceived. Nah, I’ve never been THAT off with placing a face. And you, Louie? Don t answer that. Right? Just seems natural to wonder though-such an unnatural, stomach turning thing. What happened to Lucia?
Admittedly, though, although I see it, even I don’t mention it to others outside my tight circle of Catholic confidants.
Thanks, Louie, for reaching out with Truth to us in the catacombs.
We count on it.
For the Devil, there is no effort to be spared in order to prevent the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Every means justify this end, including fostering a devotion to Fatima, with just enough twist on the truth to sow confusion.
Dear Louie,
You have my support. Any monies that have previously gone to the Remnant and Fatima Center will now be coming your way. It is very scary to see this dialectic synthesis in action among what is left of the traditional camp. It is especially disheartening with regard to the SSPX. They are the sole reason that I returned to the Catholic Church. I do not think it coincidence that Fr. Gruner and John Vennari were taken from the Church militant during this culmination of the diabolic disorientation.
Forgive me for this opinion but to “name names” there are to more institutions that deserve to be included and those are the FSSP and the TFP. Both are complicit in their deceit regarding Fatima and their allegiance to the conciliar church. OUR LADY OF FATIMA PRAY FOR US!
“I can’t help but remember your miraculous recovery from that terrible illness you had, which you informed your readers of about a year ago. That was not for nothing. What else are you here for at this time in history if not to share the Truth through your God given talent, writing.” – Cortez, I absolutely agree with you and told this very same thing to Louie not too long ago. I’m so glad to see someone else who is thinking as I have regarding why Louie had this miraculous recovery from something so serious, and that you are most appreciative of his work, especially in his uncompromising defense of Our Lady. Indeed, Our Lord has plans for Louie, and we most certainly ought to support him in whichever manner we, his readers, are able to; be it with our prayers, and if possible, financially as well. God bless you.
The fake Sr. Lucy made it OK to be in the Novus Ordo because she was definitely a Novus Ordo nun. I was absolutely shocked when I first saw pictures of the real Sr. Lucia. She was a stranger to me after growing up with the fake one (even via Fr. Gruner).
Charmaine,
Glad to know Louie has friends like you in his corner. I imagine in his efforts he is comforted by your support. I’m sure it isn’t easy to persevere so steadfastly in Truth. My continued prayers are with him.
Adding to what I’ve posted above regarding fake Lucy. If we can’t get through such an obvious, tangible deception as the fake Lucy, than where are we going? Circles and circles. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or great theologian to use your God given eyes and reason. If, though, scientific studies are required, than even they have been provided by the Tradition in Action site years ago. Even though I learned of that great Deception years ago from that site, I see that not many people report or discuss these facts. While we kindly need to call out Truth distorters, we need to support and call out those who do see clearly, and broadcast such obvious Truths such as the fake, freeflowing, Lucy. If we can’t get past that tangible obvious lie, than we’ll never figure any other deception out. Right? It’s just so in front of our face, it’s dang well laughable from the devil’s perception. We need to look at ourselves in the mirror and slap some common sense into ourselves. Really! Or maybe I am making too much out of the fact that Lucia was replaced by a fake Lucy. Is this no biggy for others? Strange.
I was convinced that this was a fake Sr. Lucy when I saw a video of her kissing the hand of JP2 as she took Communion from his hand. I don’t think the real Sr. Lucy would make this gesture while receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.
The battle between “conservative” traditionalists and traditionalists has been going on for awhile. On the false Sister Lucy issue :
The ‘Anathemas’ of John Grasmeier
(by) Atila Sinke Guimarães
Some readers sent me a joint attack by Matt Abbott and John Grasmeier against the TIA website, Dr. Marian Horvat, and me (click here). Abbott’s role in the attack was to frame and give importance to Grasmeier’s accusations; he is the microphone, Grasmeier is the voice.
Abbott shows prudence in his presentation. He gives the readers some data on the polemic about the two Sister Lucys (click here) and then introduces Grasmeier. Abbott’s single accusation is to charge us with being adepts of “conspiracy theories.” This is an empty slogan increasingly thrown against those who consider that the Catholic Church is infiltrated by Progressivism. In this article I will not address this topic. I hope to analyze what a “conspiracy theory” is in the near future.
So, Grasmeier’s accusations compose the essence of the attack. I will summarize them for my refutation…
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E019_Grasmeier-AbbotAttack.htm
Louie, I salute you. Speaking the unvarnished truth, with total disregard for human respect, is now more important than ever.
After reading this latest blog entry, a friend of mine just wrote to me: “I was about to send LV some dough. Now I definitely will.”
The liberal slide of these former traditionalists is akin to that of cuckservatives in the Republican party. It seems that the lust for mainstream respectability has finally infected them, thus leading them to increasingly join the “conservative” CatholiCucks. This lust for mainstream respectability is of course at the heart of cuckservatism as well, as explained in this invaluable entry at the great Vdare:
Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest http://www.vdare.com/articles/cuckservatism-the-cuckoo-in-the-conservative-movements-nest
On a related note, see this piece on William F. Buckley Jr’s pitiful descent into cuckservatism. The lust for human respect was very much at the core of his descent (and that of National Review) into cuckservatism:
William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP—Sort Of
http://www.vdare.com/articles/william-f-buckley-jr-rip-sort-of
Can anyone refute these points?
http://www.jmjsite.com/my_petition_for_spiritual_help.pdf
Verrecchio contra mundum! sarc/
The ‘idolatry’ of ‘mammon’ of the Remnant…….Ronald Regan, Justice Scalia, and Donald Trump….etc.,…..has become truly ‘ad nausea’.
Sadly, they are one of many, of the so-called ‘trad-conservatives’…..deceiving so many already so confused Catholics.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us Catholics!
Same here, but the photo analysis had already convinced me and then I came across that hideous scene just recently. It really is mind-boggling how this reality could possibly be ignored. But then again, blindness is a frightful thing which only God can cure. .
Wow. I did not see that one.
Yes. I know that Fr. Gruner quoted fake Lucy. I can’t believe that even a great warrior like he was even deceived by fakey. I know that some people at the remnant also quote fakey. There’s only so much I could pretend I don’t see or hear these days without being repulsed by myself not facing the reality that I DO see, square on. I guess, similar feelings are what pushed Louie to post this piece today. I am embarrassed by those who speak and quote fake Lucey…painful.
I certainly agree in naming names but this is not near to being a complete list. Singling out one or two for particular criticism is unfair. Most Catholic bloggers/website owners are not prepared to cross the line to uphold the True Faith for fear of either giving offence ( possible loss of income), or clerical reprisals. The usual treatment is a vitriolic attack on posters who do not completely conform to their preconceived attitudes, followed by banning. Their rules are not Catholic nor are they sustainable in these dire times when all Catholics should be pulling together to ensure a return to Tradition & the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary together with the full revelation of the Third Secret. Instead of doing God’s Work they are actually prolonging the catastrophe Satan has wrought on us all.
The only group not lamenting or trying to figure out the crisis in the church are the sedevacantists. Anyone who has anything to do with the conciliar heretics winds up eventually corrupted themselves. This article and the comments above show the long list of victims to the lie that is the conciliar church. Have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with that evil sect. Its all a lie and to give it any legitimacy will eventually corrupt you. Anathema Sit used to mean something when it came to heresy.
Novus Ordo thinking, like liberalism, is a mental disorder. People with this disorder do not know that they do not know. They do not know how to think like a Roman Catholic because they have never been taught the Faith. By the grace of God, the veil was lifted when a true Roman Catholic priest, formed and ordained by the SSPX, had the patience and charity to teach us the true Faith.
The Novus Ordo mindset is a highly contagious virus that is communicated by ecumenical dialogue. Please Warn the priest and faithful of your SSPX chapel to avoid the danger of the influence of GREC and Novus Ordo priests who serve in SSPX chapels without conditional ordination into the Latin Roman Catholic Rite by an SSPX bishop! The Novus Ordo seminaries cannot form Roman Catholic priests and a few classes in the SSPX seminary cannot produce a true Roman Catholic priest–only God can through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Many SSPX priests do not realize that they are different, set apart. It is imperative that all Novus Ordo priests be conditionally ordained for the sake of their souls and the souls of the faithful!
The apostolate of the SSPX consists in forming Catholic Priests. They do that very well. SSPX priests go on mission trips every weekend to bring the Sacraments to places that don’t have a permanent priest yet. They want to attract as many souls as possible to tradition.
If you haven’t heard, the Immaculate Heart of Mary has assured us that she will be victorious. The SSPX Rosary Crusades, among other things, hasten that day more than leveling accusations at Prelates that won’t listen anyway. Why don’t you wait until you do one tenth of one percent of the good an SSPX priest does in an hour, before you unleash your wholesale invective.
The “fake” Lucy told JPII over and over, that the Consecration of the world did not satisfy Our Lady’s requests. You would think that they would have schooled her better than that. In later years a lot of misinformation came out and was attributed to the “fake” Lucy. And yes, she acted very strange toward the end. She could have easily been drugged out of her mind. Just sayin’.
Indeed.
However, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Verrecchio himself escapes the appellation of “Conservative Traditionalist.”
He mentions “Father” Gruner (ordained in 1976 by a diocesan bishop) and “Father” Jose Miguel Marques Campo (ordained in 1996 and presently a diocesan priest in Spain).
Mr. Verrecchio says he, along with others mentioned in the body of the article, “will not compromise,” yet the sedevacantists who post here believe that he has done that very thing.
How is it not a compromise for Mr. Verrecchio to keep ties to “the Novus Ordo church” by attending Masses by priests “ordained” by modern “bishops” and calling them “Father” as if they are actually priests?
From the Mission Statement: “My mission on this blog, therefore, is to examine every proposition that claims to be ‘Catholic’ through the lens of tradition – regardless of the source…”
So, let’s see the explanation of how a person can accept the new “allegedly Catholic” rite of ordination and episcopal consecration while at the same time not falling under the term “Conservative Traditionalist.”
For the record, I do not subscribe to sedevacantism, but I don’t see how someone can escape being categorized in the same category that he is putting others into when that person does the exact same thing that he accuses others of doing, i.e., compromising.
Mr. Verrecchio, where do you stand on the new rite of ordination? Valid or not?
If you consider it valid, how are you not a Conservative Traditionalist? Would you attend an ordination Mass for a man being ordained in the new rite?
If you consider it invalid, why do you call Father Gruner and Father Marques Campo “priest”?
And how many Sedes go to the garage Mass you attend, twenty, thirty?
Dear Rushintuit,
Are you addressing me? I agree with your post until the last sentence. Please know that I am most grateful to the SSPX and did not intend to “unleash….wholesale invective” toward the SSPX in any way. Perhaps I did not make that clear and I apologize if that is the case.
Thank you rush for the ad homenin on DJR. It just illustrates once again you have nothing of substance to add.
A Simple Beggar, that pdf is very long and possibly wild-eyed. Can you summarize it for us?
Pray for the true conversion of Russia as per the request of Our Lady of Fatima!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsxxJNpZtHA
Hi Cortez. I’m convinced the latter day Sister Lucia is bogus. Your eyes do not deceive you. It is not the same woman. I’m looking forward to Dr Peter Chojnowski’s piece on this matter. He mentioned days ago it would be forthcoming but I keep checking his site and nothing about fake Sister Lucia yet.
Canon Gregory Hesse stated that the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments cannot be evaluated by comparing them to the traditional Roman rite because it is essentially a schismatic rite.
But I challenge all sedes here to start naming names. Who the heck are you listening to? What great authoritive intellectual(s) influenced your thinking because I’m sure you didn’t figure everything out (so you say) on your own.
Every single thread degenerates into sedes making assertion after assertion. Then they answer for each other and cover for each other as if they are some sort of cult.
Enlighten us. Who are your leaders that we too may drink of this oracle of truth?
coastalfarm,
I was addressing my2cents.
John 314, well the first name I listen to is Pope St Pius X. In his great encyclical Pascendi, he authoritatively defines modernism as a heresy. Secondly, I listen to Pius XII, who in his encyclical, Mysteri Corpri, authoritatively defines membership in the Catholic Church. After that its pretty easy, if one is honest and logical, to connect the dots. Modernists are heretics and heretics cannot be Catholics. Its so simple a child can understand this but for some reason you and others want to tell me a heretic who is not catholic is head of the catholic church.
Thank you for that laugh. “Catholicuck”. I was trying to relay that to my husband and almost couldn’t.
John 5:8-10
Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.
And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed, and walked. And it was the sabbath that day.
The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.
The “Novus Ordo” church is a crippled and disfigured form of Catholicism and in need of cleansing and healing, full of people looking in the wrong place for healing.
In the gospel the man waited 38 years for healing. Surely the people in Vatican II cult are in need of healing for decades also and should not be ignored, but pitied. Issues like the ” validity” of sacraments and ordinations – not my place to worry about it – or make judgments on it as it seems unprovable ultimately. The crippled man complained to Jesus that he “had no man” to help him into the waters. Why don’t we all try to find just one Vatican II Catholic and try to bring them back to Tradition?
Michael F Poulin
And I for one have spent years trying to sort out who is who, and without being a theologian, it is confoundedly hard to do.
I have only followed The Remnant for about two years or so, I didn’t know about it before. My sense is they hit a real wall of frustration as we all did, and it became just hard to deal with the onslaught of bad news out of Rome and everywhere else. I can relate. Now things are coming to light more and more, and we are finding out that even our friends are not our friends, so I don’t know. At this point if my mother was alive I’d have to suspect her. (not really) But these times are worse than interesting.
The SSPX has lost credibility with me. My criteria I suppose is if you speak out when it is not in your best interest to do so. That opportunity has passed, although the window is not shut quite yet, but almost. The Cardinals, Bishops, it is very late. We see there is almost nobody. The dubia were apparently a big bluff.
I don’t know much about the “fake Lucy”. I have seen photos of Lucia and never seen anything that made me think she was fake. I also find it not compelling that anyone would go to that length, although I rule out nothing these days. For all I know the pope is animatronic and run by Disney. That would explain things. But the fake Lucy sounds bizarre and can’t help credibility. Does anyone have great videos that make a great argument?
Hang in there sheep.
That’s how I feel as well. I can barely figure out my own life and I’m going to know if someone is valid or not? I can’t figure that out and I don’t worry too much about it. I don’t mean to be flip, these are critical things but I just don’t believe God intends this to be my responsibility to know. Above my pay grade.
There is likely a growing population of Neo-Catholics that are only now beginning to sense something has gone terribly wrong. I just spoke with one today. Those people need to be informed and hopefully assisted by people who love the true faith and are willing to share why.
“…the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom,..
Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Greges, 2.
Pope Pius X says they are in the Church. Where does he say they are not in the Church, or they do not hold office, or that they do not have jurisdiction, or that people like you can pronounce final judgement on bishops, cardinals, and popes?
Each Roman Catholic has a duty to know the true Faith to the limit of his ability.
A simple rhetorical question for all to ponder: Does it really matter to you if the sacraments you receive are valid, coming from our Lord Jesus Christ?
Sure. It’s worth reading even the first 10 pages or so, in fact, I think everyone should. It seems to obliterate, using Papal documents and Canon Law (i.e. proof), the notion of “supplied jurisdiction”, and the Consecration of Bishops without a Papal Mandate.
Oh, okay. I’ll say it: Circular firing squad.” Louie, it just seems you don’t like (trust) anybody anymore. I just don’t enjoy traditionalists continuing to fight a cage match over anything and everything with which they might disagree. It’s demoralizing at a time when a heretical anti-pope and his minions are doing enough of that themselves.
I think that we need to learn more about how to be a true Catholic in these times by reading the teachings of the Pre-V 2 (actual) Popes. This doc is extremely enlightening (and terrifying), and I’d like to know if there’s anyone who can refute all that’s within? Anyone who claims to seek the Truth should definitely make the effort to read this:
http://www.jmjsite.com/my_petition_for_spiritual_help.pdf
Pius XII is the one who said heretics are not members of the Church. I am not sure why you think I am pronouncing any final judgment here. I am simply assenting to authoritative papal teaching. Those Popes made the final judgment. Now tell me what part you disagree with? Modernism is heresy or heretics are not Catholic. The only way Bergolio is Pope is if one of those two sentences are false.
Rushintuit–Louie states that the SSPX is showing a lack of zeal and giving the kid glove treatment to Francis. I agree. Take off the kid gloves and put on boxing gloves. I’m sorry this upsets you. Please do not misunderstand. I have always considered the SSPX to be the first line of defense against corrupt Modern Rome. That is why I am so disheartened. In any event, I am deeply grateful to the SSPX for providing us with holy, dedicated priests—the true soldiers in this battle. They need strong Generals and our prayers.
Yes, quite frankly I’d rather die, so I am absolutely hunting down and praying for the Truth of the matter, and finding out in the process just how absolutely ignorant I have been (and am). We’ve been lied to and misled for years at every turn. I fear Satan has placed a trap at every so-called escape route.
It’s a great question, an important question, but I can’t help but tend to believe that God doesn’t expect us to be Sherlock Holmes, hunting down clues to where to find the real sacraments, and this would be like He would be playing Peek-a-Boo with our faith and our lives, and that doesn’t make sense either. This is really and truly an important question, and I’m not at all sure of the likely answer. We should all make an effort to know if our sacraments are valid, but does it make sense, and again, I really don’t know, that we would be expected to determine this for ourselves? If that is the case, it leads to a rabbit hole of thorny questions. Then again, I’m already in that rabbit hole, because I have extracted myself from the NO church for the most part, but I’m just wondering where to draw the line. One could go nuts.
The modernists at the time of Pius X were operating covertly, i.e. in secret and not public.
It is public, i.e. visible, heresy, which seperates one from the Church. The Church, being a visible institution, the “congregation of the faithful” by very definition excludes public heretics.
If it didn’t, then we would not be able to tell by observation who was, and who was not a member of the Church.
You seem to think that we have no idea who is a Catholic and who isn’t.
This error leads to a necessary denial of the doctrine of the visibility of the Church.
Evangeline, if we were not expected to be able to know, then the Church would not teach us.
One doesn’t hae to nail his colors to the mast regarding the validity or otherwise of the novus ordo sacraments.
If one goes to the SSPX, who have simply transmitted all the sacraments that came from tradition, he can be sure they are valid.
We can leave the new ones on the shelf as having serious doubts, based upon previous teaching, and simply hold to all of tradition to be safe.
Irony much?
This unseemly fighting over labels is contrary to tradition and such praxis was condemned by Pope Benedict XV:
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
APPEALING FOR PEACE
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS,
PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline – in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See – there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
Does the “Church teach us” who has the authority to declare a sacrament invalid? It’s one thing to use your own powers of discernment to decide if a particular sacrament is doubtful, it’s quite another to go around the internet putting a big question mark on the Novus Ordo books. This looks like you are denying the dogma of papal jurisdiction (which is part of Tradition!!), in public, which means you are a heretic and out of the Church.
In a previous comment you stated that the modernists of in the time of Pope Pius X were “operating covertly, i.e. in secret and not public” and therefore they were to be considered part of the Catholic Church, but if they were to go public, they are heretics and out of the Church. So you are hoisted with your own petard.
ABS, but these matters do harm faith and discipline. And many of these issues we are discussing have already been authoritatively pronounced by the Apostolic See. This isn’t a debate on whether there should be one confiteor or two, this is an issue of faith itself. Are modernists Catholic? If no, then we have simply put into camps the various modernist camps. Those who hold the true faith are simply Catholic. Those who have adopted even one drop of modernist poison are not Catholic.
Pius XII brought in significant changes to the Easter Liturgy, he brought in Bugnini and he endorsed NFP which he endorsed in a private letter to the Italian midwives and which is has been publically known that says that one could plan exclusively to use the infertile period in order to separate the conjugal act from procreation in order to avoid having children come from the act for grave reasons. Of course this is contrary to not only natural law but Scripture the true Magistarium and what church fathers and saints had to say on separating the conjugal in thought, word and deed from procreation.
Many seds pick and choose what they beleive to be heretical teachings and accept teachings contrary to Catholic doctrine like NFP. I don’t hang my hat with them.
Anastasia, there is no quarrel here with what you say. But there is no cherry picking. Pius XII’s liturgical changes and choice of Bugnini were lamentable decisions which damaged the Church. But they were not in of themselves hererical. His PRIVATE letter to the midwives was just that, private. It did not rise to the level of magesterial teaching. Again another lamentable decision by Pius XII. The Church has never taught that the Pope would always make the wisest decisions. It does teach however that public heretics are not Catholic. Ironically, it was Pius XII who last taught this.
“Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.” -The Apparition at Rianjo, 1931
What ministers have fallen into misfortune, Pius XI and Pius XII? No. It was the post Vatican II Hierarchy that fell into misfortune. What was the misfortune? Our Lord withdrew His grace from them.
“Thus, the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way, the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.” -Lucia to Father Fuentes, 1957. Does this statement apply to Pius XI and Pius XII? No. It applies only to the post Vatican II Hierarchy. Are the post Vatican II Popes? Yes, they are Popes that have fallen into misfortune.
I missed a point that I meant to make. “It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.” -Rianjo, 1931. It is too late according to the Sedevacantist. Whom should I believe, Our Lord or the Sedevacantist?
John 314, no sede I know “declares” the Novus Ordo sacraments invalid on their authority. It is a matter of discernment. Simply read pre V2 documents on the Sacraments and apply them to the Novus Ordo sacraments. If honest with yourself, you will walk away with doubt. You will wonder why they made all those changes. The only “authority” we have for Novus Ordo sacraments being valid come from the very folks who made the changes to begin with. So if you believe that the conciliar church is Catholic then of course you must accept their authority. But then you must also accept modernism is not heresy, which contradicts Pope St Pius X.
Evangeline: I felt like you do. Turns out, everything we need to know has been taught by the valid Popes and teachings of the Church. You may be interested to explore the document I posted above.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Are we not in those times of which Our Lord said: “A day shall come when men will say to you, ‘Christ is here, Christ is there, Christ is in the country, Christ is in the mountains.’ “? “Do not go,” Our Lord said, “Do not go.” Are we not in these latter times when the devil employs every means to disperse us, to tear us apart, to divide us, so as to reduce the flock to nothing?
In these critical moments, we must remain with that which is surest. We must avoid doubtful things.
We must make our stand on things that are certain, absolutely certain, without a thousandth per cent of doubt: our Creed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. We cannot go wrong there. If we are firmly attached to these things we can work out our salvation. Our Lord willed these things for our salvation. So let us adhere to these things with all our heart.
Let us adore Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Let us have respect for Our Lord, our God, Our Saviour, our Creator: for Him Who is everything for us. How should we dare to present ourselves standing before Him Who will be our Judge at the end of time? Let us kneel before Our Lord with profound devotion. Let us receive Him in our hearts as the greatest treasure that we can have here below. Let us thank God for coming into our poor bodies, into our poor souls, sinners that we are. May God deign to reside in us for some time in His Body and in His Blood—this is the most beautiful, the grandest thing that God could do. And along with this respect for Our Lord Jesus Christ, let us love Him with our whole heart. Let us serve Him. Let us consider Him truly as our Shepherd.
Let us ask this of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary— of the Most Blessed Virgin who had only one name on her lips, only one name in her heart, that of her son, Jesus. Let it be for us as it was for her. Let us have one love only here below, one genuine love, in which we love all other creatures—but all other creatures should bring us to this love and not remove us from it. Let us love Our Lord Jesus Christ with our whole heart, with our whole soul, with our whole strength.”
Amateur Brain Surgeon: I have taken the liberty to add Paragraph 25 of this encyclical as a reminder that we are facing the reality that the heresy of Modernism has not been eradicated within the Church but is the underlying theology and philosophy since Vatican II, which, never before in the history of the Church has a heresy of such magnitude and destruction been believed:
25. Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: “having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of “Modernism,” which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be “the synthesis of all heresies,” and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: “It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring” (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: “Old things, but in a new way.”since Vatican II is the same as the Church prior to it and all of its reforms of the completely defective Church prior to it are valid, couldn’t a future group of clergy determine that all of the reforms of Vatican II were also defective and implement different reforms as they consider Vatican II’s reforms also completely defective? Then what? Are the faithful expected to be subjected to constant reforms, as if the Church is as the world is, always searching for something and in love with novelties and experiements rather than settling down to comport to the unchanging Truths of Jesus Christ and the Sacred Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition?
Amateur Brain Surgeon: I have taken the liberty to add Paragraph 25 of this encyclical as a reminder that we are facing the reality that the heresy of Modernism has not been eradicated within the Church but is the underlying theology and philosophy since Vatican II, which, never before in the history of the Church has a heresy of such magnitude and destruction been believed:
25. Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: “having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of “Modernism,” which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be “the synthesis of all heresies,” and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: “It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring” (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: “Old things, but in a new way.”
Tom, this letter to the Italian midwives, regardless of it being titled by others as a private letter to the Italian midwives, was inevitably and poised to be transmitted to the public via all the pregnant women and thus the families at large that these midwives were servicing which would pretty much include every Catholic and all humans at large. To say this was a private personal matter and not magisterial is cherry picking in my opinion. Much like it was said that AL was and is not to be considered magisterial but AL should be considered to be only Bergoglio’s personal beleifs and thinking not the Churchs’ teachings.
To agree to make changes to the liturgy and bring in a very questionable man to oversee these changes is bad in its management I agree. On this matter we fully don’t know to what extent Pius XII was careless, ignorant or weak. However his written letter was from him and by him. He was the first Pope to officially err in writting on the doctrine pertaining to contraception by endorsing and promulgating to the midwives to go out and spread this news on NFP. This should be a huge red flag for all seds that he was openly contradicting Catholic doctrine(heresy). I do find that most seds seem to be very cherry picking about what and when a Pope espouses heresy.
I need to note that not all seds endorse NFP which is good to see.
None of us including Louie are immune to falling into error. I DO believe that you, Louie, are uncompromisely willing to speak the Truth for the benefit of so many. Although you may make mistakes perhaps at times during this great battle for souls, I do not detect a willingness to cave or compromise for any reason against Our Lady. Take strength, courage, stay close to Her and serve Our Queen well.
Perhaps because you are such a lone wolf, without people working for you, or not making much of a profit or not needing to take so many other opinions into consideration, you more than some others may have the luxury of not even entertaining compromise. It doesn’t even seem like a consideration of yours. Nice. Stay small and close to Our Lady. Think of those Fatima children often. Oh, how they love Our Lady!
Anastasia, I certainly do not agree with NFP. Do you have any sources we can look up on his letter to the midwives? This is the first accusation of Pius XII teaching heresy that I have heard. I know he made lots of errors and bad decisions. Never having read that letter, I assumed it was simply a case of more bad judgment.
According to what you just wrote, their misfortune was that God withdrew His Grace. I thought Christ promised Peter’s successors His Grace. So it appears they are not successors of Peter. Thank you for making another case for sedevacantism.
” . . . there are fewer and fewer commentators left who are willing to speak the truth plainly and pay the consequences; whatever they may be.” This is true not only of “commentators” but bishops, priests and Catholics with public platforms generally. We look in vain for Catholics to defend the One True Faith or even fundamental natural moral law in the face of systematic high-level diabolic attacks on same and truth and goodness generally. Dear Lord, grant us fortitude and perseverence.
Amen and amen. Oh to have a living bishop never compromise with public evil! Dear God, do not leave us much longer in this pit of filth.
And offering up this trial and tribulation of utter desolation, for God’s purposes, will go to the salvation of souls and then restoration of Holy Church.
Yes, Tom I do have sources. Please go under Louie’s section under Forum which will list general discussions then look for the discussion on marriage and NFP and you will see my references and sources. Hope this helps.
tradprofessor:
Louie can speak for himself quite ably, but inasmuch as you’ve responded to my comment, I will answer you by suggesting that you may at least be partially right. No faithful Catholic, I’m sure wants to see Catholics debating the teachings of the Church––especially at our level. But my guess is that Louie probably doesn’t trust anyone with his Catholic faith today, other than the truth that he finds in traditional Catholic teachings. And to that I say, Bravo! In my view, that’s really what we all should be doing in these very troubling times.
The day when we could talk to a Catholic priest––any Catholic priest in the world––and be convinced that we’ll be given the right answer, is long gone. Whether we will ever return to that time, when the priests and the prelates of the Catholic Church speak only the one truth, is known only to God. But what Louie is saying, and I and others feel he is says very well, opens our eyes to what he believes is going in the Church today––as well as in the very many organizations that claim to be teaching the truth. My wife and I happen to be fortunate enough to live within 50 miles of an SSPX Chapel, so we’re able to assist at a TLM at least every Sunday. We also believe that the SSPX priests will be speaking the truth. But not all are so blessed, and these days there are so many diabolical ideas floating around, it is probably wise to be very cautious about who and what we are ready to believe––including, unfortunately, even what we might hear from an SSPX priest.
As the Psalmist tells us: Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.
While I read this post, I thought the same thing that Cortex mentioned (far above this) —– this is why Our Lord spared Louie when we all prayed for him.
Our Queen has chosen Louie as a new “front lines” warrior in Her defense.
–
“Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?” (Canticles 6:10)
–
The reward will be great, but the battle will be brutal.
God bless you, Louie. Stay close to Our Queen!
Tom A: this guy here, like yourself, also somehow believes he has the authority to “excommunicate” Popes, only difference is he goes all way back to Pope Benedict XV. In this article he only presents his arguments for why Pope Pius XII was a heretic. His points against Pius XII sound as valid as yours do with the post VII popes. So which two of you guys have the authority to determine who’s right? http://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com/section_20.2.html
Anastasia, here is a link to more on this subject.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B320_FamilyPlanning.html
Reading Pius’ allocution to midwives, it is apparent that he confirms the primary purpose of marriage. I don’t see his exception as heretical since it doesnt contradict previous moral teaching. Abstinence was always allowed for married couples, again for grave reasons. One could argue that abstinence if used to avoid children is a form of contraception. It certainly could arise from a contraceptive mentality. I also agree that HV and FC drastically lowered the bar on this exception to the point where it does contradict Pius’ exception for “grave” reasons. HV and FC are contradictory to Casti Connubi and the Church’s teaching on the primary purpose of marriage. If you know of other commentaries on this issue please provide a link. This has been very informative. I do not think, based on what I have read so far, that Pius XII was advocating NFP as taught today by the NO V2 sect. Nor do I think this rises to the level of heresy.
If I were convinced that his accusations were true then I would have to accept the fact that he was right. So far I am only convinced that the post V2 popes contradicted previous Church teaching and introduced a new religion. If I were to make an assumption, I would say that you also are convinced that the post v2 popes contradict previous Churh teaching. The difference between us being the conclusions we both draw from our observations. This isnt a matter of authority to excommunicate. Neither of us has that power. We only have our reasoning to draw neccesary conclusions. If I were to remain submitted to Francis, I would be required to assent to his false teachings. I tried to find a legal moral way to resist the teachings of a Pope. I read many books and articles by the SSPX and others. They simply were not convincing.
St. Cajetan would disagree: “One MUST RESIST THE POPE that openly destroys the Church.”
Tom A–Is there even one sede in the universe that does not question the validity of N.O. sacraments? Of course not. The two theories are one and the same. They must coexist together.
So while a sede may not “declare” sacraments invalid, he cannot objectively discern the situation because he declares in his mind that there is no pope, and this is non negotiable.
Maintaining the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority is the sine qua non of Catholicism. That is Tradition and that has always been Tradition and so those who are not in communion with their Bishop and Pope are the ones who are not Catholic.
The heresy of sedevacantism has seduced many men (most sedes are men) and its acolytes are puissant proselytizers to the broken-hearted of this bad news but even many of the broken-hearted understand that if there has been no Pope since 1958, then Jesus Christ is the greatest liar of all time because His church did fail.
Look, if there has been no Pope since 1958, there has been no unity and there have been no Bishops and there has been no sanctifying and no Church.
As to the Four Marks of the Church? Pfffft no biggie for the sedes..
One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic – ALL those have disappeared if one becomes a sedevacantist (pull up a chair and vacate your mind) because No Pope, then no Bishops, then no Apostolic succession..etc etc etc
And how will the sedes get a Pope in the future?
ABS recommends that the Novus Ordo Witch leg-wrestle one of the Diamon Bros. with the winner declared Pope.
St Cajetan offered his opinion. We are not bound to resist based on the opinion of a Saint. When a saint is canonized, all his writings do not become Church teachings.
John314, I question the validity of the NO not on whether there’s a Pope or not, but on the form of the sacraments. The V2 church changed the forms of ordination and consecration. They created doubt instead of clarity. Read the old vs new forms side by side and you can see the modernist poison being introduced. I do not “declare” (as you suggest) that they are invalid, just that they are doubtful based on the confusion created by the changes. You accept certain things as true from the conciliar church and resist other things. You have to sift and decide for yourself which I will assent to and which I will reject. That is protestantism. Once I understood that V2 contradicted previous Catholic teaching I was forced to reject the whole mess and stick with what came before. If I acknowlege Bergolio as a valid Pope then I must assent to his heretical teachings. The same can be said of Benedict the Semi-Abdicator and JP2 the not so great.
Tom, please go to the forum section on AKA and scroll down to general discussions on marriage and NFP and you will see my sources from Scripture, the magisterium and church fathers and sainta. Pius XII did reiterate in another section of his allocution to the midwives the primary purpose but out of the other side of his mouth he clearly endorsed that one could plan to have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children for grave reasons. NFP is not just about complete abstinence it is primarily about how one can plan to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avid having children. Let us be honest. If NFP was just about COMPLETE abstinence they would be out of a job, Our sex saturated, “I will not serve” false Church of man loves the fact that this bombshell from Pius XII and Humane Vitae on the endorsement to plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children is how they justify what they say and do about endorsing contraception through NFP.
Unity of Doctrine in the conciliar church???? Please ABS do not even suggest that the NO sect can claim unity of doctrine. Otherwise, your comment is absolutely true Catholic teaching.
Tom please try to read the whole allocution to the midwives from Pius XII and all of my sources. You will see the doublespeak clearly in his allocution after you do this.
Hear me now and believe me later.
I agree that as NFP is taught today, the NO sect does not teach that there must be “grave” reasons. I did read many of the posts in the AKA forum. HV and FC contradict Pius XII’s exception for grave reasons. But in order to show that Pius XII advocated a sin, you would have to demostrate that it is sinful to use the infertile periods during grave circumstances. I wish there were some sources that would clarify what Pius meant by “grave.” Also, as I said earlier, you could carry this too far by saying that abstention for all practical purposes, if practiced by married persons, is also a form of avoiding children. I do not think the Church forbid periods of abstention prior to Pius XII, nor do I believe Pius’ exception contradicts previous teachings. Please forward any other materials you may used to research this topic. Thank you.
I recently did some research to better understand how abortion, adultery, divorce, same-sex ‘marriage,’ sodomy and war are treated worldwide. It’s my opinion these ‘issues’ represent the antithesis of God and the destruction of love, marriage and the family. The statistics are out there for those interested. And the results are extremely disheartening, especially in those countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. The truth is that secularism guides policy, law and practice for a majority of the world’s population today. Even in the ‘Jewish state’ of Israel.
Is the world at a tipping point? I believe it is. More people than ever are identifying as atheist, agnostic or non-religious. And the bright line between right and wrong has been obscured. Morality, it seems, has no meaning today. Just ask Francis, he’ll tell you it’s too ‘rigid.’ He’s called for ‘discernment’ which I think is just a euphemism for willful blindness.
I realize I’m hopelessly old-fashioned but I still believe in moral absolutes and upholding God’s laws. And yes, all ten of them.
Sorry for the screed but when I saw the passage regarding Scalia and vox populi, I wanted to add my two cents.
ABS, if the NO sect is the Church as you claim then Christ was a liar and the Churhed failed. It now openly teaches heresy. And yes, since there has been no Pope since 1958, it explains why there is no unity of faith in the NO sect. Like Rush, you unwittingly keep making the sede case. And for sacramental theology 101, a Pope isn’t needed to ordain a Bishop. A Bishop can validly ordain another as Bishop with or without a Pope’s mandate. This may render the ordination illicit, but no Pope is needed for Apostolic succession to continue. And how on earth is sedevacantism a heresy? There have been numerous times in Church history when there was no Pope. And several times when there were multiple claimants.
Blind obedience is not part of the Catholic religion.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
– St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church
– Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
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”
It’s called error by excess. Catholics have a duty to reject false teaching. Rejecting the whole Church because of false teaching IS real Protestantism, by definition!
As far as looking at validity of a sacrament, comparing old with new is simplistic and your confusion over the “matter” (pun intended), objectively speaking, is not relevant.
Dear Tom. The claim of the sedevacantists is that there has been no Pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958.
The first sedevacantist Bishop was ordained by Thuc in 1976 and so that means for 16 years there was no Magisterium because, you claim, there was no Pope to create Bishops and the then surviving Bishops could teach only in union with the Pope – but you claim there was no Pope.
Sedevacantisst now have reached the nearly 30 year mark of there having been no Pope
Is it your claim that Bishops were ordaining priests Bishops without the permission of a Pope?
If that is your claim it is unsustainable because it did not happen.
The consequence of sedevacanstim is where the heresy unavoidably lies.
Sedevacantism is closing in on having to claim 30 years of the Catholic Church without a Pope which is in direct opposition to the infallible teaching of Vatican 1 so, yes, it is a heresy, a puissant and mephitic one for it results in there being no church
Vatican 1:
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
You are anathema because you judge the legitimate successors of Pope Pius XII to he fake Popes.
Dear Sedevcantists and thee who succor them; here is a copy and paste from The Roman Catechism:
It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: ‘One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed’. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: ‘Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood.’
The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: ‘The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.’
Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister; He it is who baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter’s successors.
ABS is quite sure this will also be rejected because modernism at Trent….
Satan goes after Consecrated souls, then the defenseless flock is easy pickings. Otherwise rock solid Catholics, seeing that the chastisement is so horrible, say the Hierarchy are pretenders and their Sacraments are false. In this way, Satan wins twice.
It is a Catholic’s duty to pray for the Pope. It is a condition for salvation, that a Catholic be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Look, if there has been no true Pope for 59 years and counting, the Saviour has played a powerful trick on His Church. Will Our Lord fault the many who trusted Him to run the Church in a consistent manner over the centuries, or will He condemn the few that rushed to judgement?
When people use the words “simplistic” and “problematic” these says, without offering any further statement, I conclude, “So that’s it then. Their entire argument is simply the use of one general word that they hope sounds like a refutation.” It’s usually a favorite of lefty atheists and feminists, but it has crept into our circles now, it appears.
Leo XIII infallibly declared Anglican orders invalid. He taught the Church that a particular attempt at a Sacrament was no sacrament at all. He laid out the reason why. He didn’t just wave a wand.
The Anglican rites of orders suffered at first from a defect of form, and a defect of intention.
After a hundred years, they mad the form “better”, but the surrounding rite still had omitted any reference to the nature of the Priesthood as the Church believes it. So even thought they “corrected” the form, the rite itself manifested a defect of intention on the part of the minister, and so the rite of Anglican Orders was declared null and void.
The Novus Ordo rite of Orders changed the form. It was the removal of the latin word “Ut”, (“so that”, or “in order to” ) in the middle of the sentence. While some debate whether this nullified the form, it removed the causal relationship between the first part of the sentence and the last part. Some argue that this change failed to signify the effect of the Sacrament, which would make it invalid.
But like the Anglican rite, they novus rite also has another problem. It suppresses and removes all mandatory references to the nature of the Priesthood as the Church believes it. Since this omission manifests a defect of intention in the Anglican rite of orders, rendering them invalid, what so we make of the novus rite, if we apply Leo XIII’s principles to it?
No one is declaring, or even claiming to declare, anything regarding the validity of the novus rite of orders. But there are plenty of people who have major doubts, based upon the way the Church thinks regarding this issue.
I know and have some respect for a few good novus ordo priests, but I would not go to them for sacraments, which is a great shame, but that’s the way we have to face up to the evil of our time.
ABS, I know this has been explained to you before, but let me reiterate. Sedes are not all in agreement about every issue. So you cannot lump them all together. Sedevacantism is a theory that explains the NO nonsense of the last 50 plus years (not only 30). Another point in which you err is insisting that there has to be some time limit between the election of valid Popes. Where does it say that? Have you never heard of an interregnum before?
The you write this:
” Is it your claim that Bishops were ordaining priests Bishops without the permission of a Pope?
If that is your claim it is unsustainable because it did not happen.”
I am not sure what you mean here but it certainly did happen. Do you not recall the 1988 ordinations in Econe?
And your Vatican 1 quote does not apply since it refers to “legitimate” succesors and no one has been able to show me how a non Catholic can head up the Catholic Church. Not one “pope” since V2 has taught the Catholic faith, so I find it hard to believe that you still consider them Catholic.
No sedevacantist denies this teaching, but again you assume that there has to be some time limit on an interregnum. What you should really trying to convince me and yourself of is the question of whether the NO church is Catholic. Because you have a preconcieved idea of what unity and visibility and perpetual mean, you immediately apply those meanings to a hierarchy that does not profess the Catholic faith. Look, what has happened since V2 is a total mystery to me. I can’t explain why God allows this. But reason demands that one concludes that the NO sect does not profess the Catholic faith and instead professes a man centered false religion. If you choose to follow that sect and submit to their fake pope, go right ahead. Rome has had 50 plus years to fix any “errors” in V2. The fact they havent should tell you something. Even the great conservate, Benedict promoted the ecumenistic lie. I have no qualms at all about being seperated from communion with a protestant “pope.” Enjoy the 500th year anniversary of Martin Luther. I would rather submit to that guy out in Kansas somewhere who got “elected” in his kitchen by his mother, than submit to a heretic. At least he professes the Catholic faith.
Hello Simple Beggar,
After reading the first 16 pages, there does not appear to be anything new regarding this man’s premise, as it relates to the “consecration” of bishops without the juridical authority of an authentic Holy Roman Pontiff. His premise is false, as he equates licity with validity and of course they have each a distinct being in reality. The validity of the consecration flows from the Holy Ghost and not from an authentic, Holy Roman Pontiff. The reality is, Simple Beggar, that these bishops are validly consecrated, even without the juridical/pastoral permission of the Roman Pontiff, yet the latae sententiae excommunication would apply to the consecrating bishop and those he consecrated, if there was a visible Pontiff who was the authentic Vicar of Christ, that the consecrator would have had to seek permission from. The consecration of bishops without authentic Papal permission, would be a sin against Caritas/Charity and not against the Faith. Since there wasn’t an authentic Pontiff to seek approval from, the juridical power would flow from the Mystical Body of Christ, His Church, it would seem, as not to do so would end the Apostolic succession of the Roman Church, whose head on earth is the Vicar of Christ.
As an aside but to the point of there not having been an (and there still not being one for that matter) Holy Roman Pontiff to seek juridical approval from, the comment below of Amateur Brain Surgeon (aka: ABR) will be used and pasted here now, quoting from him:
“Vatican 1:
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord (sic) himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
You are anathema because you judge the legitimate successors of Pope Pius XII to he fake Popes.”
ABR simply misinterprets Vatican Council I in its language about the succession of Peter as Pontiff of the Church. Sisco and Salsa in their book, “True or False Pope”, actually change the critical word “should”, which they quote from the very words of the Council Fathers, to “will”, which is the word they have chosen to replace the word, “should”, and as thus to misrepresent the language of the Fathers, in an effort to satisfy their false premise. By doing this word swap (which you will find on page 19 of their book) they effectively undermine the entire meaning of the infallible Council, which at once causes their entire work, as the book, to implode under its own errant weight. You see, what the Council Fathers said was that it is the Will of Christ our Lord, “… that blessed Peter SHOULD have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church;…”, the critical word there being “should” and not “will” nor “shall”. Sisco and Salsa actually supplant the word “should” and implant the word “will”, again on page 19 of their book and they continue to use the word “will” while referring to the Council Fathers, which is simply and unequivocally not what they said. They couldn’t use the word, “will” or “shall”, as that would place an affront to 2 Thessalonians 2, among other maladies. I pray this helps. In caritas.
In denying the Catholic Church exists and in denying the Church does not teach error means that you are of the same partisan party as Martin Luther who, like you, was opposed to both Pope and Council.
Good luck with al of that when you stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ
Brilliant as always, In Caritas. I too was looking into this notion of “perpetual” and realized that its a red herring since when Christ returns to establish a New Heaven and a New Earth as promised in Revelations, what need of Popes and Priests will there be? Christ is the true head of His Church and the High Priest. At some point it is only obvious that there will be no one sitting on the Chair of Peter since the Master has returned. Hence the vice “chair” will be empty (sede vacante) as Christ continues to be King of His Church and all of Creation. To insist that there always must be a Pope is another form of papolatry and a man centered view of ecclesiology. These resisters are modern day pharisees who serve the “laws” rather than their God. They tear down the faith to preserve their “pope.” They make one excuse after another as to how a full blown apostate like Francis is somehow a Catholic. And as you have so wonderfully illustrated, they will even stoop to lies and deceptions.
Every single person who has posted various opinions has an obvious love for Our Lord and a desire to understand the truth so that they can follow it. It is hard for me to conclude that the Good God, the everlasting, eternal, omnipotent God we love and serve, does not forgive and understand the times in which we live are gravely confusing, and while we are trying to make our way, we may come to different conclusions. We are responsible for trying, caring, and doing our best, but we are all going to get it wrong at least sometimes. Does God punish us because we got things wrong along the way?
Steve Skojec is off his rocker. He approves of Gallat’s “excommunication”. I guess you can take the Trad out of Steubenville, but you can’t take Steubenville out of the Trad.
Good morning, Amateur Brain Surgeon,
Perhaps without knowing it, while as yet you remain culpable, as do all of us miserable human creatures for all of our acts, you are rendering an accusation against Tom A which is pristinely as patently false. While Tom A stands in defense of Holy Mother Church and Her existence until the end of time, as our Blessed Lord and our God, Jesus the Christ commanded in Matthew 16:18-19 you, by virtue of the reception of the “deceiving influence” of which Saint Paul inerrantly writes, convolute the reality; as while Tom A defends the perpetual (in time and space and in contradistinction to “eternal”) existence of Holy Mother Church, in spite of the absence of a visible Holy Roman Pontiff for the past 59 years, you suggest he proffers the absence of the Church. Not only that, but you utterly invert the reality, that while Tom A continues to write as a “lone voice” from the wilderness, as to the reality that because we know with certitude that Holy Mother Church cannot teach error, and that is why these imposters since and including Roncalli cannot be authentic Roman Pontiffs of Christ Jesus One True Church, you errantly suggest that Tom A is writing that the Church can teach error. You see ABR, it is really very simple, as an innocent child who had just attained the age of reason would know, the reality is precisely because these wolves in sheep’s clothing (until Bergoglio who makes this patently clear) do embrace error as they teach it, beginning in the documents of the so called “VCII” (the council of the church of the Antichrist and find a reference here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3306-the-revolution-of-vatican-ii-was-misinterpreted) that they simply CANNOT be Holy Roman Pontiffs of Christ’s True Church, as if they were as they existentially do embrace and teach error, then Christ would have lied in Matthew 16:18-19. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Good morning Semper Fidelis,
Please pray and sacrifice, as we all must do, for the true conversion of Steve Skojec, his ilk at “The Remnant” et al, as we continue to bear witness to the “deceiving influence” as the “operation of error”, the likes of which has not been witnessed perhaps since the Great Deluge. In caritas.
Get off you high horse ABS. You are completely out of your depth. I dont ascribe to the classic sede position, but that is immaterial given that we de facto are in a sede state now. So regardless they’ve been closer to assessing the heart of the crisis than the flag waving cheerleaders and enablers of the modernist subversion of the visible Church. That Church whatever its nature is gone—-the halcyon days are never coming back. We are stuck in the greatest trial of faith–and losing one’s faith—the “faith without which it is impossible to please God” is worth the rejection of a heretical heirachy wholesale.
The Pope who ended the Great Western schism, Pope Martin V, was an unrepentent schismatic who elected not one but two antipopes including John XXIII—that is sometimes what it takes to unscrew a totally screwed up papacy. Heed God and learn from history. Leave your Dick and Jane catechsim at home.
Good morning Evangeline,
Please read, deeply contemplate, and discern Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1:18-32 and 2 Thessalonians 2 and you will know that each has “no excuse”, as we receive the “operation of error” in lieu of grace, by virtue of our own free will assent into iniquity. I pray this helps. In caritas.
*not losing one’s faith is worth the rejection of the heretical heirarchy wholesale.
Who knows, that’s why we should refrain from judging individual souls. Point out errors for sure, but I’m not going to call judgement down upon my soul by judging others. I’m more than happy to let God do what only He can do.
Yes indeed Caritas.
His reasoning gets more bizarre by the day—all the bishops accept him therefore he is Pope (yes a completely stacked set filled with the worst heterodox misfits from across the globe for 50+ years—whose SOLE criteria for being made bishops was adhereing to the modernist heresies of the new church). Yes a group of prelates who can’t be bothered to counter blatant heresy and sacrilege but are okay with instantly excommunicating a professor who denies any aspect of Francis legitimacy. Hmmm Hans Kung is a priest theologian who has denied the Popes and papal claims for 60 years, yet he was never excommunicated! NOT MY CHURCH.
1P5 is still a great website. Steveposts some interesting stuff. The comments are interesting compared to the one trick pony whiners here.
https://onepeterfive.com/st-jean-marie-vianney-patron-saint-parish-priests/
“one trick pony whiners”????-sounds judgemental to me. Please re-read your previous comment about judging others.
I wear it as a badge of honor that a sifter and pick and chooser cafeteria catholic like rush calls me a one trick pony. I do stay on message about one thing only. The True faith with absolutely no room for even one small bit of modernist poison. If rush wants to drink deeply or just take a small sip of the poison, well that’s his choice. I am having none of it. One Church, One Faith. One Lord, One Baptism. One path only to salvation.
O, so you too are one who objectively thinks Jesus is a lying loser who promised the gates of Hell would not prevail but failed to keep His Church intact.
O,and you are one who thinks a layman can judge the Church, the Pope, and a Council.
That’s rank protestantism descending directly from Martin Luther who., like you and your ilk, judge the Church as having taught error and having wicked Popes who must be repudiated.
Sedes are aught but haughty protestants who daily boast of their great works in opposing Popes and Council in perfect continuity with Protestant Tradition.
Get off you high horse ABS. You are completely out of your depth.
That is as logical and sensible as the rest of your words that follow.
Your Faith was tried and found wanting but don’t take it out on others.
ASK (Ask, Seek, Knock) Jesus to quicken and revivify your Faith and stop being a liberal – a liberal is one who blames others for his own failings.
You can not control what anyone else does but you must control your own self.
Jesus established His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church for two reasons
Salvation
Sanctification
and it is impossible for you to attain unto either outside His Catholic Church and you certainly will never become a saint because at the time of your visitation in your farm of Gethsemane, you run oft and did not drink the bitter chalice.
You have lost the Faith and you do not even know it because yo hath not God 2 John 9 apples to you and your side ilk.
OK, no sense trying to preach truth to the protestant sedes so ABS will jet from this thread
The thing is Rush and ABS and others. You claim to know the Catholic faith, you claim to be Traditional. You and I are staring directly into the face of outright blatant heresy and apostasy when we gaze at the conciliar church. Yet you call it Catholic. That is why you are either ignorant or working in union with evil to promote modernism. In charity, I will assume you are the former. But I will not let my guard down one inch when dealing with any one who for whatever reason recognizes modernists as Catholic authority lest I be fooled by some satanic trick. Eternity rests on the decisions and actions made here and now. I seperate myself from imposters and apostates. I cling to the Faith passed down. I will adhere to St Paul’s words of, “let them be anathema.” As a sheep of the sheepfold, I hear my Shepards voice, I am not fooled because my eyes decieve me and my enemy wears the fancy garmnents of my Shepard. Perhaps you should close your eyes and open your ears. Listen to what comes out of Rome today and ask yourself, is it Catholic?
Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues and hence of a higher order.
St. Thomas : “In the time of necessity there is no law”.
The deposit of faith (Tradition) is the primary rule; the teaching of the bishops is the secondary rule. If the secondary rule deviates from the primary rule, the secondary rule must not be followed. And if the secondary rule obscures the primary rule through ambiguous and/or contradictory teachings, prudence dictates that the faithful look to the past, when the secondary rule taught the primary rule with clarity.
the new liturgy is at war with liturgical tradition, ecumenism is at war with evangelization, dialogue is at war with the Church’s duty to teach with divine authority the truths necessary for salvation. Jesus send out HIS APOSTLES to PREACH, NOT TO DIALOGUE!
Its a Catholic’s duty to assent to the Pope’s teaching. So if Bergolio is your Pope, why are you in this forum concerned with souls when the planet needs saving?
ABS, I don’t dialogue with lunatics. The only one on this board pontificating like the Pope of his own church is you.
A modern institution, that does not possess even one Mark of the Church cannot oblige me to obedience when it comes to its 50 year mission to destroy civilization and all we love dearly. They creates a new theology and a new, Calvinistic cult of worship to go along with it. They deliberately lead 1 billion people into error year after year, decade after decade. The manifestly bad fruit of their incessant labor is there for all to see. I’ve witness the collapse of civilization in my lifetime……something not seen since the days of St. Augustine, and these flag waving Francis cultists want me to pretend that the RCC is continuing as ever before….just trust and obey! They demand a Leo XIII level of obedience to a man called Francis while he and his ilk command every type of dangerous and blaspehmous idea. I grew up in the ‘New Order’ I went to school, college and seminary in it, I’ve spoken with many of its bishops face to face and in confidence. From what I saw then, I knew this was on the way 20+ years ago. There is only one trajectory to the political papal activist program of Aggiornamento which is the total capitulation to the spirit of the age. This is the essence of what John XXIII sought with his “updating”. We now have a ‘Pope’ whose fundamental message does not deviate one iota from what I hear on CNN. How can he be pope when this is the case? Is CNN now the magisterium? His false gospel teaches that the historic RCC and its beliefs are evil. The world has evolved, the Church must catch up and not alienate all those banner-wavers of the glorious and immaculate sexual revolution. There are different kinds of marriage you see, and they are all basically the same—the commitment of cohabitation is as good as the sacramental vow. The life of the adulterous is a special gift to the Church. Catholics are too dogmatic and judgemental and should just live and let live. They are spoiling the party! Catholics are also having far too many kids, they shouldn’t have more than two—we need the UN to tell us how to save the planet from humans. Global Warming is man’s most pressing crisis. Islam will bring religious values back to Europe. There is a God, but he is not the Catholic god, there is no Catholic god. Martin Luther was a great Christian. No one should proselytize a non Catholic. On and on and on and on of this filth and we get the same prattle and natter about ‘obedience’ that we did under JPII–except now even his teaching on the family is in the trash bin. The great Conciliar-Orwellian memory hole where all faith and reason goes to die. You can ride your obedience all the way to perdition for all I care. I am done with it.
Tom I had this discussion with a priest and we went back and forth as I tried to explain to him, which I felt he was clearly refusing to hear, that complete abstinence from conjugal relations in itself is absolutely not the same as planning to have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. When one is completely abstaining one is not separating the conjugal act from procreation because THERE IS NO SEX ACT GOING ON. The person who completely abstains for selfish reasons rather than grave reasons could be sining but this sin is not a sexual sin it is a sin of selfishness and miserliness towards God. I really have to start my own website soon on this topic as I can see that many people like you who are seeking clarity need it to be laid out properly with all that has been said on purity of the conjugal act since the beginning of time in order to get this message to sink in and to get across. Please pray for me if you can that I may find the time and generosity to do this.
Beautiful ock. Amen.
And again. Amen.
Indeed, Tom A. With certainty and indeed. Amen. In caritas.
The USA is in a somewhat similar circumstance. Trump was elected according to the rules. Many dispute his election and say that he is not their President. It doesn’t matter what they say in the least. Trump is still the President until he is impeached, resigns or becomes incapacitated.
Pope Francis was elected according to the rules. Sedes and others dispute his election. Some say the Chair is vacant and others say Pope Benedict is still the Pope. It doesn’t matter what they say. Francis is still the Pope in the visible and natural order until he is deposed, resigns or becomes incapacitated.
Vatican I defined under what specific conditions that a Pope is infallible. When the Pope does not meet these conditions and / or deviates from the dogmatic teachings of the Church, he is fallible. Inventing a fantasy, lord of the flies world, where the peons call the shots, is just a lot of immature bluster.
Dear Anastasia,
The back and forth that you and Tom A have had has helped me in firming up my intellective formulation scholastically, of the primary purpose of the licit conjugal act. As you now comment, indeed there is a great chasm of difference between complete abstinence for a time, over some time, versus purposeful placement of the act into the suspected infertile period, without question and with certitude, as properly understood ontologically (aka: potency and act). What a diabolically disordered deception, this NFP is as it can only be. An intrinsic evil (as planned avoidance of the fertile period is for the purpose of avoiding potential pregnancy and yet enjoying the fruits of the act as utter selfishness) can never ever be given willful assent to for the sake of any good, anywhere in the cosmos, until the end of time, as Saint Thomas Aquinas taught. In caritas.
Hello Semper Fidelis,
A good summary of some of the absurdities being parlayed onto the baptized as well as those human persons of the whole world, who continue to believe these lies as Truth, as they continue to receive the “deceiving influence” or “operation of error”, of which Saint Paul warned. May they change their lives and receive the grace which flows from our Almighty and Ever Living God in His Superabundance. Amen. In caritas.
Thank you, and all, I will do that.
I agree with every single word you just said.
Sorry, I should have clarified, to Semper Fidelis and In Caritas, as well.
Anastasia, this is a topic that is unclear in all its implications. I would like to bring up some other ways of looking at the issue to see if the act in question could be considered sinful. First we need to clarify that the act of having conjugal relations during the infertile periods is not in of itself sinful and is not considered contraceptive since if one were unaware that the wife was infertile then no sin is committed. There is a danger here if we are to assume that only having recourse to the conjugal act during infertile periods is sinful then it could be implied that if one knows the wife is infertile then the act must not be committed. And to say that all avoidance of conception natural or unnatural is sinful will lead to having to label abstinence as sinful too. Abstinence is permissible under church teaching. So it is obvious that the Church has approved a natural means to avoid pregnancies, for certain reasons. I will have to research those reasons. Another issue is barren women. If we consider sexual relations sinful if done for pleasure and not procreation, then couples who are barren or sterile would sin if they engaged in the act. While the primary purpose of marriage and sexual relations is procreation and raising children, there are secondary purposes. If the couple is open to life but barren or sterile they may still enjoy intimacy without guilt. It seems this issue revolves around the subjective internal forum of the frame of mind of those who make use of infertile periods since I think we can safely say the act in of itself is not sinful. All that said, I am not defending NFP, I am trying to see in what context Pius XII made his pronouncement in that 1951 allocution. Look forward to hearing more from you on this and if you think what I had to say makes any sense.
Or when President Trump finishes out his two terms in 2024, please God. That is the far better alternative and I hope and pray it works out so.
USA was created by Man. A president has power from the people. The Church… well you should know all this Rush. Your arguments get sillier and sillier. To compare a Divine institution to a temporal one is a waste of time. The whole infaillable argument has been debunked numerous times. Being fallible doesn’t mean you get to be a heretic except when your teaching ex cathedra. Think for a moment how asinine that argument is, Rush. You are in essence saying that Francis can go around all day long blaspheming God and telling folks its ok to sin and giving speaches to UN cronies advocating all sorts of abominations BUT as long as he doesnt do it ex cathedra, all is well. Its absurd and so are most things you say lately. I used to enjoy your arguments but you have become quite stale. Lastly, to throw out the rules card, goes right back to the point that you resisters care not a whit about the Faith but only the human aspect of the Institution.
I’m done also. It seems nobody cares to at least read the item I posted which contains infallible Papal teachings, i.e. the Voice of Christ, much less refute it (“That saying is hard, who can bear it?”) It’s been said that Vatican II is the “French Revolution in the Church”, which it is, but then conveniently ignore the fact that true Catholics stayed home as they refused to receive “Sacraments” from clergy who were not sent by the Church. The differing “opinions” on here are enough to make one go mad. The first Mark of the Church is that it is ONE. Everywhere. ONE in belief, ONE in practice and worship (not TWO different “forms” of the same “Mass”), ONE in Doctrine, etc. etc. Everyone should be working together here to uncover the TRUTH, but instead all just want to hold onto their pride and bicker. It is said we must become like a little child to enter heaven, and that God reveals things to the simple and the humble – not the “learned and the wise”. A good little child listens to it’s MOTHER – it doesn’t claim to be a know-it-all. Either we want the TRUTH, no matter where that leads, or we DON’T. We want what we want to the point of our own comfort and “Sacraments”. God doesn’t owe us anything much less the Sacraments. We’ve all been or rather are heretics and there are absolutely necessary procedures for receiving a heretic BACK into the Church. Which of the visible Cardinals, Bishops and priests out there, who accepted Vat II even for some years, have been properly received back into the Church prior to any further actions? Right – none. Pray like your life depends on it (it does) for the light of Faith and the Truth, or DON’T. I’m out. Good luck everyone. We’re either for God, or we’re against Him. There’s no grey area whatsoever. Satan has everyone who’s playing his game cornered and trapped. This IS the Great Apostasy. The True Church IS in eclipse (LaSalette). We’ve been warned.
Rushintoit and most Neo Trads want to enjoy the option of dissent. They are like all dissenters are happy with a completely useless “for display purposes only” Pope. He can be the biggest antichrist and they are perfectly comfortable as long as they get their membership card stamped at the local chancery office each year. I for one know that it is gravely serious who is and who is not Pope. We owe subjection and loyalty to the Pope in all matters of faith and morals and in all of his declarations. This is why the RCC has said it is impossible for a heretic to be Pope. See canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon law which CITES the much maligned Papal Bull of Paul IV. The 1917 Code Canon Law states that public defection from the Catholic faith results in automatic loss of office. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. If the Cardinals chose (in what can only be ascribed to malice) to not challenge Francis that is not my problem. I will not ackowledge the man as pope regardless of whether formal action is ever (read never) taken against him. Not only am I not sinning in refusing to achnowledge this total apostate and manifest heretic as the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, I would in fact be sinning if I did not do so. As Newman said I toast the Pope but I toast conscience before the Pope. This is what my conscience demands and if you clapping seals of the New Order actually followed your own Vatican II beliefs you would find that you have no choice but to respect my religious freedom and my inherent Dignity of Man. You have no man-given Vatican II right to coerce me in any way. Touche.
Dear Simple Beggar,
Please see my response above to your request that we read the letter which you linked. After reading the first 16 pages, find the response written at your behest. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Tom, Caritas, Semper, et al., I love your posts. Such clarity of thought and plainness of speech is edifying and helps me see these issues clearly to enough to sift through all the garbage counter claims. Thank you one and all!
In Caritas: Thank you for your reply. I have since finished reading the document, and I don’t read it the same as you do. I can’t find any proof or anything there that states that the validity ever flows from the Holy Ghost or directly from Christ, and I do find it interesting that this topic was one of Pius XII’s last acts before a confirmed Freemason usurped the “Papacy”, and the Great Apostasy and the “French Revolution in the Church” began.
The supplied jurisdiction or Epikiea argument is proven false somewhere in there, too. Actually it’s completely destroyed. That can only be utilized when 1. One already possesses jurisdiction and 2. In danger of death. There is nothing that clearly states it can be used otherwise and as such there is no proof on that matter whatsoever.
As I understand it, around 600 Bishops did not sign the Vatican II documents and therefore did not apostasize (at least at that point in time). The rest did and thus became heretics and defected from the true Church (including Lefebvre and Thuc). According to Church Law there are censures incurred that must be removed, along with an abjuration of heresy, in order to be received back into Church membership. This applies to laypeople as well. This is a huge problem that no one considers due to our ignorance.
As yes there must be Apostolic succession, surely there are at least 2 living TRUE Catholic Bishops left from that group of 600, who have ALWAYS held the Faith whole and entire, and who likely are living a “quiet life” out of necessity. There could be a number of them who are what, around 80-90 years old? If this is true, and this position correct, then time is incredibly short.
Just my thoughts. Thank you again.
Oops – I should have said to your point that a consecration can certainly be licit or valid, but they have no authority to do anything whatsoever without Jurisdiction, and all acts performed without it are invalid. That’s what Christ clearly tells us infallibly through these holy Popes.
Simply put, planning to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children is a sin. Abstinence is not a sexual sin nor is it a sin in itself. Complete abstinence for truly grave reasons and sincere ones is not a sin. Complete abstinence for selfish reasons is not a sexual sin but it can be a sin of selfishness and miserliness toward God and ones spouse. Having conjugal relations, which are not planned and calculated to avoid having children, during perceived times of infertility wether that be due to the generally known natural cycle of a fertile woman or the infertility of a woman due to age or from the unfortunately infertility from no fault of their own is not a sin as long as there is no rejection interiorly of the conjugal act’s primary purpose of procreation or to wish or desire that a child should ever be conceived or born from this act.
The USA and the Church’s governance is a perfectly valid example. Politics plays a major role in both. Of course the Church has a Divine component, but God will let the Church fall upon hard times just like the Israel of old.
Why didn’t Pius XI Consecrate Russia? Why didn’t Pius XII Consecrate Russia? How could these “true” Popes fail so miserably at a time when the Consecration was not only possible, but easy to do? Pius XII was even able to view the Miracle of the Sun from the Vatican Gardens.
fallible: able or prone to err
synonyms: faulty, frail, imperfect, untrustworthy, careless, deceptive, errant, erring, heedless, human, ignorant, in question, liable, mortal, questionable, uncertain, unreliable, weak
Dear Simple Beggar,
Please consider reading Dr. Ludwig Ott’s text, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” circa 1952, beginning on page 289 (“9. The Bishops”). The nature of Episcopal Power is divine and as such declared to be, by the true Vatican Council I, a deFide teaching and as thus requiring our free will assent regardless of our intellective position, as it is not up for debate. The statement of the Council is this: “By virtue of divine right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.”, and this a deFide teaching as by divine right. Therefore, Simple Beggar, your last comment– “Oops…”– is in error. The power of the Pope is not limited in the way that the bishops is and yet the Pope as the bishops, receives this power of “government” directly from the Holy Ghost. The power of the bishop is limited to his diocese, while that of the Pope is universal. The question of whether the, “manner of conferring” individual pastoral power comes directly from the Pontiff or directly from God as an Episcopal conferring of pastoral power is NOT a deFide teaching, rather Sent. probabilior and as thus yet open for debate. From Christian antiquity and early Middle Ages, the choice of bishop is said to have occurred at times by clergy and the people or by princes, not necessarily ratified by the Pope. A matter of absolute Truth as deFide teaching cannot somehow change, as Truth simply Is. What was true then as deFide must be true now and what is true now was also true then.
See also the “Catholic Encyclopedia” as quoted here:
“It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the (sic) are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm)
You see Simple Beggar, although the Pontiff can restrain the powers conferred upon the bishops by Christ in the power of the Holy Ghost, he cannot annihilate them and as thus their powers remain as valid but potentially illicit. I pray this helps. In caritas.
I will add one last point, as I’m always writing at the worst point of the day for me: I’m not interested in this man’s premise, or mine or anyone else’s. What I am interested in is what the Popes have decreed, which is Christ’s Voice. What Pope Pius XII wrote, when taken and translated correctly, is extremely clear and concise. Peter (The Pope) alone holds the Keys, and the Bishops receive their POWERS of jurisdiction (the power of the Keys) ONLY through him. Apart from the Pope, they have no power to do anything, even though they may have been validly consecrated.
For anyone seeking Truth, some of the Papal documents that should be referred to are as follows:
Pius XII
1) Mystici Corporis Christi, 39-42
2) Ad Apostolorum Principis 39 &40 (39 says bishops “…enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as we admonished in…Mystici Corporus…”)
3) Ad Sinarum Gentem
Pope Leo XIII
4) Satis Cogitum “That which the First See has not approved cannot stand;”
Pope Pius VI
5) Post Factum Tibi
6) Super Solidate
7) Charitas (refers to the Council of Trent regarding unlawful consecrations without the order of the Apostolic See. States their future actions are invalidated).
8) Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII
9 Trent: “Those who of their rashness assume them (ordination and consecration) to themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door.”
Dom Guèranger, The Liturgical Year, Imprimatur, 1924, Vol. IV, pages 282-287: “If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the Bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them…”
Page 173 of the book The Pillar and Ground of Truth by Fr. William Cox (1900) states that: Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as *heresy, destroys apostolic succession.” (My note: heresy requires abjuration and removal of censures by the Church – we’ve got another HUGE problem right there for just about everyone, but for this discussion namely the prelates and clergy who at one time or another have adhered to the Vatican II sect which includes nearly all).
Finally, as regards Canons 209 and 2261, or Supplied Jurisdiction, please refer to the proper use discussed on pages 39-44 of the original document I posted. Again, I’m not looking at opinions, but what these Canons actually say as to how they are to be applied and under what circumstances. It is quite clear that it’s not quite the party line we’ve been sold.
A “frightful crisis” indeed. It seems that only through the eyes of Faith can we make all the connections and read the “signs of the times”, as Our Lord said we should be able to do just as we discern approaching weather. Sr. Lucia, asking in 1957 how long it would be before 1960 would arrive, stated that the horrible chastisement was “imminent” and was referring to a spiritual chastisement above the coming material chastisements. How much more obvious can it possibly be to us, especially now, unless we are truly that blind?
I will continue to study these critical topics and seek the Truth, no matter what that Truth my demand of me. I’m done with reading opinions and conjuring up my own. The Truth alone can set us free.
Viva Christo Rey!
Mary, Destroyer of All Heresies, pray for us!
If we have not had a validly elected Pope since 1958 (although many choose to adhere, in one way or the other to these false Popes, the SSPX included), then any consecrations performed by anyone whatsoever might result in a validly ordained bishop, but without jurisdiction or Powers.
Dear In Caritas,
I will reply to you as I believe we were writing at the same time. I appreciate your responses to me.
In order for the ordinary power of government to exist, that bishop must have first been appointed by the Holy See. The statement that they receive their power directly from the Holy Ghost is refuted by Pope Pius XII and at least in one instance is due to a mistranslation of Ludwig Ott’s book which is absolutely proven on pages 5 and 6 of the gentleman’s document you began reading. Mystici Corporis is de Fide, as even Humani Generis tells us that what is expounded on in encyclical letters demands consent, and there were 3 letters telling us the very same thing: that jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter.
With respect to the quote from the Encyclopedia, it even says there that they are “appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church,…” They must therefore first be -appointed- by the Holy See. Once appointed, THEN they have the powers of jurisdiction, which cannot be annihilated.
Pope Leo XIII states in Satis Cogitum: “But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent.”
Thank you again!
I think you are missing the point, and I assume it is for lack of clear understanding of the issue, and not from malice.
Before we can ask if someone is the Pope, we need to ask if he is a Catholic.
No one can say and do what Francis has done and be considered a member of the Church. He will rightly be considered a heretic, having publicly broken the visible
and fundamental bond a Catholic has with the Church: Faith. If the rejection of the Faith is public, i.e. visible, the person responsible has severed himself with the Church.
Now, seeing what we see, and hearing what we hear, we can determine that Francis, like anyone else who publicly manifests his heresy, is not a Catholic.
If we were not able to say who belongs to the Church and who doesn’t, simply by observation and employment of our five senses, then we would have to conclude that the Church is invisible after all, and not, as it was long thought, the “congregation of the Faithful”.
Then, and only then, we can ask the next question: Can a non-Catholic hold the office of the Papacy, or any other position in the hierarchy? Can a man be the head over that which he is not even a member? No. To say otherwise is to abandon the visiblity of the Church, which is heresy.
*from the Church, not with the Church*
I do agree, but Pius XII did not give permission for couples to have “exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children.” He gave permission for couple to have recourse to the infertile period for “grave” reasons.
I’m familiar with Leo XIII’s Apostolicae curae and aware of of what has changed (ut etc.) but this is not the Anglican church. And simply comparing old and new is not rigorous enough. The forms are adequate and the proper intention is still there. Unlike the Anglicans, the Novus Ordo still has confession, still has Eucharistic adoration, and they still have a Pope. There is no doubt. It really comes down to the Pope question doesn’t it.
Going around calling sacraments
Where does the difference lie? Do you sincerely beleive that it is because of the fact that Pius XII tacked on to “having exclusive recourse to the infertile period” with and for grave reasons? Please, this is like saying the adulterers can continue fornicating for the grave reason that they do not wish to cause further harm to the bastard children they have conceived and are now responsible for.
Good Tuesday morning Simple Beggar,
It is easy to get bogged down in this kind of back and forth, even with well intentioned persons. Please consider this. As the Orthodox yet remain, as they have been now for about 1,000 years, outside of Holy Mother Church where there is no salvation (deFide), not in their opposition to Faith but in opposition to Caritas, they continue with valid Sacraments. As this is true, therefore they possess valid ordinations and consecrations, fully exercising these powers over the centuries, while at once they are outside the Holy Roman Pontiff’s jurisdiction, in schism. Thus, we can see that Sacraments in and of themselves cannot sanctify nor save the soul from eternal perdition and yet they remain essential, as Christ our Lord provided them for us to assist in our eternal salvation, in spite of our miserable creatureliness which takes us to hell each and every time without the reception of His grace; that gift which is both freely given and completely undeserved, flowing from His eternal Redemption. The Church of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, as God Himself, is a perfect Society as it is a Supernatural Society here on earth. Almighty God has given us in His Superabundance all that we could ever need for our salvation, in spite of the horror of this end time in which we find ourselves toiling and laboring for our salvation. We persevere until the end, purely and specifically because of His grace alone and we do this in Caritas, as our Lord and our God commanded that we can give everything away, including the shirt off our back, and even our very life, and He still does not know us, because we did not give it in Caritas. It is Love, as Deus Caritas Est, and Him alone Who gets us to Heaven, as we submit fully and completely, giving Him all that we have, which is utterly fundamental, as it was for our Lady and our love as our Mother, and the Mother of the One Who Is Love, showed us the way. And the only way is through our full fiat, as it was with her and she is the Queen of Heaven and earth into eternity. Amen. Alleluia. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Your logic can lead to abstinence in marriage being labelled as a sin since its purpose is to avoid procreation. Is there a moral theologist in the house who rejects V2? I think we need help here. I believe the difference lies in the intent. Exclusive vs Grave. I also see your premise leading to declare sex sinful between barren and sterile couples. We know it is a sin to use artificial means to avoid conception. And we know that the natural method of abstention is permissible to avoid conception. Without getting into intent, how would you label making use of infertile periods? Natural or unnatural? I can see the confusion. Yet to use natural means against God’s will is certainly sinful. We know that every act must be open to life. Even NFP doesnt violate this. So far, barring any other argument, I lean towards the intent being the sinful action and not the act itself. You cannot say exclusively that avoiding conception is a sinful act since abstinence is permitted. The Church probably permitted abstinence prior to understanding the fertile cycle.
John 314, simply saying the NO form and intent is valid doesnt make it so.
Dear The Papal Subject,
Clearly, precisely, and as thus a beautifully stated position of truth. In caritas.
Good morning fast ferrari,
Thanks be to God. Praise be to God. May Almighty God bless and keep you and yours’, especially in this time of darkness. Amen. In caritas.
TPS,
“Before we can ask if someone is the Pope, we need to ask if he is a Catholic.”
Wrong. You don’t get to ask either question. An ordinary Catholic accepts the Pope if he has been elected according to the rules. Having an Internet connection does not elevate your status. You are still a peon and have to wait for a ruling from competent Church authorities, even if that ruling doesn’t come in your lifetime.
Ok Rush, so lets take your reasoning a step further. According to you, Francis can announce tomorrow that he is god and claim the eucharist is his body instead of Christ’s at the NO mass AND you will still tell us that we have to wait for competent authority to tell us otherwise? Is that what you are advocating. And please don’t insult the readers here by saying, “well that will never happen.” In essence you are saying Francis is Pope no matter what he says or does.
A modern institution, that does not possess even one Mark of the Church ..
Thank you for publicly admitting the Catholic Church has failed – even though Jesus promised it would not.
Your own words condemn you and your words are a synecdoche of the attitude of sedevacatism as a whole.
Y’all literally have nothing despite your delusions you have preserved Tradition.
Sedevacantism is a museum quality piece of diabolical delusion
Evangeline, I admit I would have thought it a conspiracy theory and, to be honest, I’d forgotten about it, but in any other circumstances, I would never have thought it the same person (there is one supposed to be Lucia when younger – looks nothing like Lucia 1st! I do wonder whether the internet crept up on them – couldn’t have foreseen that one. The photos need to go to a disinterested forensic lab.
More interestingly is what I’ve read about her trying to receive Communion in the hand at the Beatification in 2000 whilst standing and then kissing John-Paul’s hand immediately afterwards (photo) and ?apparently then turning round with a big smile. Is any of this true? It appears the kiss is. None of it is something a Traditional nun like Lucia would have done. Also, why would she change her story about the consecration having been done etc.
I’d love to know whether there are any witnesses to that Communion who can be relied on to tell the truth as to exactly what happened (not to mention the other public meetings with Popes etc after 1960.
Tom you are refusing to follow the logic that planning to have recourse to the infertile in order to avoid having children is not the same sin or beast as complete abstinence for selfish reasons. NFP is contraception when it promotes that it is not a sin to plan to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. When NFP promotes complete abstinence for grave reasons, this promotion is not a sin because it is not contracepting life because nothing is trying to be thwarted in the sex act itself by planning to use the sex act for other purpose other than procreation because no seed being given is given in complete abstinence.There is nothing to contra-CEPT, or thwart or intercept because there is NO SEX ACT BEING PERFORMED. You are very much stuck like this priest I had this same talk with who refused to hear what logic, and natural law and the truth are trying to present to you. You need more time to come to grips with this truth that I am trying to present to you is how I see it. I find it hard to believe you actually acknowled or even read all the sources from Scripture, the magisterium and church fathers and Saints that I gave you. If you did acknowledge these sources, which are very heavy duty sources, you wouldn’t be coming to these obvious erroniously conclusions on complete abstinence and NFP when it promotes having exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children.
No Anastasia, I follow your logic fully. I am trying to see if your logic holds water in all circumstances. Is it the act or the intent that is sinful? Plus I am not defending the modern NFP plan. I just dont know if a blanket statement that says making use of the infertile period is sinful. That logic then leads to couples who intend on having children to refrain during infertile periods. I know you are not suggesting that, but that is where I see your logic leading. So it all has to revolve around intent and not the act. To avoid children for selfish reasons is against Gods will no matter the method, natural or unnatural. To avoid children for a higher good is not sinful. If a doctor says that one more pregancy may result in death of the mother, are they forbidden from sex during the infertile period. Is that grave reason not allowed. It seems you are saying that sex should not occur unless there is a good chance of conception. It also seems you are suggesting that barren couples refrain from sex since conception is unlikely. I agree with you that the church should be encouraging couples to be fruitful and not promoting a loop hole to avoid contraception. But there are grave circumstances in certain situations and it appears Pius XII permitted an exception. The sin you ascribe to this probably lies in the intent and not the act. That is my conclusion. You need to test your conclusion with the extreme cases I have mentioned and see if your logic still holds up. It may very well be that there are no grave reasons that justify avoiding conception. I wish Pius XII defined his reasons. I also would like to know if there are moral theologians of the pre V2 persuasion who have opined on this matter. Know any?
The Holy Father speaks. His holiness, Pope Francis:
1) “When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.”
First homily, 3/14/2013 – Text
2) “The Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.”
Homily on 4/10/2014 – Text
3) “[The Devil] attacks the family so much. That demon does not love it and seeks to destroy it. […] May the Lord bless the family. May He make it strong in this crisis, in which the devil wishes to destroy it.”
Homily, 6/1/2014 – Text
4) “It is enough to open a newspaper and we see that around us there is the presence of evil, the Devil is at work. But I would like to say in a loud voice ‘God is stronger.’ Do you believe this, that God is stronger?”
https://churchpop.com/2014/10/07/13-pope-francis-quotes-oldest-foe-devil/
Point being?
After years of lurking, I have decided to finally post here, now that, I believe, the most opportune time has come, after my prolongued absence, because of material impossibility, due to a varying number of reasons, on the Suscipe Domine forums.
The solution to this crisis, after a decade of prayer and reading all available volumes of the Church Fathers incessantly, daily, for hours, as well as hunting for all possible internal sources of the 19th and 20th centuries, is, to my knowledge, one and only: to reject the Vatican Council that allowed all of the abominations we now behold in solemnly defined heresy. The fundamental heretical statement is, at the very end of Pastor Aeternus, “ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae”, that is “from himself, not from the consensus of The Church”, regarding Papal Infallibility and Authority. The meaning of this must be comprehended in conjunction with the official Relatio helmed by Bishop Gasser of Brixen, explaining that it must be understood, to sum it up briefly, in the following manner: Whoever is elected to the See Of Rome is incapable of any error whatsoever in his teaching capacity, nor can he ever fall into heresy, nor are any judgments or censures of his anything except infallible, even if he has not read the proposed censure himself, but merely signed it, for he is inspired by God in each and every document and speech of his, or else “The Gates Of Hell would prevail” because of officially endorsed error, for all his words must be understood as divine commandment, seeing his thoughts are directly infused by God Himself, so that it is God Who Thinks And Speaks Through this man, who is a living oracle, thus, and has full authority to do whatever he pleases, since it would be directly God’s Will, which is the extreme position of Albert Pighius, now officially dogmatized. There can never be, thus, a false claimant of this See, nor can it ever teach error or become apostate, nor lose the faith, nor be in eclipse, much less become the See Of Antichrist, but rather will perdure untainted until the very end. As one can easily conclude, if this were true, all Traditionalist camps are in heresy, as well as Our Lady at La Salette, and Modernists alone are right, which is why Vatican-II rightly procclaimed itself to be the exact continuation of Vatican-I, which, thus, procclaimed progressive revelation and evolution of doctrine under this infallible oracle.
According to Fr. Gregorius Hesse, of blessed memory, an epistolary exchange between Pius IX and Bishop Gasser seems to have existed, in which Pius IX apparently answered that “if a Pope were to teach error, he should just simply not be followed”, although this contradicts the official Vaticanist position endorsed by both in authoritative documents, so that it might refer to some secular, non-religious error of some kind, or perhaps was a forgery, or something else, which cannot be judged at the present moment, as I have found no evidence of this epistle, yet it is morally impossible for the saintly priest to have lied, yet he could have been lied to by someone else, as, unfortunately, he was of a very innocent and good-willed nature and would believe apparently honest persons very easily. Nevertheless, in one of his last recorded conferences, delivered in Austria, he practically affirmed that Pius XII was doubtless a heretic, calling him a “Pure-blooded Caesaropapist…directly contradicting dogma”, for Mediator Dei, indeed, directly contradicts Session VII, Canon 13 of Trent, as well as Quo Primum, in its affirmation of Roman Popes having the power to change sacraments without second thoughts, and further asking for the modernization of the Latin Roman Rite in order to “purge it from its Carolingian-Gallican influences”, something Paul VI did not fail to quote when inaugurating the Novus Ordo Missae, as well as the FSSP in their German Official 10th Anniversary Jubilee, to which I must add his scandalous heresy in Sacramentum Ordinis, in which he affirms to possess the power to change the very essence of the sacraments, without mentioning the infamous permissions towards dubious moral attitudes and all of his political and ecclesiastical scandals in favour of Modernism, all of which Fr. Hesse himself has well documented on numerous occasions, as well.
Interestingly enough, Pius IX was far worse and much more suspect than even Francis I, seeing his multiple acts, including donations and mutual official endorsement, in favour of Freemasonry, documents revealing his membership in that sect, which he joined when serving as nuncio in Peru, his support, even financial, of Freemasonic revolutions to overthrow Catholic Monarchies, his brutal persecution of any and all critics, &c., all reveal a very grave situation confirmed by Our Lady at Salette, the one passage that Traditionalists always fail to quote, namely that The Devil would be unchained to begin the great apostasy in 1864; even the elect would be deceived, indeed. Furthermore, he had liturgies in Rome blasphemously replace “Deus” with “Pius”, as reported by multiple sources of the time. The Civilta Cattolica, that cesspool of vile Jesuitic heresy and blasphemy, went even further: Holy Ghost Incarnate is what the supreme Vaticanist blasphemy procclaims, when calling the Roman Bishop “dispenser of all graces, in whose existence we participate to receive The Spirit, who operates only through him” and “source and principle immutable of ecclesiastical unity, as well as all truth and love, and their very organ”, which are all appellations reserved for The Holy Spirit Himself, this being unforgivable blasphemy, and then even “Third Incarnation of Christ, after the First One, which was Crucified, and the Second, which is the Eucharist, thus being the visible Christ on Earth, loved by Our Lady as much as her Son”, and then calls him “Vicegod”, amongst other such monstrous sentences unbearable and unspeakable. How can a man be The Divine Immaterial Spirit materially incarnate, devoid of free will because of infallible inspiration? How is this not worse than the blasphemous self-procclamation of this title of Paraclete by Manes, who never even went so far as to call himself the spirit granting all graces over the world? Then he infamously procclaimed, upon opposition from bishops at the Council, who knew this was a complete abandoning of Ecclesiastical Tradition: “I am Tradition; I am The Church!”, as well as, in one of his most nefarious encyclicals, Quartus Supra: “Whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic”. And yet they dare denounce others as heretics and schismatics! A delirious joke, the judaic dogmatization of canon law, the pagan imperial and superstitious idolatry of man and his effigies, is all this is, and it is Antichrist, for he preaches himself, and not Jesus Christ, Our Lord, as The Apostle expressly warns. How a man could possibly believe in such nonsense escapes all reason and spiritual honesty. And all this is without mentioning his abominable persecution of the Eastern Rites and how he physically abused the Melkite Patriarch for quoting to him the ancient canons and councils, up until Basel-Ferrara-Florence, granting him and all patriarchs complete independence from papal jurisdiction, for the famous “papal mandate” for episcopal consecration, first introduced in the late Middle Ages amidst the power struggle between Emperor and Roman Pope, did not legally or canonically exist until the 1917 Canon Law, amongst countless other vile acts.
Pius IX knew very well of the Alta Vendita, so it is inexcusable to have directly aided them and played in their favour, for they needed a replacement god-man to officially procclaim heresy from the very top, without opposition. Rampolla was set already to deliver Vatican-II, but God Intervened, and, by the oh so-hated “Gallican power”, our Catholic Emperor, Franz Joseph, whose laws Pius IX laughably “abrogated” for opposing his globalist, supra-national Jesuitic infiltration, Satanist Rampolla was vetoed in his election, and St. Pius X was elected instead, in one final breath of air. A certain important priest, who directed Archbishop Lefebvre’s Seminary at the time, well stated: “Now that Pius X has condemned the heresy of Modernism, we will be facing the worst of all heresies, namely the heresy of Papal Omnipotence”.
Prophetically, Bishop Reinkens, who procclaimed Sedevacante because of papal heresy, in his glorious Pastoral Epistle of 1873, many times announced what would become of Rome after this apostasy, mentioning all deviations of doctrine we have come to see since, including religious indifferentism and all other judaeo-pagan loss of religion. All of his arguments are those later exactly taken or utilized by Saint Fr. Hans Milch, Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantist Bishops, may they all pray for us, except far more consistent and better developed. And why is this so? Because the Church Fathers, who are the bulwark of Traditionalist authority, knew nothing of the Vaticanist-Papalist heresy: we need only the Fathers and Councils, Tradition, to know our Faith, and only this, which was revealed, is infallible, not any one man nor his judgments nor his laws. Revelation alone is infallible, and this is what Apostolic Succession transmits, fundamentally through the sacraments and the essental, most ancient liturgical-canonical principle and law: “lex orandi statuat legem credendi”, which Pius XII, again, in Mediator Dei, explicitly inverted and thus denied to make way for what he called “liturgical experiments” – is that not a familiar modernist term? Lawfully consecrated Orthodox Bishops receive jurisdiction from God, not from man, as it was always for millenia before the innovations were enthroned in the liberalism of the 19th century, for absolutism is, as Edmund Burke rightly predicted, the logical consequence of liberalism, into which De Maistre and other Jesuitic agents of casuistry and judaeo-pagan Pelagianism inevitably fell into because of their absurd rationalism. Thus does St. Gregory The Great warn: “Any bishop who would call himself universal is the precursor of Antichrist” – confirmed to have been fulfilled at La Salette, perhaps? Let us alone study and follow the rule of St. Vincent Of Lerins and that of all the ancient Fathers, which alone guarantees Orthodoxy against all innovation, for we have the true, ancient Faith clearly laid out for us. I myself became Christian only and solely because of them, a decade ago, and, after much discernment, have concluded their Faith is entirely incompatible with that of July 18th, 1870 onwards. Ekklesia – Church literally means “Those that have been taken out”, “Those who are taken outside”, “The elect”, and NOT “Gathering”, for this is the exact translation of “Synagogue”, and this is what the Modernists preach; to be even more precise, The Church is The Infinite Sacrifice Of Our Lord Christ and Its Reception by Most Glorious Theotokos Maria, who is Proto-Ekklesia, and thus stands for all the faithful.
And, finally, the greatest sign that the aforementioned is probably true, is that Vatican-I excluded, persecuted and exiled or removed all bishops who opposed Papalism, which guaranteed them their majority vote of loyalists, who then threatened all other bishops, often under physical harm, to accept the unacceptable or face defrocking and worse, conditions similar to Vatican-II, as can be gathered from all objective accounts of the council by the attending bishops. Furthermore, and perhaps even more astonishingly, it has never been officially promulgated nor closed, for the council was interrupted, as punishment by God, through the same liberal and freemasonic enemies of Christ which Pius IX defended, and never again re-assembled and officially confirmed or promulgated as such. Thus, Vatican-II is impossble, for the previous is still open and not even confirmed or solemnly ratified, as all other councils were. It is, in my sight, impossible to remain an Orthodox Catholic and accept the Vatican Council, for doing so leads us necessarily to accept Vatican-II.
I would like to take the time to mention, at this point, that I neither support, nor endorse, nor have any links whatsoever with the modern-day heretical “Old Catholic Utrechter Union”. This group completely abandoned Orthodoxy, thus The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church many decades ago. There are a few splinter groups, however, who, apparently, do preserve the Faith, going by the name “Old Roman Catholics”.
To sum up, most conclusively: Rome has been on the wrong side of schism since July 18th, 1870, formally, at the latest, though most evidently and hopelessly since August 20, 1914, and absolutely for the world to see since Vatican-II, which is, indeed, a red herring, as one good priest of the FSSP once said to me. I hope more will come to listen to Bishop Athanasius Of Celerina, who has recently expressed how he considers Papolatry to be one of the gravest modern errors, which was formally established and has been growing during the recent couple centuries. The “infallible opinions” of “theologians” from the last two centuries regarding “infallible canon law” and “infallible elections” are absolutely irrelevant and void of any merit whatsoever, for this is merely the invention of Papolatrous oracular neo-dogmas by the rabbinic “magisterium”, that is, Pius IX and his Jesuits, the doctors of the law, all of which are terms invented during the unholy occupation of Mastai Ferretti, who was, unsurprisingly, “beatified” by John Paul II of the New-Advent-Church, seeing he was necessarily the chief corner-stone for the acceptance of the new, apostate religion, just as John XXIII-II (John XXIII-I was the notorious Pisan antipope from the Great Western Schism, who shared many uncanny similarities with the former) and Paul VI were. Revelation alone is infallible, and, thus, dogmatic pronouncements by Ecumenical Councils, that is, the synodal reunion of bishops from every corner of the Earth in order to give testimony of what doctrine they have received from Apostolic Succession, id est, from Revelation, are infallible by extension – never can any human reasoning or law be infallible, for this is the chief heresy of Pelagian rationalism and atheism, namely, Satanic Superbia. This is why none of the Patristics teachers and History professors of that time accepted the hijacked papalist council, but rather unanimously opposed it, since it is an explicit denial of The Faith Of The Fathers and History itself, as even Cardinal Baronius himself would present it. such is the sad state of affairs and such are the facts.
May Our Lord, through the intercession of His Immaculate Mother, and all angels and saints, grant us the Grace to bear our cross even to Golgotha, asking only for completely unmerited Mercy and Forgiveness, as any other petition we can never be worthy of uttering, we who are miserable sinners. Kyrie Iesu Christe, You Tou Theou, Eleison me, ton amartolon! May we see The Light in Thy Light, in order to worship Thee, O Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Most August Triune God Eternal, now and ever, and unto the aeons of aeons. Amen.
You say you can’t tell if someone’s a Catholic by simply listening and watching, and can’t know if he’s therefore a member of the Church.
The Church is the congregation of the Faithful, not of heretics. Heretics aren’t Catholics. You know that don’t you?
Yes, Vatican II created a new, invisible Church made up of Catholics and baptised heretics, but we’re talking about the Cathoic Church, so that doesn’t count.
If you can’t distinguish the Church and her members from non-Catholics with your own eyes, then how are you going to determine when the Church is speaking?
Are you going to wait for some other heretic in Catholic clerical attire to tell you that someone is a heretic?
See how you get into trouble when you deny the visibility of the Church? It’s not magic; it’s not gnostic; it’s not esoteric. It’s simply visible, to one and all.
St Pius X said it was a common ploy of modernists to say something orthodox from time to time as a deflection, to put our guard down. It makes the modernist look like he is sincerely working things through, when in reality, he has a clear agenda operating the whole time.
Modernists are ‘one trick’ ponies.
Dear Rushintuit,
You are simply wrong when you suggest that someone, anyone, has the authority as Willed by Almighty God Himself, to pass judgment upon the authentic, Holy Roman Pontiff. How could anyone pass judgment Rushintuit, when the Chief Pastor has no peer on this earth? Thus, whether it is “the peon” which you speak of in a fully uncharitable as contemptuous way, or whether it is the authentic Prefect of the CDF, any other collection of authentic Cardinals or a Synod of Bishops, no one alone or together rises to that authority in Truth. This is a deception that Lucifer has hanging on the end of his yo-yo, as he continues to toy with all those who acknowledge the lie as the truth, by virtue of their reception of the “deceiving influence” or the “operation of error” in lieu of grace, of which Saint Paul writes. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Semper Fidelis, Greetings!
Unfortunately, the Bishop Of Rome is not more than a bishop. He is one among his brother bishops, and possesses no ontological sacrament nor dignity above them. His ecclesiastical position is that of an administrator, the Archbishop Of All Churches, as is the term from the Ecumenical Council Of Chalcedon. This ecclesiastical disposition was conferred to him in its earliest form at the First Ecumenical Council. Interestingly enough, all of his powers and prerogatives were equally granted to and confirmed for the Constantinopolitan Ecumenical Patriarch at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, because, this council declares, they were given to Old Rome because it was the imperial city and to honour the martyrdom of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, so that they can now be given to New Rome because of its status as Imperial City, being considered second in honour merely, yet with the same ecclesiastical privileges. This is the Roman Primacy, distinct from the Petrine Primacy, which is that of all bishops equally, who receive the same Succession Of Peter, that is, the Apostolic Succession, typified in St. Peter as symbol of unity of the Episcopate, who first received the Episcopacy because of his more advanced age and corresponding dignity, all Apostles being equal and none subject to another, as explained by St. Cyprian, in his Epistles and Treatise On The Unity Of The Church, and St. John Chrysostom, chiefly in his Treatise On The Priesthood, most eminently, their jurisdictions being inviolable and subject to no other bishop above them, as all ancient canons ratify.
There is no such thing as a “universal bishop” nor a “bishop of bishops”, for these propositions have been condemned as heretical and of antichrist, both by St. Gregory The Great and by St. Cyprian Martyr at his Council Of Carthage opposing Bishop Stephanus Of Rome, amongst dozens of other examples throughout history, including that of St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Firmilian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil The Great, St. Gregory Of Nyssa, St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, St. Meletius Of Antioch, St. John Chrysostom, and many, many others, all of whom directly opposed the Roman Bishop and broke communion with him, considering him no more than any other bishop or patriarch, so that they either were heretics and schismatics, denying their sanctity, or else the modern papalist claims of the last two centuries are, in fact, false, and Rome is not in the least “the immutable center of unity and all authority”. There can be no other choice beyond these – either unity and communion with The Catholic Church is through Orthodoxy, a condition applied to all men, or it is through adherence to a mortal man, regardless of his “inscrutable” potential heterodoxy and condition above all legal judgment, which is an invention of recent centuries unknown to the Fathers, thus, a modernist innovation and the catalyst for all the implosion and explosion that followed it during the last century.
Let us ask Our Divine Lord, through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, to Grant us, miserable and unworthy sinners, His Grace to have our intellects and hearts illumined by His Divine Light, so as to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. This do Grant us, O Lord, we beseech Thee, for the right honour and worship of The Triune Divinity. Amen.
Dear The Papal Subject,
Dear Rushintuit,
Let Canon 15 of the First-Second Council speak for itself, the same one which was misquoted as “Sixth Ecumenical Council”, and only its first half, by “ACatholicThinker” back when he was promoting the errors of Salza and Siscoe:
“15. The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”
So you are saying, because Vatican I was never officially closed, then the whole notion of infaillabilty has not been definitively settled yet and is therefore still open for theological debate? Hmmm
I find it very hard to believe that if the reason for using NFP were so grave, as the example you used- the wife’s life is at stake- why would anyone even consider playing Russian Roulette with NFP when complete abstinence is a 100% guarantee of safety when a life is at stake?
I could go on about the sin, obsession and degradation that NFP puts on the integrity of respecting the hierarchy of purposes and most certainly on the couple themselves Even when they both desire NFP.
NFP is a gravefully sinfull and selfish act that tries desperately to justify sucking out the possible effect of procreation out of the sex act in order to clasp on to a couples earthly insecurities. It continues to promote their lack of faith and love for God and His laws and their lack of desire for sainthood.
What you fail to get is the absolute urgency of preserving the purity and integrity of the sex act. No reason whatsoever can justify one negating the primary purpose of the sex act and separating the primary purpose from the secondary purpose because they don’t want to suffer whatever may come their way if they conceive.
The higher good is not that the couple will be comforted that they will have a much less chance of conceiving because of their exclusive planning to have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid a very high chance of having children during the fertile period and therefor a higher chance that the wife won’t die. It is complete abstinence that gives her a guarantee of not dying from the sex act due to a possible conception from it. If you beleive your wife’s dying to be truly grave and if you truly do care about her life, complete abstinence would be the choice no question asked not NFP.
Complete abstinence is the only way to preserve the higher good when grave reasons are at stake and non grave reasons for that matter too. Only complete abstinence will keep the higher good in tacked and that would be the integrity and purity of the conjugal act uncompromised by abstaining completely. Also complete abstinence will never have a “Russian Roullette chance” of the wife conceiving. Complete abstinence is true love and honesty. Respect for the integrity of the sex act as created by God and a willingness to truly care and sacrifice sex for the higher good of keeping the integrity of the sex act in place and even more guaranteeing a life being saved. NFP rejects the higher goods when it promotes planning to have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children and when it promotes a choice that puts people at risk who have sincere grave reasons and all this for not wishing to give up the conjugal act completely.
Even if you’re convinced of the 99% chance of NFP working in your favor for your wife ‘s life you still have sold out on the highest good of trying to maintain the integrity of the sex act through complete abstinence and the opportunity to sacrifice, to reach for the grand pearl of purity and to stay on the path to sainthood.
Put that way, Anastasia, you make a very good case. I cannot think of anymore arguments against your position.
I thank God for this. You have made my day! May God continue to bless you on your path to sainthood.
I think that was addressed to you rather than to me.
If it was addressed to me, it is incorrect on two levels.
1. From my prior post: “For the record, I do not subscribe to sedevacantism, but I don’t see how someone can escape being categorized in the same category that he is putting others into when that person does the exact same thing that he accuses others of doing, i.e., compromising.
2. I don’t go to “Mass” on Sundays, and certainly not in garages. I attend liturgy, and the bishop of the eparchy is in communion with Francis, the pope of Rome.
“Since I’ve been following AKA Catholic I have never once been disappointed––either with anything you have written, or the responses from your incredible followers. Quite honestly, every one of them are so knowledgeable about the Catholic faith that I’m often almost too intimidated to throw in my two cents. Nevertheless, it is truly an instructive experience for me every time I click on AKA Catholic. I assure you, I will be going nowhere.
Thank you for it all, and may God bless you and your family.”
—- My sentiments, exactly.
The one fear I have with the the SSPX is what Our Lord warned about quote ” Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die.”