Last week, I posted commentary on Taylor Marshall’s interview of Christopher Ferrara, wherein the latter stated:
If a pope teaches something that’s wrong, well, all that proves is that we have a pope who made a mistake. Whoever said the popes don’t make mistakes when they teach on a matter of faith and morals? They do make mistakes.
I would be very interested in seeing a list of what Mr. Ferrara considers examples whereby popes – make that pre-conciliar popes – have erred when disseminating a teaching to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
At this, one may be reminded of Our Lord’s prayer for Peter and his successors:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)
One wonders, does Mr. Ferrara believe that this prayer went unanswered? I suppose that would depend on what constitutes a “mistake,” something we will address in some detail momentarily.
Specifically in reference to “Francis” ordering a change to the Catechism of the Conciliar Church’s treatment of the death penalty, Mr. Ferrara said:
The only solution to the problem, short of sedevacantism, which I certainly don’t espouse … the other way to resolve the problem otherwise is to say yes, the Pope can make a mistake.
Here, we’ll take a closer look at Mr. Ferrara’s proposed solution, but first, we must be very clear about the true nature of the problem.
In the matter of capital punishment (and others; e.g., marriage, adultery, false religions, etc.), Mr. Ferrara plainly acknowledges that Francis is setting himself in opposition to both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
That’s the problem, but is it intellectually honest to call it a mere mistake?
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment of heresy – even if one wishes to stop short of applying that label in the present case – is useful inasmuch as it offers a distinction between those who willfully oppose doctrine and those who are merely mistaken. In reference to the latter, we find:
Towards material heretics her [the Church’s] conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: “Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected.”
The article goes on to say of those who fall into the latter category:
Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable.
Applying the above to what is plainly observable concerning Francis, we are able to draw just one of but two conclusions. [NOTE: While we are considering his approach to capital punishment in particular, we may apply the following to other acts of his so-called pontificate; e.g., Amoris Laetitia.]
1) Francis is defending a false and perverse opinion with pertinacious zeal, even going so far as to have it enshrined in the CCC, an act that may rightly be considered a prime example of audacious presumption. Furthermore, he gives no indication whatsoever of seeking the truth with cautious solicitude, much less has he demonstrated even the slightest willingness to be corrected.
2) Francis is making a mistake in good faith.
As the above treatment suggests, “making a mistake” in doctrinal matters necessarily includes “good faith,” the two simply go hand-in-hand.
When, however, audacious presumption, pertinacious zeal and an unwillingness to be corrected are present, any claims to “good faith” are baseless. As such, it would be absurd to insist that the individual in question is merely “mistaken.”
Surely, Mr. Ferrara would not deny that Francis’ behavior is the epitome of audaciousness, presumptuousness and pertinacious zeal for his erroneous opinions. Furthermore, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would plainly assert, along with me, that Francis has proven himself utterly unwilling to be corrected.
And yet, in spite of these uncontested observations, Mr. Ferrara still chooses to conclude that the pope merely made a mistake. One wonders why?
Only he can explain. Even so, one cannot help but recognize the degree to which he appears to be motivated, perhaps above all else, to avoid lending credence to any arguments that might favor (God forbid!) the view that Francis is an anti-pope – a view, I might add, that was firmly held by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the man he credits with teaching him more theology at his kitchen table than any university master’s program ever could.
At this, in order to bring greater clarity to the present situation, it may be helpful to consider the example of two Pope Johns, both of whom were wrong, but only one of whom was mistaken.
On December 4, Rorate Caeli published an article written by historian Roberto de Mattei under the title, Who was the worst Pope in the history of the Church?
His answer, Pope John XII, who, having been elevated to the papacy in the year 955 at the age of eighteen, and who, he tells us, “didn’t interrupt his life of reckless abandon in unbridled pleasures, even with his election to the Papal Throne.”
Largely citing the Liber Pontificalis, as well as a recent reproduction of an historical account authored by Liutprando, Bishop of Cremona, a contemporary of John XII, de Mattei relates that during his pontificate a number of clerics and laity alike, under solemn oath, accused Pope John XII of the following:
He had turned the Holy Palace into an actual bordello … he had blinded Benedict, his spiritual father, who died shortly afterwards; he had killed John, Cardinal Subdeacon, by cutting off his genitals; he had set fires; he girded himself with a sword and armed himself with helmet and shield … He would toast to the health of the devil; they said that in games of dice he would invoke the help of Jupiter and Venus and other demons; that he would not celebrate Matins and the Canonical Hours, and wouldn’t make the sign of the cross.
Having received these accusations, Otto I, who the previous year had been crowned by the pope as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, sent a letter to the pope, in the name of a Synod he had convoked, asking him to come to Rome to exonerate himself in person.
Professor de Mattei continues:
John, nonetheless, refused to appear before the assembly. The Romans asked the Emperor then to depose him and replace him with a new Pope of high moral standing …. On December 4, 963, John was condemned and deposed and Otto requested that the Synod elect a successor.
The man elected to succeed John chose the name Leo VIII. Professor de Mattei writes:
Despite John XII’s protests against the canonical illegitimacy [sic] of his deposition, the Church ranks Leo VIII in its official chronology as his legitimate successor.
Before we consider the lessons contained in this account, let us consider the story of the other Pope John – John XXII to be precise – who reigned from 1316-1334.
According to an article in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:
After becoming pope, he [John XXII] advanced the same teaching [that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment] in his sermons.
This, the article informs us, went against “the usual opinion of many theologians.”
In a letter to King Philip IV addressing the issue, Pope John XXII “emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter.”
In other words, at the time of John XXII’s reign, the matter under discussion had yet to be settled. As such, the Holy Father took steps to bring clarity to the matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on:
John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
In an attempt to argue against those who have gone on record with the conviction that Jorge Bergoglio is most certainly a non-Catholic and thus an anti-pope, conservatives and traditionalists alike often point to Pope John XXII as an example of how other pope’s have also erred in the past.
And yet, if one wishes to be intellectually honest, it must be admitted that Francis and John XXII have precious little in common. There are many reasons why comparing the two men is, as the saying goes, like comparing apples and oranges.
[NOTE: The same can be said of comparisons, also frequently drawn by the same persons, between Francis and Pope Liberius, who is alleged to have signed a semi-Arian profession under duress, and Pope Honorius, who failed to safeguard the doctrine of the faith against the Monothelites in letters addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople.]
For one, unlike John XXII, Bergoglio presumes to insist upon teaching, with pertinacious zeal, false and perverse opinions on doctrinal matters that have long since been settled by Holy Mother Church. He demonstrates precious little regard for Holy Scripture and the rule of faith, and he has resisted every invitation to accept correction.
In other words, the above related history of John XXII paints the portrait of a man genuinely mistaken, whereas Francis is the antithesis of just such a man, his utter lack of good faith being notoriously well known by all, including Mr. Ferrara.
A far more fitting comparison would be between Francis and Pope John XII, with one noteworthy difference:
For all of his notoriety, John XII did not, as Francis has, issue decrees to the Universal Church containing blasphemies and heresies; he was mainly guilty of scandalous personal behavior and scandalous administration. In other words, Jorge Bergoglio poses a far graver danger to souls.
That having been said, many parallels do exist between the two men. For instance, like John XII, Francis has been accused by numerous clerics and laity alike of an assortment of impious acts, heresies and blasphemies, very often in writing. He has even been accused of apostasy.
He, like John XII, has been entreated to “defend” himself; i.e., he has been invited (nay, challenged!) to affirm the true faith and to confirm his brethren in said faith, but he has steadfastly refused any and all attempts at filial correction; including the one made by Christopher Ferrara as a signatory to just such a written plea.
The lessons we can learn from the two Pope Johns (if we are willing) are rather plain. Unfortunately, both Mr. Ferrara and Professor de Mattei seem unable, or unwilling, to see them, much less apply them to the present situation.
With regard to John XXII, the lesson is simple; in the exceedingly rare instance when a pope may be mistaken on a matter of faith and morals, good faith will be always evident as well, and for one very good reason: Our Lord prayed for Peter and his successors, that their faith may not fail, and indeed it will not.
Popes do, however, possess free will, and should one choose to reject the true faith, departing from the Mystical Body of Christ and thus from Office, the Church is not rendered paralyzed until a holy pope comes along – far from it – as the details concerning the pontificate of John XII clearly attest.
Professor de Mattei shared his own takeaway from those details as follows:
Those who think that the Holy Spirit elects and guides infallibly every Pontiff are proven wrong by facts and risk rendering a great disservice to the Church. The Holy Spirit never abandons the Church but in that dark century, the laity responded with greater piety to His influence more than the Popes did.
While the above is factually correct, it is profoundly important to make note of what Professor de Mattei is missing, or more to the point, what he wrongly interpreted and conveyed to his readers. He wrote, as noted above:
On December 4, 963, John was condemned and deposed and Otto requested that the Synod elect a successor.
I am no longer shocked when otherwise intelligent men, who should know better, make absurd comments on matters of faith; even so, the above borders on stunning.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that no one – not even a Holy Roman Emperor – has the authority to condemn and depose a reigning pope. The only correct way (that is, the only Catholic way) to understand the history of Pope John XII is as follows:
Based on his very own behavior and public acts of self-judgment, it had become plain to all that John XII had severed himself from the Body of the Church. In so doing, he had made it known that he had, in a sense, removed himself from office. What Professor de Mattei is reporting as John XII’s “deposition” was truly nothing of the kind; it was simply a declaration, for the good of souls, concerning what had already occurred.
Professor de Mattei concluded, as if to quell the anxiety of his readers, “The Church, as She always does, forged ahead victorious in the storm.”
Indeed, She always will, but we must us be very clear about how She did so in the case of John XII; namely, by addressing directly and plainly, for the good of souls, the matter of a faithless anti-pope, who of his own volition, notoriously departed from the Body of the Church.
Today, we look not to emperors to make such a declaration about the man known by many as “Francis,” nor do we look to any civil authority to convene a papal conclave; it is incumbent upon those relatively few Successors to the Apostles – the ones that have not followed Bergoglio and his conciliar confreres out of the Church – to do so.
Until then, it is my steadfast conviction that those of us who are blessed with a public platform in Catholic media have a grave duty toward our readers and viewers, many of whom are innocent persons in pursuit of the truth. We must seek said truth, on their behalf as much as our own, and proclaim it boldly and plainly once it is found, without any regard whatsoever for what doing so may cost us in this life.
May it please the Good Lord to raise up men of influence who are willing to do just that!
With this in mind, I cannot but conclude that to look at the blatantly anti-Catholic behavior of a man like Francis and to shrug it off as little more than a series of unfortunate mistakes, or to gloss over the danger that he poses to souls with platitudes about the Church’s indefectibility, is a grave dereliction of Christian duty.
There is much dispute concerning Pope John XII. There is no reason for one to conclude he was deposed by anyone or severed himself from the pontificate.
Wow. I believe this is the first time I’ve heard the story of John XII. Your explanation makes the most sense, though it brings up an issue. Clearly John XII (and Francis) did not believe in Christ at the time of his coronation. You don’t go from being a sincere Christian to praying to Jupiter and Satan in that short a time. So you’d expect that his entire papacy would’ve been invalid because he never believed, and yet he’s listed as a valid pope. Did the coronation itself act sort of like confession, giving him a clean slate, and then he lost the papacy the next day when he went back to his old ways?
It also means we’d have to worry about intent. What if JP2 was also acting in malice but was just smart enough to give himself plausible deniability in his errors? It would mean he wasn’t a valid pope either, but we’d never know. It would mostly be an academic question…unless he made dogmatic declarations during his papacy. It sews doubt and the whole idea behind infallibility is to remove doubt. Maybe I should go back and reread some of your articles on the inability of anyone but God to judge Peter. I don’t remember how firmly rooted in dogma that was. In any case, assuming the story of John XII is correct (I’ll have to look into pigg0214’s objections too) you’ve narrowed down the possible explanations for our situation by quite a bit. Bravo.
Thank you for the link! As the NOW article states, there is indeed some confusion concerning John XII, even with regard to dates.
The account given by Liutprando, (assuming it was accurately translated and presented), being that he was a contemporary of John XII, would seem to be as close as we can get to reliable.
For the purposes of this post, however, we need not remove whatever confusion exists as the salient point remains; namely, reigning popes are NOT deposed by any earthly authority, therefore, the only Catholic way to read the account offered by Professor de Mattei is as noted above.
Incidentally, that reading is in line with the view taken by the eminent 18th century theologian, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, as detailed in the following post from 2016. https://akacatholic.com/point-counterpoint-2-verrecchio/
“…it is incumbent upon those relatively few Successors to the Apostles – the ones that have not followed Bergoglio and his conciliar confreres out of the Church – to do so.”
Ah, but will they do so? The true history of the Catholic Church is known to those “ones that have not followed Bergoglio.” It is a history which includes the Church’s adamant teaching on the various heresies and blasphemies committed by Francis (and by his Vatican II predecessors). These men know what those adamant teachings are. Yet they refuse to condemn the violence which “!!!The Council!!!” has done to those teachings and that history. Vatican II rejects those teachings and that history. It rejects them by presenting to man an image of himself that is, when all is said and done, the opposite of the image which Almighty God has presented to man via Holy Scripture and His Holy Catholic Church. That latter image is one of man’s fallen nature which renders him easily deceived by satan and subject to falling repeatedly into the vileness of sin. It is an image of man who must humbly accuse himself of the disobedience and vileness which have separated him from his Maker, and it shows him to have no dignity unless he humbly submits to God. Lastly, it shows him the way to happiness—both in this life and in the life to come.
But Vatican II tells a different story. It presents to man an image glorifying man’s “profound dignity” simply because he is man, and ALL men have that dignity, even Jews and pagans. Vatican II cares nothing for “humility.” Vatican II doesn’t talk about the consequences of dying in mortal sin, i.e. the reality of hell which will be the ending place of those who refuse to fight against sin. No, “The Council” talks about things like universal salvation (i.e. being a member of the Catholic Church is not necessary), social justice, ecumenical outreach to our “sisters and brothers” who “share Christ’s grace” but who do so in “their own particular faith tradition,” not being judgemental with regard to sodomites and adulterers. In fact, such people should be welcomed into the Church without reservation. They should be FULLY welcomed.
But that image is a lie and it flies in the face of the Catholic Church’s teaching about the necessity of all men coming to God through His Holy Catholic Church, about non-Catholic heretics, about sodomites and those who continue to live in adultery and therefore refuse to repent of it. The Church says to avoid such people, not to welcome them in.
It is the responsibility of everyone to seek the truth (Mt 7:7-10). Christ didn’t ask us to seek it—He commanded us to do so. Those who do will find it and it will make them happy. It has made those who have accepted it happy, even though it may have taken a long time for them to finally let go of the things of this world, to reject the mirages which satan places before us and which (falsely) promise to give us happiness. Satan is a liar. He had his minions in the Vatican put the “Springtime of Vatican II” lie before us. Take a good look at its fruits. How can anyone not see it?
No offense to Mr. Verrecchio on this one but I’ve read as much as I can find on all these Popes that the R and R’s tell us taught heresy and Mr. Novus Ordo Watch presents solid evidence that Pope John XII did NOT teach heresy despite being a man who seems very inclined to do so and that he was not deposed at all. However, this fairytale that it should take anyone with any authority on earth to bring it to the attention of any Catholic that Jorge is not Catholic and NOT the Pope is completely off the rails. EVERY Catholic who has attained the age of reason and has intelligence within normal limits should know this. I agree 100% with Mr. Verrecchio that the Bishops of the Catholic Church, who can only be those of SSPX and Sedevacantists have the most grave obligation to elect a Pope. If they get together and find that they can’t do that because they all judge each other invalid and or illicit than so be it. Make the announcement that you aren’t true Bishops, we can’t get a Pope and the end is near but for the love of all that is good if these men wish to save their souls they better stop playing this game that leaves us wondering how do we get a Pope, can we get a Pope, where is the Church at all? And I will tell you all once again that as long as you allow these men to provide you with the Sacraments as if having no Pope is the least concern, you all are participating in their failure or their deception, whichever it may be. I hope they are valid Bishops; I await the Pope’s assurance on this.
Louie, here is another link refuting Salza and Siscoe in all of their errors:
Bravo and Amen Melanie! In Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII teaches that: “If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible.” So SSPV, CMRI, and SSPX step forward and declare the “visibility’ of the Catholic Church by following the dictum of St. Ambrose “Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia” and elect a Pope in Rome.
point you try to make in article is not quite clear. Seems your main goal is to examine Marshall/Ferrara position and expose errors they made in interview. This is fine, but why? I mean, exposing error is a good thing but what is missing from your article is solution. The one you propose: Francis denounced himself, is the wrong one. In your thinking you start from erroneous assumption that Bergolio is/was reigning pope. Because of this you present two options:
1) Francis is defending a false and perverse opinion with pertinacious zeal (…) (without) the slightest willingness to be corrected.
2) Francis is making a mistake in good faith.
Both options have false premise that Bergolio is or ever has been the pope. If you realize that fact you will not be looking at Sedevacantism as ‘reasonable’ solution. Rather then deliberating how to get rid of so called ‘pope Francis’, show that there is no such a need. All we need is to realize fact that Bergolio has never been the pope. This is not matter of anybody’s opinion but fact established by the Law. The Law is ‘responsible’ for making one the pope or not.
Beside that good intro to history of popes.
LennyB: “So SSPV, CMRI, and SSPX step forward and declare the “visibility’ of the Catholic Church by following the dictum of St. Ambrose “Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia” and elect a Pope in Rome.”
Before these groups can do that, they have to agree that there is no current pope (and hasn’t been one since 1958). In other words, they all have to agree that sedevacantism is the correct (ie. Catholic) position.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that John XII did not believe in Christ. Just because one toasts demons and commits idolatry does not mean one denies Christ. Even Satan himself knows Christ and the Faith. He just chose not to serve. Likewise John XII may have held the Faith yet also chose not to serve. His actions were most unholy and sinful but as it has been pointed out, he never taught heresy. That is the protection offered to the Papacy by the Holy Ghost. Bad man yes, heretic, no. Read Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis to learn what the Church teaches about membership in the Catholic Church. Also, papal coronations do not remove a man’s sin.
“Both options have false premise that Bergolio is or ever has been the pope.”
Not so. The citations I provide (re: those mistaken vs those who are unwilling to be corrected) pertain to anyone who lays claim to membership in the Church, pope or not. It is plain, Jorge Bergoglio – if he ever was a member of the Body of the Church – has made it known that he has severed himself from it and, therefore, cannot be pope.
My article addresses, and effectively refutes (in my opinion) the point of view of those who, like Ferrara and de Mattei, are convinced that he is the pope (which happens to be the majority view).
The citations I provide (re: those mistaken vs those who are unwilling to be corrected) pertain to anyone who lays claim to membership in the Church, pope or not.
That’s why I said about point of the article not being clear. Are you disusing membership of mistaken faithful or papacy of Bergolio or both? For me the important one is present papacy. Solution to this ‘problem’ is truth, that is that Bergolio have never been the pope. If you attempt to get rid of ‘Bergolio problem’ by showing that he is not member of the Church (which inse may be true) you are skipping over what is most critical part of this puzzle – that he can not be the pope regardless if he is (or was when ‘elected’) member of the Church or he was not.
You refute Ferrara’s claim about Bergolio’s papacy, but by using wrong, imo, argumentation, you bring side problem to the first row. If Ferrara will try to defend his position, discussion will roll around subject of his membership, not about primary reason he can not be the pope – lack of vacancy on Peter’s Seat.
Back to your article. You point to difference of the attitude of the offender as key element. Of course there is difference and you explained it well. But this ‘attitude option’ is important for future fate of offender not necessary for act itself (erroneous teaching in our case). Imagine that error of John XXII (or similar) was repeated by some other pope but this time with ‘Bergolio’s’ attitude. Fate of both are, probably, different, as you said – one retracted error the other one did not. But error itself – is the same regardless of intentions of offender. Isn’t it? In case of pope, bishop, theologian some souls were exposed to danger of adopting said error. Does it matter to you, to your salvation, if error you are exposed to was committed with good or bad intention? Error is an error.
I know it is a little twist on the subject, but, imo, interesting one.
Louis: True. False Francis has opposed our Lord Jesus numerous times.
1) Instructing Muhammad’s gang to keep with the Quran, the faith of their fathers will not disappoint them.
2) He implied that our Holy Saviour sinned, by teaching at the Temple while Mary and Joseph worried about Him.
3) False Francis allowed homo false priest James Martin, to speak at the same event as himself in Dublin, Ireland. Martin deceitfully, disgustingly states that homosexuality is a gift from God.
4) He blasphemed against our Lord in Columbia, lying by stating that our Christ had pagan blood in His veins.
on and on…
Our Christ, Jesus Is The Truth. False Francis is a liar.
Thank you for this Louie. After I read the piece over at Rorate Caeli about who was the worst pope ever I wondered why the author did not come out unabashedly that “Bergoglio, for all his malice, blasphemy, heresy and power to lead Catholics to perdition” is the worst poseur to the Throne ever. Anyway, keep up your radiant work in pursuit of Truth and the Glory of God. God Bless and Keep You!!
Newbie here. The simple argument used on how a Pope can change “doctrinal matters that have long since been settled by Holy Mother Church” relates to Slavery and Usury. Also post-Vat2 “options” on everything under the sun.
What is the simple refutation (in less than 4 sentences) as to how changes in Slavery and Usury were not actual changes? If they can change on Slavery, they can change on gay relationships or anything? That’s what most uneducated people are being slowly brainwashed with.
It’s so painfully simple. Bergoglio spews lies, including heresy, daily–from his own mouth and through surrogates, and sometimes in writing. But he avoids spewing his heresy in the precise manner specified by Vatican I as indubitably protected from error: teaching on dogma or morals, formally invoking his apostolic authority, speaking ex cathedra, formally proposing his spewings to all the faithful as objects of divine and Catholic faith.
Thus, no one can argue, on the basis of Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility, that Bergoglio has handed us, on a silver platter, airtight proof that he is not pope.
Canon lawyers may be bound to construe Bergoglio’s spewings according to the law. But the Catholic in the pew is free to construe according to his wits.
It is not the Church’s teaching that changed. It is SLAVERY that changed. The American form of slavery, in which the slave was a chattel, over whom/which the master had arbitrary power of life and death, was an innovation, coming many years after the Church’s statements “approving” of slavery.
I need to discredit myself from the outset. I wish I had the depth of understanding of Catholic history and Canon law and so on, to make informed commentary about this topic. I don’t. I can only revert back to what I am relying on to know Bergolio cannot be pope. I can’t cut through all these arguments, there are too many and it swings back and forth, never settled. I must rely on Scripture, specifically that God told us that we would not recognize a false shepherd’s voice (we do not recognize Bergolio as shepherd), and that we are to reject a different gospel than the one Christ preached. (Bergolio’s gospel is not the same). This along with our simple Catholic sensus fidei, must be enough. Frankly, I cannot comprehend why we are having all these debates when the man is obviously not Catholic, and he is so destructive. What is that saying about straining a gnat…I don’t know, but we examine minute details when there are great gobs of evidence and have been since 2013. But we are looking for legal definitions, it seems. The world burns up in horrific sin while we are debating. It’s just killing time really, so no one does anything. While we are debating, how many babies are aborted, how many innocent children will be taken by morally lost parents to Drag Queen Story Hours, which grow more diabolical and vulgar by the minute. There is no spiritual leadership, the church has joined them. We’re in trouble.
The man, as pope, broke the First Commandment on the Feast Day of Christ the King, on Vatican garden grounds. He worshiped a false idol, and encouraged the church to do the same. For us, there is not another thing we ever need to see. That was sufficient and always will be. Why is this not enough for other Catholics, and for the bishops to end his reign of terror? If I were a bishop or a person of authority in the media or church, and I thought that and didn’t express it in order to defend Christ and to help Catholics, the pressure of holding that in would blow my teeth out, I would have to. I would take the consequences, knowing God sees all.
Oh and Louie, I agree with your point about a pope being mistaken. I wish we would clamor should a pope simply state an error and need to retract. Chances are now no one would notice or care. We are so off the rails as to experience an obvious Catholicism/Christ hater who has tormented us for 7 years and still don’t have the right men willing to state the case. He is not the scandal however, they are.
Again. If Bergolio keep steady in catholic teaching, or if instead of Bergolio we have some saint, let’s say st Francis, he still want be the Pope. The reason is: Benedict XVI still holds the Office.
Do yourself a favor and spend some of all that time you don’t have and let your fingers do the walking to all of the information available regarding the heresies of Benedict/Ratzinger, and then return and explain how he differs much from Bergoglio, who is not even a priest much less a Pope. That’s about the only thing Benedict has over him.
Did you even know that Pope Pius XII put him on the “suspected of heresy” list? That alone makes him ineligible to be Pope.
May God have mercy on your soul and mine.
It surely all seems daunting and I know the feeling well as I’ve been there, but at the same time it’s all really so simple. Ask the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to take you under her mantle, obtain for you the Light of Faith and all of the graces and guidance that YOU need in order to know the Truth about the situation and what it is that you must do (or renounce) in order to save your soul under these horrifying circumstances. If you do this, and then once you can see, I can’t even describe to you the feeling you will have of relief and comfort in moral certitude, despite any and all of the costs you may incur. Then and only then will you truly know the peace of Christ which the world (and its false church) cannot give.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us. Repeat this throughout the day and whenever you feel confused or distressed, for the intention of knowing the Truth.
Hello Arthur McGowan,
You simply have no idea of the error that you spew from your keyboard, as this thing itself speaks as res ipsa loquitur. Amen. It is the Singular as only Vatican Council which definitively as Authoritatively Judges Jorge Bergoglio, and at the pain of Hell for you and every other miserable creature who rejects the infallible teaching as do you, and Judges him as not having one iota of possibility in truth, of actually being the Vicar of Christ, as it Judges all of the rest of that cadre of false popes of the false church of Antichrist, since October, 1958, as not being true Shepherds as selected by the Holy Ghost, deFide, but as being wolves in Sheep’s clothing. Amen.
Vatican Council: 18 July, 1870, Session 4, Chapter 4, paragraph 7: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine….”
You demonstrate utterly profound error in your miserable fiat as you offer only your worthless opinion, that which will take you to Hell. Amen. Wake up man. A properly catechized 10 year old who actually held the Catholic Faith would know this and indeed must, to save his very soul, as do you. Amen. Not to mention, as you are obviously perfectly blinded to, it is a matter deFide, that Jorge Bergoglio is not even a priest. Save your soul. Submit to the divine and perpetual, Holy, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, Authoritatively teaches that even if a man who appears to be a Bishop, “deviates from the Faith”, and as judged to have done so by a layman, he then ipso-facto proves that he indeed never received Apostolic Consecration and as thus never in truth was a Bishop, as a matter deFide, which requires the assent of faith at the pain of Hell in opposition, as the Vatican Council infallibly teaches and, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, affirms. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
A Simple Beggar,
Did you even know that Pope Pius XII put him on the “suspected of heresy” list?
I know he was accused/suspected about heresy, didn’t know PiusXII did it.
That alone makes him ineligible to be Pope.
(And, please, answer the question only, without any decorations. Use encyclopedia-like style.)
You have given the definitive response to both these men: they have dishonored their personal reputations by publishing such nonsense.
I would add that it is the synthesis of all modernism to be unable to apply the moral and dogmatic teachings to particular cases and events and judge them as heretical. These men seem so obsessed about being accused of being a sede-vacantist that they are willing to jettison the entire Dogmatic Tradition of the Church on the point that heresy puts you outside of the communion of the Church iure divino.
Finally, I would point out, if the only heresy to be feared is the political incorrect position, then you are no longer acting on the basis of Dogmatic Faith, but have unwittingly substituted it for human faith in the Cardinals you extol upon the altars of your heart. And that is idolatry.
I would also point out that in the Old Testament, Idolatry was the bane of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and was its punishment for being in schism with the House of David in Judah. That implies in the very least that Bergoglio is the leader of a Schismatic group, not the true Church.
I support Pope Benedict, since he did not resign according to the norm of canon 332 §2.
To the one who calls himself, “Romanus sum”,
You miserable, miscreant, non-Catholic fool, you too are perfectly guilty of that which you accuse the other in your midst of. You are a pseudo-intellectual miscreant to the One True Church and Her divine and Catholic Faith, which as a perfect Gift, you utterly reject, you imbecile. As you submit to Josef Ratzinger, you submit to the church of the Antichrist, as you submit to Lumen Gentium 16, you imbecilic moron. You deny the very Divinity of The Christ, as you hate Him in Truth, and you are simply another fool, wearing the metaphysical accidental forms of the Church, while at once demonstrating as objectively, that you are perfectly desolate of the Substantial Form Who is The Christ. Save your soul, you miscreant, imbecilic wretch, and to do so, you must first deny your wretched self and all that you hold freely in your intellect and will that is utterly in opposition to the true Church, as established by the Son of God made true Man. Take up your personal cross then and follow The Christ. Amen. Alleluia. I pray you submit before you draw your last putrid breath. In caritas.
Here you go:
”6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain VALID IN PERPETUITY; We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at ANY time it shall APPEAR that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments,howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration,_ of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
[Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolic Officio, 15 February, 1559]
The Church’s Teaching hasn’t changed. ‘Slavery’ that was approved of in the Old Testament had to largely do with debt repayment, and those who of their own free will became slaves and dependent on someone to look after them. Other forms of unjust slavery where no crime or debt was incurred and people are taken captive against their will was forbidden, with exceptions due to war, and even these as well as other slaves were not slaves for life but had to be freed and given land at every Jubilee. Today, such ‘slavery’ is replaced by systems such as banking, government protection, insurance and credit corporations like Visa and Mastercard. Get into debt and your income, assets, home etc. are all seizable and used as collateral.
And as for ‘Usury’, the Church’s position hasn’t changed on that either. But it has become more nuanced over time as not all interest or fees above the principle loan are categorically ‘Usurious.’ Investment became a new thing, as did the issues that stem from the replacement of gold and silver standards with currency that become devalued through inflation and overprinting. So the usage of money and new forms of making it is what became complicated. So Usury is still forbidden and still exists, but not all interest constitutes usury.
As time goes on the Church is called on to deal with new situations, and other common examples also revolve around the question of when life begins in the discussion of abortion, cloning, contraceptives etc. and the science behind these things has been examined and questioned and opined as new technology comes forth, and the Church had ruled definitively against these things. And as time goes on new questions will arise, and the Church will either bind or loose certain teachings depending on certain circumstances.
Modernists try and use these examples to try and justify their evil and making lax every moral law which they use via attempting to overemphasize buzwords like circumstance, situation, conscience etc. as a way to get away with whatever they want, as they are doing with adultery, sodomy, the death penalty, ecumenism and the idea of expanding roles for women (really fake priestesses). Don’t fall for their horseshit.
There is no way in Hell that Bergolio is ‘mistaken.’
Mistaken men do not behave in the way that he does.
If a mistaken man believes he is correct, he has no problem openly confronting those who question him, and submitting himself to scrutiny, especially if he is someone devoted to God and the Truth which is inseparable from Him. The truly humble mistaken man always seeks clarity and openly speaks his mind. That’s how honest men behave.
Bergolio is a sly fox, he’s crafty with his words, he knows when to maintain silence and speak in vagueries for maximum effect and how to hide behind others like Kasper, Scalrafi and the rest of his ilk. In fact he has even slipped up and openly proclaimed that he knows what the Church teaches is but really doesn’t give a damn, as he did concerning the Death Penalty, and as he’s obstinately done when confronted by questions he refuses to answer at face level on Amoris Letitia, except by action such as his approval of the Argentinian bishops’ interpretation. As it is the Jesuits are full of heretics openly proclaiming errors they know to be in conflict with Tradition out in the open and know no-one will do anything to stop them.
It’s sad to see men like Chris Ferrera now bending over backwards and contorting themselves to try and salvage this evil man, when even a child could openly tell you that the emperor has no clothes, and neither does this ‘Pope.’ If this was any other guy other than one with the appearance of the Pope, everyone and his dog would be barking at his head. Now put the veneer of the office of the Pope on him and, hey presto, he suddenly immune from all common sense criticism!
Let’s not be so daft here. Ferrera is now compromised. It’s one thing before, where he would still respect Francis as theoretically being the holder of the Office and provide him with the benefit of the doubt. It’s another thing to cover up for Francis’ heretical crimes, as he just did trying to excuse magisterially enforced heresy as just some disciplinary action, as if these can be separated. It’s about as moronic as declaring that Francis permitting reception of the Eucharist to publicly unrepentant abortionists because this is what the Lord is supposedly asking of them at this particular time is just some ‘disciplinary’ action. Ferrera has lost his friggin mind. And I would even go so far as to accuse Ferrera of cowardice. Ferrera is actually not saying this to solely to cover for Francis, but really to give himself an excuse not to consider the next uncomfortable logical step. It would be more refreshing and honest to admit that he is frightened of doing so and considering the possibility that Francis is an Anti-Pope and we’re in a terrible situation of not knowing what to do, or of possibly himself being ‘mistaken’ about such action… but if just being ‘mistaken’ is enough to get Bergolio off the hook, then I don’t see why it should be altogether bad if any of us are honestly ‘mistaken’ about Bergolio not being the Pope if he actually is. There is every excuse under the Sun from Benedict’s suspicious resignation to conclave shenanigans to Bergolio’s past and his own current actions to believe that Bergolio’s status as a ‘Pope’ is questionable from every angle, possibly guilty on all counts.
In all common sense examination, there is no doubt that Bergolio is a flaming formal heretic. The only question to be resolved is whether he was ever validly granted the office of the Pope given questions still hover over the ‘abdication’ of Benedict XVI, as there is a lot of smoke revolving around the Germans, including Ratzinger over the idea of expanding the Papal Office to include more than one member, and Archbishop Ganswein had been singing about this novelty like a bird as if Benedict performed some ‘miracle.’
So here stand the possibilities:
a) Francis is the Pope due to some hypothetical thing we are all missing but presuming is there (bwa-ha-ha! How modernist!).
b) Francis was the Pope and at some point publicly manifested formal heresy and cast himself from the Church leaving us in a state of sedevacantism, and he’s only legally considered holding the office until formal declaration i.e. innocent until declared guilty by the proper authority – who would then not be judging a Pope, but in reality, a former one. And even then, as direct witnesses to a murder don’t have to wait for the court to deliver the verdict of what they saw with their own eyes, not all have to wait for a verdict from a Council or future pontificate to make historically binding upon future generations what they themselves are directly witnessing.
c) Benedict XVI’s abdication was a failure due to substantial error and/or coercion and he remains the Pope and Francis is an Anti-Pope.
d) Benedict XVI’s abdication was not only a failure, but depending on whether or not it is Benedict XVI who is ‘mistaken’ or ‘complicit’, Benedict XVI himself can be judged as having undertaken such action based on obstinate formal heresy of belief of expanding the Papal Office, and thus he himself ceased to be a member of the Church, thus losing the Papacy, not on grounds of abdication/retirement, but on formal heresy, making Francis’ election to the Papacy valid, which would then bring us back to options A & B.
There is of course the whole sede theory stretching back to every pontificate up to Pius XII or further, but I’ve already made my hesitancy to this theory known multiple times because it is difficult to establish with certainty that these men were formal obstinate heretics, without also using the same criteria to call into question the Papacies extending back to the 1800’s over allowing the formally defined heresy of Copernicus and Galileo to run rampant and be taught and spread through every organ of the Church, even declaring this heresy publicly as acceptable through Papal scandal, subsequently leading to the necessity of a council such as Vatican II to further amend the Church in light of the Galileo Affair. However, here and now, it is still possible to examine Benedict XVI and Francis.
Thank you A Simple Beggar,
let’s look at the quote you provided.
First, I do have some doubts how to classify this document, as doctrinal or as administrative/disciplinary. I have arguments for both sides but tend to lean more that it is indeed doctrinal. I know, my opinion in that matter doesn’t mean much. Anyway, let’s agree that this document is valid today as it was when published by Paul IV.
Please, let me condense your quote to what is important for our purposes. Correct me if I have it wrong:
if anybody appeared to deviate from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy in the past he can not be elected to position of cardinal or pope
So, it refers only to those to be or already are cardinals and popes, thus document applies to Card Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict XVI. I think ‘no problemo’ here.
Key word for our purposes today is “appear”. Did Ratzinger appeared to deviate from Faith? You and I may have our opinions but did he really appeared to be heretic? Only in this case he is banned. So what “appear” means? Does one has to became formally convicted of heresy or is it enough if he seems to be heretical to me or to you. Luckily we don’t have to exchange arguments because document itself puts this matter out clear:
Cum Ex Apostolic Officio applies to group of persons (specified in Bull by name, Ratzinger is in this category) who:
(a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these
Now, to my knowledge, Joseph Ratzinger was suspected but never convinced of heresy, nor he confessed one. Thus he is not banned to became cardinal by CEAO, regardless of what you or I think.
Also is is not clear to me at this moment (I will have to spend more time on this document) if CEAO applies only to those who have fallen into heresy and remain in it or does it apply also to those who once heretics converted and fully adopted Faith. I lean to first opinion. But this is not the point here. The point is that Joseph Ratzinger have never been (to my knowledge) convicted of heresy thus CEAO does not prohibit him to be elected Pope.
Hopes this clears things a little.
Now, as I know you are sedevacantist, pay attention to other part of this Bull. I quote it and mark some part, but wont comment. I leave it for you to mediate upon.
the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith
You’re welcome, M.C.
I only have a moment right now and can address the first part of your question/statement.
The classification matters little. You have to look at the LANGUAGE: “In perpetuity”; “We enact, determine, decree and define”. There is no getting around that language coming from the Pope and NO one can contradict it so I would caution you, as he later warns what penalty applies to those who do.
As far as Ratzinger goes YES he wouldn’t have been placed on the list of those “suspect of heresy” by the POPE if it did not APPEAR that he had deviated in some way from the Faith. Now a simple search will provide you with plenty of evidence that Ratzinger WAS a clear-cut heretic (nevermind Benedict – he, too, had his Assisi and allowed and participated in idol worship just like Francis). Search “heresies of Cardinal Ratzinger” or of pope Benedict. I’d give examples but I don’t have time at the moment.
NOW re-read the below:
“”6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain VALID IN PERPETUITY; We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at ANY time it shall APPEAR that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;”
I hope that perhaps this can be a springboard to more study by you, supported by prayers for the graces you need at this time to recognize the Truth. Also read the 1st Epistle of John.
Here is something to watch but I am not a member of their heretical sect (I went through each one prior to resting in my position with Moral Certitude; the issue of Jurisdiction was my main concern at the end stage). This video is factual. If the link doesn’t work then search “YouTube heresies of Benedict”.
ASB, you state that you landed in several places before ending up in your current place of moral certitude. I am sure you believed with moral certitude that you were in the proper place at the other places you landed. What makes you think you have arrived there now? A “feeling” like “Fr” Hesse? An inspiration on the toilet like Luther? Look, I probably agree with 99.9% of the things you agree with. But neither of us has any authority or competence to proclaim with moral certitude on the current crisis of faith in the world.
Johnno, the problem with your position is that there eventually becomes no need to have a Pope since you think they really cannot be trusted to tell us the Truth.
No I did NOT have moral certitude with ANY other position, only questions and doubts. From the moment I switched to the “Latin Mass” I began asking questions and never stopped, unlike most. Some years back (by the Grace of God) I came to the conclusion that the N.O. church could not possibly be the Church, and the rest followed over time in stages, some where God forced my hand (next move). I had to overcome my own cognitive dissonance and perhaps even normalcy bias.
You believe the Truth is unattainable and that we are abandoned and left to wander. I, on the other hand, believe that God keeps ALL of His promises.
The Truth is somewhere, Tom. Will it be with you, or with Christ (The Church’s PERPETUAL, UNAMBIGUOUS and AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM)?
I forgot something, Tom.
You also believe that it’s all up to us to try to figure out the crisis, and whatever any particular individual believes the response should be is just A-OK. You obviously don’t understand, then, that without God we can do NOTHING, and that only GOD can lead us to the Truth if we are PROPERLY DISPOSED to receive it (to have blindness removed), we ask Him for it and then have the intention of following that Truth, once found, AT ANY AND ALL COSTS.
ASB, “even the elect shall be deceived.” Why do you insist that you have figured it all out when Sacred Scripture warns you of the deception that we all face?
A Simple Beggar,
I understand being short on time. No problem.
Classification of papal document do matter, but we don’t have to stop hee because we are in agreement re CEAO.
As far as Ratzinger goes YES he wouldn’t have been placed on the list of those “suspect of heresy” by the POPE if it did not APPEAR that he had deviated in some way from the Faith.
The word ‘appear’ can mean ‘seems to’ like in a sentence “John appear to be drunken’.
This word also can be used as ‘occurred’. For example: ‘John was involved in car accident. After tests it appeared he was drunk’.
In first meaning what appeases to be does not necessary has connection to objective truth. John appears to be drunk but in reality he can be drunk or not. In second meaning there is close connection between what appeared and what is. It come out that John was drunk.
This is for English. We, of course, should use Latin. But we don’t have to. CEAO precises this matter for us. I provided relevant quote. You insist in holding to first meaning from English and read ‘appear’ as ‘seem to’. This is not correct.
“YouTube heresies of Benedict”
Let’s make clear what we are trying to do here.
You said that Joseph Ratzinger “ineligible to be Pope”.
I asked “Why?”
You pointed to CEAO.
I showed that this document doesn’t make him ineligible.
Now I’m waiting for you to show me that I’m wrong or come up with another reason for his ineligibility.
We are looking, so far, if CEAO renders Joseph Ratzinger capable becoming a pope or not. We are not examining your opinion of Ratzinger being heretic.
If you think that B16 deviated from the Catholic Faith this document shows you path – contradict him.
You appear ( 🙂 ) to reject his papacy for some reason. But you know what? He is not alone, many in the Church appear ( 🙂 ) mistaken in understanding of ecumenism (as an example). You consequently reject the Church. I tell you, that you are wrong. Come back, confess, repent.
This is the plain truth, taught to all children who are reared in the true unchangeable Catholic Faith.
Yes, Melanie – the Catholic Faith is knowable by a child who has reached the age of reason; heresy, and contumacious public heresy (multiplied over and over in the case of Jorge Bergoglio) is knowable by such child. Not to mention that anyone can access JB vigorously promoting his anti-Catholic and anti-moral reason evils over and over, in writing, in speech, in action, etc. Up to recent times, one had to rely upon official written statements emanating from Holy See and published by bishops around the world.
“It is plain, Jorge Bergoglio – if he ever was a member of the Body of the Church – has made it known that he has severed himself from it and, therefore, cannot be pope.”
Of course. To say otherwise is to say the Faith is not knowable (absurd) and the whole Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection, Ascension and Descent of Holy Ghost is for naught. JB can be watched, listened to over and over showing he is not a Catholic, but a despiser of God and his Holy Church, intent on leading many others out of the Church and to Hell.
A Catholic child who is found to know the Faith and fit to make his First Confession, Confirmation knows JB has demonstrated continually that he is not a member of the Church. The Faith is unchangeable, teachable, knowable, and never goes against natural reason.
You know because you know the Holy Faith handed down unchanged; and assent thereto.
We are to pretend we don’t know the Faith, that we don’t have moral reason, that we cannot see or hear what JB is saying, doing (and refusing to do) over and over in writing, in video-recorded speech and acts. Never before these past few decades has one been able to see and hear the evil heresies, and other mortal sins directly, as if one were physically present over and over as JB promotes his hatred of God, the Holy Faith, even onto the fundamental moral law known to man by his reason.
Debating over the meaning of “appear” isn’t necessary because Ratzinger exposed himself as an heretic quite PUBLICLY in his books and writings through the year, and later as an apostate while posing as “Pope” (i.e. Assisi 2). The contrary cannot possibly be argued. I know well how difficult it is to come to terms with all of this, but you must if you really want to save your soul. Pray to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for guidance and the Truth of these matters, because only God can help you; you mustn’t rely on yourself.
ASB, “you mustn’t rely on yourself.” But that is exactly what we have to do when there is no authority to tell you what to do. While it will always be true that God gives us His Graces to help us towards salvation, without an earthly authority to guide us all as one, we have no choice but to rely on ourselves. You yourself admitted that you have found certitude through some method of discernment and prayer. You were never promised the Divine assistance of infallibility. Your opinion on the state of the Church and apostolic succession and validity and licitness of sacraments is simply your opinion based on your individual reasoning. You are relying on your own understanding of magisterial documents and your own prayer experience. From those two individual sources you proclaim moral certitude. Martin Luther would be proud.
A Simple Beggar,
Debating over the meaning of “appear” isn’t necessary because Ratzinger exposed himself as an heretic quite PUBLICLY
It is hard to discuss with somebody who completely ignores what you say and repeats his opinion ad nauseam.
Seems that you are using reason in a wrong way. This is very common. You don’t use reason to discover the Truth but to defend your position after you already made your mind. I cant stop you thinking that B16 is not the Pope, what I can do is to show that such opinion is not rational.
Try to read again, slowly, my last post and try to answer it.
I know well how difficult it is to come to terms with all of this
Well, there was time when I was almost there. I know about defending one’s positions regardless of anything, against all odds, against facts and logic, about fabricating bunch of ‘proofs’ that can convince you that your decision is right but are not proofs at all to anybody else. I think, now I have it more or less right, but am open to facts. You are welcome to provide those facts and chain of logical thinking.
So far your statement about CEAO banning Ratzinger becoming pope is (seems to be) false one. I’m not talking if he is or he is not heretic in your opinion or in reality. I look only at role of this papal bulla in rendering Rtzinger incapable of sitting on Peter’s Chair. CEAO only.
I’m pretty immune to emotional bullying (not sure if this is right word but I hope you know what I mean, call it ‘brain washing’ if you wish).
ASB, the Truth is unattainable because the Truth is Jesus Christ an eternal infinite being that we can never fully know in this earthly life. We can only know what He chose to reveal to us and the task of teaching that revealed Truth lies solely with the authority of the Church. ASB and IC doing a lot of praying and discerning and reading of deceased Popes is not the source of the authority to tell us the state of apostolic succession, the validity of sacraments, or the licitness that some claim from supplied jurisdiction.
I have no words for you, but NO, NO, NO, NO…
The Truth (about this situation and otherwise) is only unattainable without God, Jesus Christ, God the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Christ speaking through His Holy Vicars in His Magisterium as well as the Holy Scriptures. If the Truth is unattainable, then the entire Catholic religion is a lie and a joke.
You go and continue on relying on yourSELF, all abandoned with an imagined license to wander, and I’ll rely on the promises of Jesus Christ and His Voice.
I harbor absolutely no ill will toward you whatsoever, but your thinking is deranged and you are blind and deceived. You also lack the ability to connect the proverbial dots. Time is extremely short – see you on Judgment Day. May God have mercy on us both.
For a Catholic there cannot be a variety of opinions with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments.
There is only one Truth.
God has foreknown the times we live in from all eternity and in his providence has prepared us for these times.
We can still hear his voice and that of his true shepherds and so we can know the Truth.
Ursula, we hear the echo of Popes but as time passes the flock of faithful cannot hold without a True Shepherd. Where is that Voice today that we can all trust and follow? This is the ugly truth of sedevacantism, no authority, no voice, no shepherd. These dogmatic sedevacantists like ASB rightly reject the authority of the Conciliar heretics, but knowing that the Church operates on authority set up their own authority structure. ASB sets it up based on his personal experiences and prayer life. Others like CMRI and SSPV set it up based on an imperfect incomplete hierarchal organization using supplied jurisdiction as their rationale. What is a faithful Catholic to do? Who can a faithful Catholic trust? I do not have the answer and neither does anyone else in this forum. And that is my point, none of you have any answers that I can trust until we have a Pope. If you are one of those people who think Frankie or Benny is Pope, well good luck, go assent to their teachings.
you helped me in the past to come away from the R&R position, so I am grateful to you. I think you are stuck and would really like to help you.
Has God prepared us for these times?
Has he given us enough to know the truth?
Can we know what we must do as Catholics?
Ursula, we know the Commandments, we know we can take our prayers to the Blessed Virgin. We know all the things the Church taught us prior to 1958. We know the Rosary and its three mysteries. We know our traditional catechism. We cannot know things that require competent authority such as validity and succession. There are those on this site who think they have figured it all out and have made claims that they have no authority to make.
Your answer to my all my questions then seems to be “No”. I have asked you specifically about whether or not God has prepared us for these times and if we can know how to live as Catholics now (including access to the Mass and the Sacraments).
“We cannot know things that require competent authority such as validity and succession. There are those on this site who think they have figured it all out and have made claims that they have no authority to make.”
We have the PERPETUAL Magisterium left to us by Jesus Christ as our competent Authority on validity and succession. Please look up the definition of perpetual. There is a small remnant of Catholics who also understood this long before did anyone here, even as John XXIII was elected and then thereafter and during Vatican II, BY THE GRACE OF GOD.
Jesus Christ said He is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the Life, and that no ones comes to the Father but by Him. As HE is the VOICE speaking in that Magisterium, then we must TRUST, OBEY and FOLLOW only HIS VOICE, not that of the likes of Tom A. This is the safest and surest path to salvation at this time. He has spoken and given is the WAY, and the TRUTH, and has NOT abandoned us but EVEN TODAY is keeping His promises.
Sr. Lucia stated that we should look to Apoc Ch. 12 at this time. Verse 6 states that the woman (the Church) flees to a place prepared by God in the wilderness to be fed. She told us that the LAST remedies are the Rosary and the Devotion to her Immaculate Heart. This clearly signifies that the normal remedies of the Mass, the Eucharist and Confession will not be available as they are normally THE remedies. We have Baptism, Spiritual Communions, Perfect Acts of Contrition and even Matrimony. The Church has spoken and condemned the error that states that Perfect Acts of Contrition are not sufficient when a priest isn’t available.
“Doomed to wander” as you say you are, in nothing but doubts, you cling to YOUR doubtful sacraments and reject Christ’s Voice at the most critical point in history. We HAVE been left with the WAY and the TRUTH, but YOU have decided it no longer applies when to the contrary CHRIST told us HIS instructions are PERPETUAL, and actually blaspheme Him and the Holy Ghost in saying that He cannot reveal the Truth to anyone He so chooses and that the Truth is “unattainable”, simply because YOU disagree and have decided to set aside the Perpetual Magisterium. The Church always taught that the Faith comes BEFORE Sacraments, that we must know from whence our pastors come, and doubtful Sacraments are no Sacraments , yet you still obstinately persist in your worthless opinion in blatant disobedience to Christ.
Your position makes no sense to those who by the Grace of God alone can see, and it makes me wonder who and what you really are.
Ursula, ASB has all answers. He thinks he can read papal documents from the past and divine what they mean for our unique situation. I am not sure why you are asking me what to do. I already told you and everyone else that I have no authority to pronounce the proper path. Go to Novus Ordo Watch web site and click on the question “Now what.” He explains all the things we can know based on what the Church taught prior to 1958.
If the deception be so great that “even the Elect” would be deceived, then how can anyone possibly go wrong by following the Perpetual Voice of Christ in HIS Magisterium under these circumstances? In strict Justice they can’t, but one CAN be deceived if they dare to reject it; then they are indeed and as YOU say, “left doomed to wander”.
How could Christ possibly deceive anyone, who, with the trust, confidence, and obedience of a LITTLE CHILD is simply obeying His rules and instructions, denying SELF as a true Christian must, seeing as He is GOD and FORESAW and allowed this situation to begin with?
Magisterium (guidance and protection) VS. Make it up/Do whatever you will (left doomed to wander).
Pardon the usage of this ridiculous expression but, “DUH!!?”
But by the Grace of God alone, there go I…
ASB, please show me one instance where I advised anyone to go to any sacrament. I have said over and over that none of us have that authority to declare them valid or invalid. Except of course you and IC believe you have uncovered the applicable documents that definitively settle the issue. And have I ever condemned you for staying home? Nope, I haven’t. But you two have had no problem hurling dozens of anathema sits at many posters in this combox for coming to the conclusions they arrived at.
The answers are somewhere (!) not nowhere, so I’m taking my “chances” with the very clear and unambiguous Magisterium of Holy MOTHER Church. YOU say there are no answers and that I follow my own interpretation. If must be simply that you lack reading comprehension ability and are unable to comprehend these documents which were NOT ONLY written for clergy, prelates and theologians, BY THE WAY. You also blaspheme when you say that God has not left us a sure path TODAY, and/or that we cannot KNOW it BY HIS GRACE. God help you – seriously.
The problem ASB is that you are assigning magisterial force to canonical issues and failing to draw distinctions. You are also negating the Supreme Law of the Church which is the Salvation of Souls. You and IC have declared with moral certitude the end of apostolic succession based on your own personal interpretations of papal documents. Not all canonical papal bulls are magisterial in nature. Many are simply for the purposes of proper governance. And surely no Pope would ever want his Bull or Law to the be the legal mechanism to deny the faithful the sacraments which are of immense assistance for our salvation. But you two have made the final call that there are no more sacraments to be had. And what Pope did you consult to see if that is what the meaning of those Bulls represents? Well none of course. But not to worry, ASB has “discerned” and he has a very good feeling this time from his pious prayer that the sacraments are no more. And you expect us to listen to that? If you had just said from the onset that you doubt the sacraments and their validity and licitness and therefore chose to stay home, I never would have challenged you or IC. But you continue to plaster your opinions in this combox as moral dogmatic facts.
I agree you haven’t condemned my position, per se, or told anyone where to go for Sacraments, but your poison is that you imply that there ARE valid Sacraments to be had and as such you are aiding and abetting continued sacrilege and idolatry. Souls are at stake!!! You simply don’t seem to get that.
I don’t write here to argue with Tom A, I couldn’t possibly care any less about what Tom or anyone here thinks about me or my (Catholic) position. I write and spend valuable time I don’t have in order to try to help (Christ) save whatever soul that I possibly can from popular DECEPTIONS.
A minuscule number of people are saved, and we are living in the time of deception. You are quite DARING to say that someone is deceived or “self-interpreting” by following the Magisterium, and NOT deceived if they reject it (Christ) as no longer holding any Authority because there is no Pope.
One can draw distinctions and self-interpret Canon Law all the way into hell.
The Supreme Law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls is right, and that’s PRECISELY why She gave us certain commands, rules and instructions THROUGH HER MAGISTERIUM, so WE MIGHT ACTUALLY SAVE OUR SOULS and not wander!
God is not limited to His own Sacraments – we are NOT in ordinary times! You simply don’t want to believe that; apparently you’re too worldy and attached to your wretched life on this wretched earth.
you obviously misunderstood me. I did not ask you to answer these questions for me – I did not ask you where to go to Mass.
Let me answer the questions for you:
Yes, God prepared us for these times.
Yes, he gave us everything we need to know the truth.
Yes, Catholics know what to do in these times. For example Catholics know not to approach doubtful sacraments.
You need to answer those questions, too. It looks like your answer is No to all of them.
Tom – READ THE BULL CUM EX of Pope Paul IV- THE INTRO – the LANGUAGE. He said that “Lest it may befall us to see the Abomination of desolation…standing in the Holy Place…”, “WE ENACT, DETERMINE, DECREE and DEFINE (infallible, authority, TOM), and that NO ONE can EVER contradict this. You DARE to contradict it? Well, according to the POPE, you have some wrath to come upon you.
It is because what the good Pope above warned about has come to pass that we have NO PUBLIC Sacraments, but instead the Abomination of desolation.
You also deny Scripture which states that the Sacrifice will FAIL and the failure continues to the consummation. How else does it fail, Tom? You’re a coward, you’re afraid. It’s as simple as that.
An old Sermon for today by. Fr. Hunolt in the 1800s which addresses CONFIDENCE in GOD: http://www.jmjsite.com/v3continual_confidence_in_god.pdf
“We must not waver in our confidence in God; because nothing can resist His almighty power.
It seems impossible to us to attain an end by contrary means: to use means that run directly counter to the end proposed, with a view of gaining that end! How can that be? Who can understand such things, to our weak understanding seemingly absurd, incomprehensible, nay, impossible? God can easily do that and He cautions us not to judge rashly of what we cannot understand:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts” (Is. 4: 8, 9). God is infinite wisdom; He is able to bring about the desired result by means that, tend in quite a contrary direction. He is almighty, to whom nothing is impossible; hence we must believe that He can cause temporal prosperity by misfortune; that He can exalt by humbling, protect by persecution, enrich by poverty, give true peace to the soul by first depriving it of consolation, and turning the instruments that were prepared for our destruction into the means of bringing us happiness and prosperity.”
ASB, again, do you think Pope Paul IV’s intent with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was to keep heretics from being Pope or to someday during the Great Apostasy end Apostolic Succession?
Ursula, my comments here are mostly to point out the absurd reasoning manifested by certain commentators to arrive at their conclusions. Even if I agree with their conclusions.
To the heretic who calls himself, “Tom A”,
You are so utterly maligned in your perverse thinking Tom A, that you simply cannot even understand what your intellect communicates in your very own writing, as it is pure contradiction, you jingoistic, belligerent, neo-pagan heretic. “Contradiction”, in truth, does not exist, as it is absurd, and it can only be known as the privation of the good which is due, you imbecilic idiot. It is not even proper to identify you as an apostate, as it is clear that you could never have held the divine and Catholic Faith, in this time of the desolation of Antichrist, with Apostolic Succession now lost, deFide, since Oct., 27, 1958, as per, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, Amen. You continually affront the DIVINE, LIVING, Authoritative, perpetual, unending and unchanging thus, Teaching and Governing of The Christ Himself, as that is what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium simply Is, you non-Catholic fool. It has been deemed as, “Living”, and, “Perpetual”, by the divine Magisterial Authority himself, as the true Vicar of Christ, you utter heretic. As it is, “LIVING”, it continues to teach and govern, you heretical fool. The only change since Oct., 1958, is that it cannot be added to. Canon Law, you imbecilic moron, is part and parcel with the Magisterium, as it can ONLY be changed by the Vicar of Christ himself, as he alone was given the Gift of the, “keys to bind and loose”, deFide, and as we are bound to submit to his governing and discipline with the SAME ASSENT OF FAITH as to his Authoritative Teaching on Faith and Morality, and at the very pain of Hell, where you continually demonstrate your miserable as final disposition to be, on the sure and certain path to, and with apodictic as metaphysical (not moral) certitude, as you affront Jesus the Christ, time and again, as if immemorial now. Let your yes be yes and your no, no, as anything else is from the devil, as commanded by The Christ. Jesus the Christ cannot bind us to error and we are bound to the governing and discipline of the Vicar of Christ, at the pain of Hell, as Authoritatively taught in the Vatican Council and affirmed in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, by Pope Pius XII, as you have been warned now time and again, you imbecilic fool, on your certain path to Hell. Amen. Alleluia. The Church has always understood the governing and discipline to be protected by the so called, “negative charism of infallibility”, as not, “infallible per se”, as it can change by the Singular Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, but protected from error, as we are bound to it, at the pain of Hell, and Jesus the Christ cannot bind us to error, you blasphemous miscreant. You are an utter idiot Tom A. Literally, a glib pseudo-intellectual fool, as you continually demonstrate in your writing, which is ONLY your fiat, YOUR OPINION, damning you to Hell thus, as it is ONLY TRUTH, which can get a soul to Heaven, deFide.
And so any poor soul as me, who actually yearns to glorify Jesus the Christ, by earning his own personal salvation, through each his own submission into the LIVING and PERPETUAL, divine, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is The Christ Teaching and Governing His Mystical Body, His Bride, the Church, and unto the Last Day, know this then from section 9 of, “Satis Cognitum”, which again condemns Tom A as the obstinate heretic that he objectively proves himself to be time and again, not at all interested in Magisterial correction, as he objectively rests outside the Holy Church, where there is no salvation, deFide:
“And so Hilary: “Christ teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend” (Comment. in Matt. xiii., n. I).”
You see Tom A, the Magisterium is the LIVING, TEACHING, and GOVERNING of Jesus the Christ Himself, as the, “word of life is deposited and preached”. Do you even understand the meaning of the word, “PREACHED”, Tom A, you pseudo-intellectual moron? It is not the words of, “dead Popes”, as you claim in your utter blasphemy of The Christ. Nowhere does it teach that it must be, “reinterpreted”, as that belief is itself heresy, as Truth is Jesus the Christ and He is immutable. The Magisterium teaches that it is the Holy Ghost who gives the supernatural Gift of Faith to those who actually will it, by their submission into that same divine Magisterium as the, “commands”, of The Christ. You claim the need for, “an interpreter”, of Truth Himself, you miserable, heretical, miscreant, imbecilic fool. Any true Catholic who yet breathes in the wretched kingdom of this world, whose Prince as your Prince Tom A, is Lucifer, as you continue to deceive, accuse, and malign the Truth, KNOWS precisely what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches, and submits to the Magisterial governance of that same Magisterium. We know this because The Christ and His Magisterium commands that all those who hold the divine and Catholic Faith, do so because the Blessed Paraclete has given them this at once perfectly undeserved Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith, such that we can know the Truth. Pure and simple Tom A. Pure and simple as a 10 year old can and must receive, you imbecilic non-Catholic heretical fool. “Satis Cognitum”, Authoritatively commands why you do not understand the Magisterium Tom A, as you are outside the Church, deFide, and your utter as pure fiat in opinion is, “like sterile and worthless sand”. Amen.
Lastly for now, to clarify and correct another of your innumerable heresies, for the benefit of anyone who has a zeal for Truth, as written above by you:
“ASB, the Truth is unattainable because the Truth is Jesus Christ an eternal infinite being that we can never fully know in this earthly life. We can only know what He chose to reveal to us and the task of teaching that revealed Truth lies solely with the authority of the Church.”
The Catholic Church actually teaches that Almighty God is at once— infinitely knowable, while infinitely known only unto Himself— you blasphemous, glib, pseudo-intellectual, heretical fool. God is never completely known to His creature, even and of course, in the Beatific Vision, you miscreant heretic. That said, we do Know the Truth by virtue of receiving the supernatural Gift of the divine and Catholic Faith, as that is PRECISELY what being a Catholic means, you heretic. You do not know this Tom A, because you are NOT CATHOLIC, rather you are a devilish, neo-pagan, heretic, on your sure and certain path to your very own personal eternity in Hell. Amen. Alleluia. The Christ commanded that it would be better for one who would teach his children heresy, that he have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea. Be warned yet again Tom A. You defy Jesus the Christ. Amen. In caritas.
How many persons are you Tom A?,
You again now refer to, “ASB”, in the masculine. You have been told now that ASB is a woman and more than once. Are you really and truly that much of an imbecile, even in temporal understandings, or are you legion? Perhaps you are legion, as the devils you serve, you heretical fool, on your sure and certain path to eternal Hell. Amen.
You again author this absurdity, as only someone could, and again as you’ve been corrected for this exact lie before, who simply defies common sense, as you are blinded in your very own utter hubris:
“ASB, again, do you think Pope Paul IV’s intent with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was to keep heretics from being Pope or to someday during the Great Apostasy end Apostolic Succession?”
You are that much of an utter imbecile, while at once posing as a pseudo-intellectual, to actually as literally write that any lawgiver, yet alone the Singular Lawgiver as the Vicar of Jesus the Christ, is some how tantamount to the LAWBREAKER, because of the law he authors. You are so imbecilic Tom A that the word, “imbecile”, offers for you as descriptively, logarithmic expressions more than your intellective power can muster. You foolish idiot. Amen. Tom A deems that the Lawgiver as the Vicar of Christ, somehow, “INTENDS”, that his Law should be broken, simply because he Authors it, and with divine Authority no less. So you ACCUSE the Vicar of Christ, as Pope Paul IV, of being the lawbreaker in his intention, simply because he writes a Law to protect the flock from the poisonous error of heresy by writing a Law, because that same Vicar of Christ, as Pope Paul IV himself, is the one who, “end [s] Apostolic Succession.”, as according to the imbecilic idiot Tom A. Your malignant hubris is so utterly self-consuming Tom A, that it is almost as if you are already in Hell, writing your perverse and false accusations of Pope Paul IV, as though you are seated next to the Great Accuser himself as Lucifer who is your master, as you are his slave, you hideous creature. May God be yet merciful upon your grotesque soul. In caritas.
Tom, just a few comments: You seem to accept ASB’s conclusion regarding not attending the Sedevacantists’ (and others) Mass and Sacraments, yet you directed me to the NOW page that lists Sedevacantist Mass centres. These cannot be both valid options for a Catholic.
Also, there exists clear guidance in Papal documents (for clarity I would like to add “Quo Primum” by Pope St. Pius V to the four main documents ASB and IC refer to), which apply to our times. One can argue their meaning and relevance away all you like to justify the SV (+ other) priests, but you will be left with an element of doubt. There is however no place for doubt in the Catholic sacramental life.
Finally, you left out an important part when you quoted Matthew 24;24 “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (IF IT WERE POSSIBLE) even the elect.”
Tom A, you have a lot of patience to take the abuse you have from these people. I don’t think that I would write another comment on here if I kept being written at like In caritas writes at you. It’s getting a bit psycho. I hope you have a very merry Christmas. May God bless you in the new year.
Melanie, thank you and Merry Christmas. Every fuming outburst from him affirms he can no longer carry on with the debate and must resort to ad hominem attacks. That is the tactic he uses to scare people from making comments. Typical bully.
IC has defined his terms, and they are employed to reflect the GRAVITY of the situation. IC seeks nothing more than to prevent other confused souls from falling into the same precarious trap in which Tom A finds himself. He is fighting the very demons and Satan who want Tom A’s soul as well as yours and mine, alongside the Blessed Virgin Mary under the Standard of Jesus Christ. Our battle is NOT against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in high places, and it is THEY who are being addressed thus. What price for an IMMORTAL soul redeemed by the Blood of Christ, Melanie? If SOULS are at stake do you really believe that it’s time for niceties and platitudes?
Obstinately placing affronts to Almighty God in His Holy Church Magisterium will land one in hell, as such a one is objectively outside of the Church where there is no salvation, and therefore nothing but the Truth is spoken. IC does not state that Tom A WILL go to hell, only that he is on the PATH to hell. That is an important distinction to make before rash judging his intentions. Do not misunderstand; NO one wants Tom A in hell nor anyone who might be listening to him, therefore in CHARITY he is trying to “wake him up” so that one day, perhaps tomorrow or 12 months from now, the Grace of God might be able to take over and straighten his paths.
If you land in hell and at least in part due to Tom A’s “guidance” and his OPINION, then believe you me you will be calling him names far worse – forever. Not only that but Tom A will hear the demons repeating these very terms to him and far worse – forever.
As you well know, the situation is extremely grave. We only have ONE place to look now for the Truth and what it is that we are to do in order to be Catholic, and that is the Voice of Jesus Christ through his authentic and Holy Church Magisterium, LEFT for those who WANT nothing less than the Truth in our very day. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus Christ abandoned and “left us doomed to wander,” and to call Him a liar.
A Mark of the Church is UNITY. Unity can only be found amongst those who follow the ONLY Voice that matters right now: the Voice of Christ ringing through His PERPETUAL Magisterium. All other voices originate OUTSIDE in the deception, the “operation of error” of 2Thess Ch. 2, where there is NO salvation.
It’s really so very simple to the FEW, yet such a tremendous stumbling block for the many who, unfortunately, rely solely upon themselves, won’t pick up their cross and follow Christ to total desolation, and ultimately only want to do their OWN will.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
God bless you, Ursula, now and forever, and a very Merry Christmas to you and your family. Veritas Domini Manet in Aeternum!
Ursala, I directed you to the NOW site since it has a good summary of the things we can know in this Apostasy. I did not mean to endorse any specific Mass center or whether one should attend. This is my whole beef with ASB and IC, their whole “moral certitude” on staying home. They have no Authority to pronounce such things. They use magisterial documents out of context to draw their conclusions. Again, I do not endorse nor do I condemn their conclusions. Only their methods and their elevation of their conclusions to dogmas.
Melanie: It makes one wonder why Louie continues to allow it given those posts go against the simple rules he laid out when he re-opened the combox.
Thank you very much A Simple Beggar, and a blessed Christmas to you, too. God be with you always.
Gloria in altissimis Deo!
2Vermont, He may not even read the comments very often or he may know that if you want to open up a problem for discussion, you open it up. You think that NOW would allow me to tell those trad Bishops that they better get us a Pope if they’d like to save their souls? I don’t think he would and I’ve got kids, if we don’t get pelted with fire from above than they need a Pope. I don’t want them going to some randoms for Sacraments. We’re not some weird cult, we’re Catholics here.
Caritas to Tom, “you imbecilic fool, on your certain path to Hell. Amen.”
Simple Beggar states, “IC does not state that Tom will go to hell…”
Jesus Is Truth
No. It’s not the same.
ASB. You have made some rock solid statements, explaining very well that we have the infallible teachings of our Church, from throughout the centuries, to guide us through this onslaught of apostasy. This is true, our Lord Jesus is with us, as He promised.
Yet, it is error to excuse a fellow believer being falsely labeled a moron, fool, miscreant…
I sent an overly harsh comment to you the other day, i hope you forgive me.
I prayed for you.
Happy Christmas, i am also a simple beggar, at the Holy
Cross of our Lord Jesus. – Joseph
Please know that I forgive you, of course! But also understand that it didn’t phase me in the least, as I only care about the Truth and what God thinks about me, and as to what I think of myself, well, I am, as IC says, nothing more than a most miserable wretch. If I have stated or presented anything good, noble, or true, it is only by the Grace of God because it is almost always my prayer and intention that nothing I say should come from pitiful me. When I forget that prayer, as I sometimes do, of course I mess things up and I’m quite good at that.
Now as to the names you refer to in your complaint, perhaps you missed the comment where IC defined his terms. If you investigate them you will find them to be fitting in relation to the serious accusations. You may also be unaware of the long history here between IC, Tom A, and a few others. Therefore a reader might come to rash judge the reason and intent for using such terms. They are mainly used toward those who are obstinate, meaning that even though they are aware of the Magisterial teachings of Holy Mother Church or have had their attention called to them time and time again, they persist in rejecting their Authority and as such they reject the Authority of Jesus Christ, Himself, Whom in all reality is the One speaking. It is precisely because IC does NOT want Tom A or those who may be called “his followers” to end in hell that he utilizes such “harsh”, yet at the same time, truthful terms; we might simply call it “tough love”. Misguided compassion would be the opposite, whereby we placate or feed platitudes to someone in error, and such talk is inherently a lie based on human respect and not true love for another soul. I hope this makes some sense to you.
As for calling someone a moron, aren’t we all morons? Without the Grace of God and of our own accord we are certainly such without a single doubt. If our mind is not one with the mind of the Church then we are indeed a moron, and as the saying goes, “The Truth only hurts those who are in error.”
I can’t remember who is was here – perhaps The Seeker – who had the proper response to the names directed at him. He humbled himself and admitted that he is indeed some of those things and perhaps more, even though he didn’t agree with IC or quite understand certain things at this time. A person such as that is the type of person who would appear to be disposed to receive the Truth when the time is right, as this is an intricate operation in our day due to the cognitive dissonance which God, of course, understands must be overcome, in most ordinary cases, step-by-step.
Lastly, please know that although I disagree with you on points, that in no way means that I think I’m better than you in any way or that I harbor any ill will toward you – quite the contrary! I know you mean well and I have been where you are, but meaning well doesn’t quite get us to the goal. It would be wonderful if we could all meet together one day – in Heaven. There is only ONE, narrow path to get there, however, and it is our duty and obligation to not stop until we find it, and once we do, to follow that straight and narrow path at ANY COST. We must DIE to ourselves so that we may LIVE. NESCIVI.
May God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, along with the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and St. Joseph help and guide you in these matters to the Truth. You will have my prayers. -ASB
Veritas Domini Manet in Aeternum
Thank YOU, Ursula!
NOW was extremely helpful to me during the last phase of my search, but by the Grace of God I was seeking moral certitude with respect to Jurisdiction and thus validity and licity of Sacraments, and there they fell infinitely short. A CMRI priest even became annoyed and showed impatience with me when I asked “the question”; what a strange show of irritation toward a newcomer with a valid question of such supreme importance, and needless to say it did not go unnoticed by me. It was a sign from God because He and only He knew how serious I understood the matter to be.
So I just looked this up and thought I’d share it for the sake of posterity. The Annuario Pontificio is the closest thing to an official list of popes. Both the 1860 and 2001 versions of it are clear that John XII was not validly deposed, that Leo VIII was an antipope while he was still alive, and that Benedict V succeeded John XII. The Catholic Encyclopedia echoes this, along with every other source a quick google turned up. An interesting aside is that the 1860 version says that Benedict V remained pope until he died – that the Emperor’s forcing him to resign made the resignation invalid and thus Leo VIII was never validly pope – while the 2001 version shows Leo VIII as succeeding Benedict V after a valid resignation. If we had a more definitive answer it would provide precedence for our own Benedict XVI’s likely forced resignation.
I’m disappointed, Loui. You didn’t do your homework. You should really just scrap this article.
Pony up Tom A or once again demonstrate that you are nothing more than an heretical charlatan,
Demonstrate now for all eyes to read, where you claim that ASB and I, “…use (sic) magisterial documents out of context to draw their conclusions.” Do that right here and now Tom A or what you write is as objectively now as it has only ever been, simply your worthless fiat as opinion, which from its deepest interiority holds doubt, and while doubt will definitively take you to Hell, it CANNOT get you to Heaven with the contra position as utter heresy. Amen. We await your demonstration of our erroneous context of the divine Magisterium and your correction then, using that same Magisterium, as anything as everything else, is human opinion alone. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Personally I would scrap anything 2001.
Still awaiting your definitive response Tom A. Your fear of Truth certainly precedes you. Amen. In caritas.
With all due respect to you Mr. V, I agree with commentor Frieza re scrapping this article.